FairPlayUSA discussion - Page 5 - Poker Legislation

Golden · 07-26-2011, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA

RE #1 - FairPlayUSA has not endorsed the Barton Bill or any other current legislation. We will be focused on educating the public and policy makers about the need to clarify existing federal laws on Internet gambling, to provide law enforcement with tools to shut down illegal sites, to protect consumers, and to subject online poker to strict regulation.

Seriously, so you are helping in shutting down the few options that US players currently have to play online poker?

Malefiicus · 07-26-2011, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA

RE #1 - FairPlayUSA has not endorsed the Barton Bill or any other current legislation. We will be focused on educating the public and policy makers about the need to clarify existing federal laws on Internet gambling, to provide law enforcement with tools to shut down illegal sites, to protect consumers, and to subject online poker to strict regulation.

So you're basically going to ignore all regulation till a bill you like comes along, or you can convince the people writing the current bills to impose strict regulations on all current online poker operators, in order to secure a clean playing field for B&M run sites to control the initial poker landscape after regulation?

I don't really mind that sort of stuff so long as they're working towards our goals, but it seems like this is going to be a point of contention that will delay things.

caseycjc · 07-26-2011, 02:11 PM

Principles:

1.Strengthen the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 to unambiguously eliminate illegal Internet gambling.

Thanks but no thanks, anyone who supports strengthening the UIGEA, does NOT get my support under absolutely no circumstances what so ever.

LT22 · 07-26-2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caseycjc

Principles:

1.Strengthen the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 to unambiguously eliminate illegal Internet gambling.

Thanks but no thanks, anyone who supports strengthening the UIGEA, does NOT get my support under absolutely no circumstances what so ever.

do you support the Barton bill?

seriously folks, the writing has been on the wall since December 2010 (maybe even earlier) that the only way to get legal online poker is via casino interests and compromise

a bill that makes online poker legal and does nothing else will NEVER move, that is not how politics works

**PokerXanadu** · 07-26-2011, 02:17 PM

FairPlayUSA - Who are you? Are you a poker player? A regular 2+2 poster under a different username? A casino employee? Do you have a specific position in the new organization? Are you a member of the Board of Directors (who are the others, i.e. not the "Advisory Board")? A paid staff member?

kevinb1983 · 07-26-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinb1983

Since this group appears to be backed by the companies that will be calling the shots once everything is said and done its my belief we as a community should be aggressive and forward with asking them what type of rakes they plan to implement.

Fairplay needs to realize that the companies running the games and us (the players) are essentially partners in this. If the games are unbeatable for players all of this is basically irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinb1983

I don't know, maybe I'm being a bit presumptuous but I kind of already see the wheels turning and car rolling. Now all they need is the backing of the players and they're green lighted to gogogo.

Look all I'm saying is lets not be so quick to jump in bed with somebody just because we want to get our rocks off. For all we know they can have teh herp and burn us!

I glad my point is starting to be addressed even though indirectly. I probably made a poor attempt at saying what I wanted to say and for that my apologies.

FairPlay is IMO basically Ceasars/MGM. They want us to rally with them. Fine, I'm all for that as long as were in the discussions as to how the games will be structured. All I was saying.

Alizona · 07-26-2011, 02:23 PM

FairPlay and Greg:

Unless any regulation of online poker include IRS tax code reform for amateur "gamblers"...

...then online poker will always be a sucker's game.

I might be a fish at the tables, but I ain't a life donk.

Tax code reform ***MUST*** accompany any regulation.

JohnWilkes · 07-26-2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA

RE #1 - FairPlayUSA has not endorsed the Barton Bill or any other current legislation. We will be focused on educating the public and policy makers about the need to clarify existing federal laws on Internet gambling, to provide law enforcement with tools to shut down illegal sites, to protect consumers, and to subject online poker to strict regulation.

Would you want Cake or Merge forced out of the US market? Have you made any statements about Stars being forced out?

LT22 · 07-26-2011, 02:27 PM

FairPlayUSA,

before a sign a petition, I would like to read the petition! Where can I read the petition on your website?

Zenzor · 07-26-2011, 02:32 PM

What a joke. B&M interests were responsible for the UIGEA and Black Friday in the first place. Now Caesar's and MGM fund an astroturf group pretending to be grassroots organization to "to educate policymakers and the public on the need to regulate online poker." Maybe they should've thought about that before bribing Frist to ban online poker in 2006. But I guess we should be happy that at least Caesar's and MGM are throwing us a bone.

Thankfully Raymer is on board to give some legitimacy to this organization. Hopefully in the future he will convince Caesar's and MGM that player and B&M interests do align with regards to rake. Since the legal online poker market will no doubt be an oligopoly dominated by a few operators with the ability to set a non-competitive standardized rake, which if set too high will detract full time grinders and professional players.

LetsGambool · 07-26-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevinb1983

I glad my point is starting to be addressed even though indirectly. I probably made a poor attempt at saying what I wanted to say and for that my apologies.

FairPlay is IMO basically Ceasars/MGM. They want us to rally with them. Fine, I'm all for that as long as were in the discussions as to how the games will be structured. All I was saying.

I think its a reasonable ask kevinb

whoknows · 07-26-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malefiicus

I don't really mind that sort of stuff so long as they're working towards our goals, but it seems like this is going to be a point of contention that will delay things.

I agree it might take some time for a majority of the other 97.5 senators (NV 2 + Kyl as a half) to vote to criminalize their state lottery commisions so Caesers and MGM can make some extra dough.

**mpethybridge** · 07-26-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenzor

Thankfully Raymer is on board to give some legitimacy to this organization.

If Raymer were on the board of directors, I would agree. Unfortunately, he is on the board of advisors, and, as such, is a figurehead without authority to control the agenda or direction of FPUSA.

**mpethybridge** · 07-26-2011, 02:38 PM

FPUSA has left the building. Pretty sure we scared him off, lololol.

JayA · 07-26-2011, 02:39 PM

[QUOTE=mpethybridge;27821158]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

This is an excellent point that I think needs to be addressed.

Until I saw the FPUSA's contradictory statements quoted above, I was pretty excited to have a new organization supporting online poker. But within minutes of joining 2+2, FPUSA made these two inconsistent statements. This is hugely insulting to the 2+2 community.

FPUSA, please provide evidence that you are actually a grassroots organization. Specifically:

In what state is FPUSA incorporated?
Who signed the articles of incorporation?
Do the incorporators have any relationship, including an attorney client relationship, with Caesar's or MGM?
If so, which incorporator(s) and what is that relationship?
Has any incorporator of FPUSA previously been employed by Caesar's or MGM? If so, in what capacity, and when did that relationship end?
Please identify all of the members of the Board of Advisors, and their affiliation, if any, with Caesar's or MGM.
Please name each paid employee of FPUSA with management responsibilities, and for each such employee, state whether that person is or has been an employee, officer or agent of either Caesar's or MGM.
Describe the process by which the 10 principles on your website were formulated, and identify each employee, officer or agent of MGM or Caesar's who was involved in deriving those principles and the extent of his or her involvement.

In my opinion, it is vitally important that FPUSA's answers to these concerns clearly demonstrate that the organization is independent of Caesar's and MGM. Otherwise, FPUSA cannot be considered a grassroots organization, and will be shown to have been nothing more than an astroturf operation.

In view of Caesar's lousy reputation among players for poor customer service and unreasonably high rakes, and its support for online poker legislation that limits competition and player choice, players should not support any organization that is taking its marching orders from Caesar's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

FairPlayUSA - Who are you? Are you a poker player? A regular 2+2 poster under a different username? A casino employee? Do you have a specific position in the new organization? Are you a member of the Board of Directors (who are the others, i.e. not the "Advisory Board")? A paid staff member?

These need to be addressed before I fully show my support in FPUSA. While I believe this organization has potential, there are lots of questions in this thread that need to be answered first.