Player-Funded PPA Possible??

[Jonaspublius]

Originally Posted by Mason Malmuth

So you expect a large Las Vegas Casino to give up lots of their floor space, plus the paying of their staff, to get this done. And how much money will it really make. Suppose you get 200 entries at $100 each, If half goes to the PPA, that's $10,000 which is nowhere close to what the PPA needs to do their job.




Best wishes,
Mason

I don't think it is impossible to pitch to a casino CEO that you have hundreds of grinders WANTING direction on how to move regulation forward. I'm not a gaming consultant, but I do think there is money to be made, and piles of it for integrating B&M play with online play. How much $ do these companies drop on advertizing with "pros"? How much for commercial spots, or ads in gambling magazine rags? If some of that fat can be repurposed into assisting players get what they want, AND you have a good product lined up to offer, you can see your way to bankrolling this. Even a poorly run ipoker room can make millions in a year. If nothing else the PPA mailing list is worth it to casinos to promote thru.

It doesn't have to be a tourney, why not just theme the table talk of a poker show to the PPA one night? Make it clear to folks we are this effing close to starting a snowball, but it will take players working with US casinos to make it happen. Networks still air poker shows, why is no one in their ear that a behind-the-scenes nudge and mention here and there worth skyrocketing their ratings again in the future? Poker always has another boom coming, it is a great game, but it will never get the reach it had before the UIGEA without the internet returning to being the center of the poker world.

Why don't some of the people who got even richer than they would have without the internet step up? Poker always feeds up the chain, and even a modest investment of time, money, and voice will pay dividends to them in the future. No one is going to be Team MGM with the money that Stars or FTP doled out without them being on the net, too. It is time for some goddamn giving back from those who made the most.

[LD203]

I'm very new to this conversation (very constructive). Just want add a lobbyist point of view as an interested observer. Money is always important but ultimately, what's talked about in Vegas stays and is not always heard here in DC. Generally speaking, money raised for a cause is ultimately used to communicate here (to Members, staff etc.). Not just at Congressional hearings. While my sense is there is gaining momentum for the Burton bill, I don't get the sense that the effort is socialized on Capitol Hill. You have two great government relations assets - the game and the players. Bring them here (more often). Your 1% Tourneys generate more local buzz than anything in Vegas. It's a lot cheaper to effectively deliver your message directly to Members and staff around a poker table than buying time on a cable channel.

[ChaosReigns]

It is Barton, not Burton.

[TeflonDawg]

Originally Posted by ChaosReigns

Welcome to 2+2. FYI: It is Barton, not Burton.

Dude just got here, didn't want it to seem like you were being abrasive.

[Jonaspublius]

Originally Posted by LD203

I'm very new to this conversation (very constructive). Just want add a lobbyist point of view as an interested observer. Money is always important but ultimately, what's talked about in Vegas stays and is not always heard here in DC. Generally speaking, money raised for a cause is ultimately used to communicate here (to Members, staff etc.). Not just at Congressional hearings. While my sense is there is gaining momentum for the Burton bill, I don't get the sense that the effort is socialized on Capitol Hill. You have two great government relations assets - the game and the players. Bring them here (more often). Your 1% Tourneys generate more local buzz than anything in Vegas. It's a lot cheaper to effectively deliver your message directly to Members and staff around a poker table than buying time on a cable channel.

There is no one to pay for or organize either. Nothing would be better than name recognized players associating with Capitol Hill people in a charity event and daring the secret service to arrest them. Poker Immortality, but we live in an age of cowards, selfish self-promoters, and total disinterested ****s. *shrug*

Hell, it would make a great "reality tv" setting. As good as storage wars or swamp people or real virgins.

[LD203]

Originally Posted by Jonaspublius

There is no one to pay for or organize either. Nothing would be better than name recognized players associating with Capitol Hill people in a charity event and daring the secret service to arrest them. Poker Immortality, but we live in an age of cowards, selfish self-promoters, and total disinterested ****s. *shrug*

Hell, it would make a great "reality tv" setting. As good as storage wars or swamp people or real virgins.

You sort of hit the nail on the head. First, there's nothing illegal about running a tounament for charity, inviting Members of Congress and staff, winner gets a seat at WSOP. PPA has done it in the past, so have others. No different than a charity golf tournament.

Look, I live in DC. Love poker. Lots of folks here do - tons of friendly home games. But it's a real poker wasteland. The online poker issue suffers from an image problem. With the exception of home games, poker is played somewhere else. It's on TV.

The best way to advocate for anything bringing the stakeholders together with the decision makers. Here! Around a poker table. Not in Vegas. As a lobbyist, nothing beats an hour of face time with Congressman shooting the s***. Why do you think golf is so popular here?

200 people playing poker for a few hours certainly beats 75 people at a "rally" outside the Capitol.

[ChaosReigns]

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

Dude just got here, didn't want it to seem like you were being abrasive.

Was not my intention, but frequently I am abrasive.

[LD203]

Originally Posted by ChaosReigns

Was not my intention, but frequently I am abrasive.

Not at all. You'd think I got paid to know the names of Congressmen.

[Jonaspublius]

Originally Posted by LD203

You sort of hit the nail on the head. First, there's nothing illegal about running a tounament for charity, inviting Members of Congress and staff, winner gets a seat at WSOP. PPA has done it in the past, so have others. No different than a charity golf tournament.

Look, I live in DC. Love poker. Lots of folks here do - tons of friendly home games. But it's a real poker wasteland. The online poker issue suffers from an image problem. With the exception of home games, poker is played somewhere else. It's on TV.

The best way to advocate for anything bringing the stakeholders together with the decision makers. Here! Around a poker table. Not in Vegas. As a lobbyist, nothing beats an hour of face time with Congressman shooting the s***. Why do you think golf is so popular here?

200 people playing poker for a few hours certainly beats 75 people at a "rally" outside the Capitol.

That just isn't a PPA priority. IGC interests predominate players and the game.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by Jonaspublius

That just isn't a PPA priority. IGC interests predominate players and the game.

Wrong.

First of all, the post you quote notes that the PPA has sponsored charity poker tournaments in DC. I have attended a couple and spoke with the members of Congress that attended.

Second, that "75 person rally" was had in conjunction with the PPA fly-in, an event where poker players from around the country met directly with their representatives (or their staff) to urge support for online poker legislation. It was the second Fly-in and both were notable successes at increasing support.

And the money to pay for that? Mostly IGC, of course.

There are no IGC interests that predominate over that of players. None.

If you think I am wrong, simply list the areas where the PPA has taken a position that favors the interests of the IGC over the interests of players. I do not think you can list even one.

On the other hand, I can list a number of areas where the PPA took stands on specific legislation that were not in the best interest of the IGC members.

There is no conflict of interest and never has been.

But, of course, the actual facts seem irrelevant to those who simply believe that it is impossible for poker business owners and poker players to have similar interests and be able to work together.

Skallagrim

[DeadMoneyDad]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

No help has been refused....absolutely none.


.

Well that isn't exactly true.

[TeflonDawg]

Elaborate? Being vague doesn't help any readers in search of information.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by DeadMoneyDad

Well that isn't exactly true.

Yes, it is.

[TheEngineer]

Originally Posted by TeflonDawg

Elaborate? Being vague doesn't help any readers in search of information.

D$D offered to provide services for hire, then offered to volunteer. PPA did not accept his offer for a variety of reasons.

I prefer not to reopen that discussion ITT, as it's not on topic. D$D can start a new thread if he wishes.

[ChaosReigns]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

D$D offered to provide services for hire, then offered to volunteer. PPA did not accept his offer for a variety of reasons.

I prefer not to reopen that discussion ITT, as it's not on topic. D$D can start a new thread if he wishes.

May have been refused for the best of reasons, but does not change the fact your original claim turns out to not be true. But I agree we do not need to know the reasons in this thread.