Watch the video, the prosecutor clearly indicate he was a mere 'player'.

He was betting on horseraces, something that not only doesn't violate Federal laws but is specifically excluded from them, which didn't save him from being successfully prosecuted under Oklahoma law.

Was he playing poker? No, the PPA should be thankful for that as he'd probably have a case for malpractice given the 'legal advice' offered on these forums, as any online poker 'contests' easily fit the definition (cards) of gambling in Oklahoma.

I haven't attacked anyone. I haven't raised my voice or cussed at people, as you have. I have been very specific in my criticism of the PPA, and I feel strongly that criticism is warranted. I'm not making blanket accusations about the motives of the PPA, I have only pointed out actual facts as I've experienced them.

But you can't claim to be grassroots, when you in fact discourage grassroots efforts. I pointed to a clear case where a grassroots effort not only wasn't supported, but where there was an attempt to dissuade. I see no grassroots effort at all.

If you have an example of how the PPA has fostered grassroots efforts, I would be interested in hearing of them, and would stand and applaud with the same enthusiasm with which I have criticised.

Boy are you really stretching now. Whatever else the prosecutor says about him, what he is charged with is clearly giving aid, in the form of betting lines, to the runners of an illegal gambling operation.

And if you can find one post of mine, ever, whether on this forum or elsewhere, where I have stated that playing poker, whether online or live, is legal in Oklahoma, then I will stop replying to your routinely misleading posts for all time.

Skallagrim

Betting lines??? Where did you pull that from? What part of the the AAG saying 'he was a player, he was a player, he had NO PART IN THE OPERATION' did you not understand?

Again, I have accepted that the PPA is not going to help with this effort, at this time. And it would seem obvious they won't in the future, unless it has gotten to the point where I no longer need the PPA's support lol So, I'm not holding my breath.

I can take harsh words, obviously. Or I would have run away and hid. I just think it's so obviously unprofessional an inappropriate of the Poker PLAYERS Alliance to be so harsh on poker players themselves. But what's in a name, right?? lol

The PPA does plenty of grassroots work in WA? I didn't see an example, have one?

So seven years gone is premature to go to the Initiative process? Should we wait ten?

Yawn. Not being part of the operation specifically is not the same as not aiding and abetting the operation. Read the charges.

It is clear to me that unless I concede, which I will not, that the best thing to do in WA is support a ballot initiative, you will not listen to anything I am trying to get across.

That I disagree with you about the wisdom of a ballot initiative seems to be the fundamental source of the problem. I have tried many times, occasionally using "unprofessionally" strong language for effect, to try and get across that if we are to move forward we must agree to do disagree about that. Apparently you cannot.

As to WA grassroots efforts, were the very recent and well publicized attempts by the PPA to demonstrate grassroots support for the bill in WA that would have decriminalized online poker not "grassroots" enough? We would probably have to first agree on what "grassroots" means to carry this discussion further.

Skallagrim

Why isn't the PPA seeking lower rake from Websites? This would benefit all players.

Furthermore with the introduction of US state laws in NV and NJ it seems that poker will soon be readily available to many states so I don't really get what the PPA is fighting for.

As for the donations can you confirm to us who donated 5 million dollars to your organization?

A big part of the problem is a lack of listening, as you state twice "ballot" initiative, which is quite different than what we are doing. Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, if you had an open mind and actually listened, you might find something in what I am saying that is worthy of the very limited support I mentioned wanting.l

Again, you say the same irrelevant things over and over again as if they mean something. I don't give a **** about the PPA isn't that much clear?? you're not helping, I accepted that. I was addressing the lack of fostering grassroots effort and gave an example of just how the PPA could do such without too much commitment.

You really can't justify not sending out an e-mail, or offering an opinion on the language of the initiative, or the mention of our effort and perhaps how people can help in any of your media, none of which is a great expense of resources. So instead you crap on the entire effort in one big dump.

You make my point for me

How can you be even remotely associated with the industry, let alone an attorney for an online players association, and not be familiar with one of only two seminal cases of mere players being prosecuted?

The same statute he was charged under could also apply to someone aiding and abetting, since playing itself can also be construed as a&b, but the AAG wasn't lying about the level of involvement of the person he was charging to make him look less complicit.

There is nothing wrong with the process. However, the obstacles are terrible in WA. If tribes are powerful enough to get a class c felony for simply playing online poker, then how helpful do you think they'll be when you are trying to overturn their handy work? You'll have to get tribes on board, because if you don't, then they will kill it. Even if they don't kill the vote and it is successful, then they can go back to the legislature and demand x, y, and z. It would likely already be an uphill battle just to get a majority to vote yes without tribal opposition.

If you do get tribal support, it will be because it has every tribal concession. That kind of bill is probably not agreeable to most people on this board.

Nevertheless, I support both efforts. I listened to the hearing on decriminalizing IPoker, mined the committee's website for emails, and sent one to each of them expressing my support. I also posted a thread in NVG to encourage others to do the same and copied it to all other relevant threads. Rich included it in the DAP the next day as well. I think you'll find that there is plenty of support for what you are doing, but it is what you are doing. If you want something like this, then you will have to do the heavy lifting.

Ok this is interesting, let me see if I can clearly give an answer here. In 2006 when the law was passed, internet poker was fairly new, and perceived as a threat. In the intervening years, the result of that hasty decision is becoming clear. An opportunity was missed, and a new opportunity is now spreading across the country, in a way that cannot be stopped, and they are not going to want to get passed by.

Every argument against this initiative to the legislature can be, and should be, equally applied to ANY EFFORT LEGISLATIVELY to do the same thing. What this initiative will accomplish is get it taken up by the Legislature, and failing that, give us a second chance at the polls.

Any effort to lobby in another fashion a) has no greater chance of success, and b) is only complimented by this initiative.

The Tribes are powerful, they have spent $1.6 million in this current legislative session alone. Now next year, if they lobby for a plumb internet poker measure that restricts the market to just the Tribes, which is something clearly within the realm of possiblity, by having our open market initiative qualify, then passing their measure would force an A or B vote between that and our proposal. This is could be very important, even to the special interest that support the PPA.

They can't kill our proposal. They could oppose it all the way, and that would be unfortunate and most likely we would not be successful if they oppose it. But what I think is more likely is they will push for a separate measure that favors them, which, again, puts it as a choice between A or B, with us getting ipoker either way.

addressed above

Thank you, and I am under no delusions of the size of the task at hand. I merely wanted (for the umpteenth time) a) an opinion on the language, b) the advantage of the data base of the PPA (presumably >10K e-mail addresses of WA poker players) and c) their endorsement. None of which is asking much at all.

I point out that they have refused at every turn to help in any way for the simple fact that it speaks to who the PPA is actually trying to help.

One last analogy - while the PPA gets 100 to 1 it's funding from Industry vs players, but is working on the players behalf and not industry, is exactly the same as Prentice and Gregoire taking thousands from the Tribes and claiming this law was passed to protect the people. None of us believe that one bit.

You were answering for others a page back, but now you can't even answer for yourself.

You're the ******. And desperate too. We both know what really worries you is that Scheinberg will stop writing the checks.

How much do these PPA clowns get paid a year to lobby for Scheinberg?

People who are paid to do something are paid to have closed minds.

And why would they be here for hours on end if they weren't shilling it up for Scheinberg, whom I'm sure is watching the thread.

Hi Isiah! You're the worst thing that ever happened to online poker buddy. But you got your shills dancing. Nice hand. Well played. Except you're hated ten times more than Hellmuth.

Ever notice how the pro-industry shills have 5-10 times more posts than those opposing them? Funny. What do you do daddy? I'm a shill. I get online and spout BS.

What is it that you are arguing? The PPA didn't lobby congress for better rake? If the PPA didn't exist rake would be lower? The PPA was created just so pokerstars could charge higher rake? Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

This hadn't really occurred to me before, and perhaps I should give it more thought before posting but that's never stopped me before, reading your post I'm reminded that the companies the PPA drew most of it's membership numbers from (running freerolls on Stars and FTP) pulled out of WA long before BF.

Which makes me wonder if perhaps they don't want to support a grassroots effort in WA because they know something we don't - they may not have a large membership there. Could their cold shoulder towards the initiative process be as simple as the PPA just not wanting to be embarrassed at being a 'million member organization' with only <1K members in WA?

For those asking about the finances of the PPA, much of that information is public record. You can find links to the information in this thread:
Is there documented proof of what happens with money donated to PPA

Even if there were an average number of PPA members in WA (2.13% of US population so that's 21,500 members out of one million), from what I see:

"...A minimum of 241,153 valid petition signatures were required to qualify an Initiative to the People for the 2012 statewide ballot."
So, the PPA would be able to help much.

I could be totally wrong about that requirement..

Thank you for that link PokerX.

Is the PPA happy with the current legislation in NV where many land based Casinos will be able to offer real money games Online but sites that allowed Online poker post UIGEA are excluded for 5 years from even applying?

If they had +20K actual members, that's only 12 signatures per member - manageable. If they have <1K members, and an even smaller number of actually paying, active members, that would mean 250+ signatures each.

My thinking is that a miserable failure in a grassroots effort by an organization that bills itself as grassroots might be something they want to avoid.

omg.

A PPA BOARD MEMBER litigated the state of Washington, resulting in a ruling by the state's supreme court upholding the state law. People could play on stars or wherever up until that court ruling. Thanks Lee Rousso.

And now you don't want to commit 'limited resources' to that state? What happened to the 'fight the good fight until you win'?



That $5 mil should buy something besides the millions blown by the PPA on lobbying firms, in their quest for legitimacy.

A million here, a million there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Wasn't it IMEGA that challenged the WA law? Or am I mixing that with the UIGEA challenge?

Seattle PI - Lawyer raises stakes against state's Internet poker ban

Seattle PI - High Court upholds state ban on Internet poker, online gambling