Don't they have to show balance or expense paperwork? Would be interesting to see. I'm still mostly neutral until more facts come in.

cross posted from another thread in response to a player being angry, I think it should be read here too.

----------------------------------------------

GOOD! FOCUS THAT ANGER SOMEWHERE THAT IT IS USEFUL! It takes 10 minutes to call all your elected officials. Many media personalities have already requested information for stories that they are running. There are a lot of stories about this online, go to them and leave your comments!

The facts are clear and easy for anybody to understand:

1) The money is being held by the government and belongs to the citizens.
2) The government has no business restricting our freedom to play poker online, and should encourage American business to compete in the online poker marketplace.
3) All players want a safe place to play that they don't have to worry about the status of their money.

You already know what support is going to say, it's been posted a thousand times in the thread already.

--------------------------------------------

I'll also add this about the PPA: In the end it's you and me and everybody else who wants to play poker online. The paid guys at PPA are going to do whatever they can in their sphere, but it will take the entire poker community standing up for themselves every day for as long as it takes to get this resolved. Many of us worked AT poker for hours a day to improve our game. Can't we worked FOR poker hours a day to improve THE game?

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

At this point I don't think it matters what the PPA does or does not do. I would guess that 98% of Americans could care less what happens to online poker. Nobody gives a flaming crap who Phil Galfond, Durr, Jonathan DeLong, or any of the other creepy twenty-something online poker "successes" are. And they could care less about all the online pros losing their "jobs" or whether online poker gets legalized in the USA. The public has had enough to deal with since the financial meltdown started in 2008. Even here on 2+2 interest is starting to wane. Last Friday and Saturday whenever I logged into the forums there would be 3,000+ on NVG, a few days later it went down to about 1,500-1,800 and as of right now there are 752 on NVG.

way to show your support for the PPA.

keep pointing how they are unable to affect any changes because they are small, outgunned and therefore ineffectual. that'll get people to care.

nice going there buddy

i think you're kind of missing the big picture here.

the fight for regulation is not about selling our filthy poker to the masses, it's about selling our right as american citizens to guaranteed personal freedoms.

exactly

+1
I agree with you Bigblack. Fedorfan's negativity rivals that of all of these guys trolling the PPA. If you think it is a lost cause, than why are you even posting?

I think it is important to always be critical of the only major organization standing up for poker players, an organization many people have donated to. But we need to be constructive as well, offer your own ideas after dismissing ones that you do not agree with.

This post is not a direct response to your post but inspired by it. it just got me thinking about a couple things i wanted to say:


i didn't start reading this thread because i was like, f yeah! f the ppa! i opened it because i have read most threads about this situation across the forum since this sh*t went down

i posted itt because it generated posts which raised a few interesting questions.

i'm not using a gimmick account to post here that was reg'd this month. so screw you johnny-come-latelys and cowards afraid to say what you mean from behind a shill account.

i support the PPA and am a paid member.

i also think there is room for improvement.

i have spent every hour where i would normally be playing poker since black friday, doing my part to support the cause through all suggested avenues and independently.

i don't believe that asking questions about where we are at in this fight and questioning the PPA's plan of action and methodology is anti PPA.

i want the names of the poker pros and celebs who freerolled the poker zeitgeist and have apparently turned their backs on the PPA and their requests for support (according to Skallagrim) to be publicly outed in order to be shunned by this and other poker playing communities. f them!

Skall isnt making anything resembling a full time salary from his PPA work. 100% guaranteed.

I don't disagree at all with what you're saying. My post was in response to specific complaints (via multiple comments in this thread) from some that the PPA hasn't been able to drum up enough support via the media, including celeb support. I was suggesting that even to those celebs, let alone the media, our cause isn't terribly sympathetic -- whether or not we believe it to be a freedom issue.

I was not suggesting, nor do I believe, that public support for our cause is the end goal -- not at all. I personally believe that this will be won or lost via back-room meetings and agreements based on power, concessions and crappy compromises. Right now, the only organization that has a chance to represent us in any of those meetings is the PPA, assuming they have their toe in the door.

I do believe that the more people inundate our lawmakers about this issue via calls, emails, and letters -- the better chance that some lawmakers currently in the dark about iPoker will at least take a deeper look into the matter. It might also keep this issue more towards 'the top of the pile.'

I'm just point out some simple facts for the clearly delusional who are massively misdirecting their frustration because they are so ill-informed and emotionally childish that they don't know any better. And i would say considering how worthless the online poker community has been in coming together in support of the ppa and fighting for our rights in the past, i would actually say the PPA is a better organization than we deserve, and that's pretty sad. I've also pointed out that they helped push for the federal reid poker bill, and from what we heard it appears that the bill was pretty damn close to passing. They did this in spite of a mostly worthless online player community not behind them, many of which didn't even bother to take notice(I don't see ANY of your posts in the reid related threads or anywhere in the legislative forum on here...shocking), and of those that did take notice significant amounts of them weren't even in favor of it. Now, the tards who were no doubt too busy to take notice before or did take notice and were against the ppa's efforts are now crying and bemoaning the ppa for not saving the day here. Just brilliant.

i got just this ^^far before deciding to reply, ruining my perfect post count of 420.

sry. i wasn't trying to call you out, just using your statement as a springboard to remind people what this really is all about.

reminder and full disclosure: i am definitely one of those who were calling out the PPA itt for the lack of a mass media blitzkrieg and failure to utilize every possible option, ie: celebs.

i'm still disappointed at the lack of celeb endorsements for our cause. that was me who started that tangent and i still stand by that as i find it hard to believe that every single, possible poker loving famous person (specifically the movie stars and whatnot referenced earlier) has turned down the PPA or is actively ignoring them. i still believe that much more can be done on this front.

It's not a lost cause, but irrationally going after the ppa the way many in this thread are is not only dumb, but destructive as well.

Hopefully one day when we get federally regulated online poker we wont go from one oligopoly to a new oligopoly with limited competition and high barriers to entry. When these details are eventually worked out, a reasonably funded ppa or ppa like organization with strong player support, might be able to swing things in our favor, at least a bit.

i don't post in every thread i read and my postcount/join date sort of confirms this fact.

if you wish to further examine my posting history you will also notice that there is something like a 1 1/2 year gap when i was idle on 2p2 as well as poker playing in general. iirc it sort of overlaps the reid debate so i apologize if i was absent for all that.

but kudos to me for not being one of those who opposed the PPAs stance on the reid bill otf, if i understand your position correctly.

Let's be honest here. The PPA has lost--and only lost--when it mattered. The only cases that matter are appellate decisions establishing precedent. Here's the PPA's scorecard:

Pennsylvania (Dent): Loss. Appellate court rules poker is a game of chance.

Colorado (Raley): Loss. Supreme court declined to review lower court ruling that poker is a game of chance (not a precedent-setting decision on the merits, however, so not as bad as Dent).

Washington (Rousso): Epic loss. Supreme court ruled state has authority to regulate online gaming, including outright ban, rejecting dormant commerce clause argument.

I suspect South Carolina (Chimento) will be another loss on the "poker as game of skill" front within the next month or so (the state supreme court heard argument last fall, and should rule shortly). SC is a seriously conservative state, and is next door to North Carolina, which recently ruled in the Joker's Club case that poker is a game of chance (not sure if the PPA gets an assist in that loss as well).

Now, let's look at the PPA's big wins:

None.

The big problem with the PPA's litigation strategy is that the PPA is providing ammunition to the opposition. Look at the Davitt pleading referenced above, and note the citations to the Dent and Joker's Club cases, among others. I suspect the current "Black Friday" defendants will be seeing these cases cited against them in court.*

So yeah, the PPA's litigation strategy has been a complete disaster.

For anyone curious, I'm an attorney with 16 years of litigation and appellate practice. I personally think poker is a game of skill and should be legal both live and online. I also firmly believe that live and online poker is currently illegal gambling under most states' laws (outside licensed casinos and card rooms), and the PPA's litigation strategy was doomed from the outset. If you care to read more about my take on the PPA's litigation strategy, there are numerous links to my analyses of these cases in this recent post on my blog:

http://craakker.blogspot.com/2011/04...ectations.html

----------------------------------
* However, there is a lot of the DOJ's argument in the Davitt case that I think is misleading, poorly reasoned, or flat out wrong. My point here is merely that the PPA has generated bad case law that will support the DOJ's argument that poker is illegal gambling.

LoL at the degenerate gamblers thinking they know how the DOJ and politics work.

Blame the poker sites. This isn't a war on poker, this is a war on the operators.

But of course, I'm always wrong

I applaud the PPA for their effort. Least they had the balls to stick their necks out and fight for you.

I wasn't going to post again in this thread for some time, but I have to say that this post is probably the most insightful in the whole thread. +1000

Federally regulated online poker, in one form or another, is going to come. That there is a large amount of money to be made from online poker (for both private business and government) is the driving factor. The other factor is that poker has become more accepted among the public than casino style gambling. I wont bother to try and tell you that at least part of this acceptance is due to the work of the folks in the PPA.

The point is that US online poker will happen. The open questions are when, and in what form.

Poker players can try and influence the future answers to both those questions. I think it is important poker players try to do this. If players have no direct voice in these deals, who do you otherwise think will make sure players concerns are considered?

And if no one is considering player interests, just how "player friendly" do you think this new regime will be?

If nothing else, the PPA is what has brought your voice to the US Congress. Before PPA began its lobbying and its work, politicians did not even know that there was such a thing as the "poker community." Whether they will listen to the voice of that community still remains to be seen.

But this is not a post on whether the PPA will, can, or is capable of getting that done. I have already tried to explain our situation and answer questions. You can accept it or not.

The point of this post is to state plainly that if you decide for yourself that the PPA is a "joke" and useless and refuse to work within it, then you had better get busy forming some other organization. If you don't do that either, then be prepared to just accept whatever the big money decides you should be grateful for. And be sure that they will also take plenty of time, as you wait, to decide just exactly how to divide the pie amongst themselves.

Skallagrim

pretty sure the doj is making a point to return funds quickly so that when they (usgov) regulate online poker to make all the money for themselves they wont have a bunch of angry paranoid people who dont want to redeposit.

Nice blog. I especially like this:

Ding, Ding. When FTP and Stars are contributing 5.5 million a year and the players are contributing 48k, where do you think their loyalties lie?

IF the PPA is in fact a PAC/ FRONT or what ever for the Online Poker Site Poker Stars and Full tilt poker then it never had a comprehensive strategy. When an organization like NAACP or ACLU have issue with a federal law they don't just try fight it on the FEDERAL level.

Here are some major mistakes, in my opinion the PPA made

1. They Never Challenged the law in Court using the above examples of the NAACP or ACLU they defend a person and argue the merits of a questionable law IN COURT.
Basically they, and the major poker sites Poker Stars and Full Tilt didn't get a person to ride in the font of the ****ing poker BUS.

2. They never effectively tried to get stale legislatures on board with legalization of their poker sites.
Are you telling me in these economic times where state and local government are strapped for cash they coulnd't have approached the state legislators and said "if you legalize online poker your can expect X amount of return from OUR RAKE?

3. They Hired Al D'Amato as their spokes person.

Really. One of the most Polorizing political figures I can recall in MY lifetime is this buffoon. Well He took you guys for a ride didn't he so who is the buffoon?

Need I remind you that he has rumored family MOB TIES.

He is perceived my many to be anti Semitic.

He has made other public comments that can only be labeled as bigoted and ignorant.

Its one of the Reasons he hasn't been a Senator for almost two DECADES.

Also as proof of what a political piraha this buffoon is what DOJ office did this start in. Oh yea.. the ONE IS HIS ****ING BACK YARD!!!!!...


4. As Far as I can see they never got any COOPERATE PARTNERSHIP other than THEIR OWN.

**** is STARS and FULL TILT are making BILLIONS. Then why didn't they cut NBC, ABC/DISNEY in on some SHARES FOR SHARES EQUITY of their BUSINESS?

It would be alot harder for the DOJ to go after "foreign owned companies" if the had LOCAL OWNERSHIP on some ****ing level.


The answer to most of the question are.

GREED.

BUFFOONERY

AND LACK OF A PLAN

Cool, where do you practice? I would love for you take one of these cases and win it.

If these cases are not won then the general assumption of the past that lumped poker in with casino gambling would continue uncontested. So losing is no worse than having done nothing.

It is interesting to me that in all of this you totally ignore the wins and also feel no need to examine the details.

1) The NC joker case occurred with no PPA involvement. It happened before the PPA began to work on the issue. Reading that opinion and hoping to get a different ruling was the motivating factor in the PPA doing litigation.

2) The jury in Colorado acquitted the defendants. The appeal was about using certain evidence and did not affect the verdict.

3) The initial decision in Dent was that the state had failed to make a prima facie case poker is game of chance. The appeals court disagreed 2-1 that a prima facie case had been made. It did not rule for all time that poker is a game of chance. The case was sent back for trial.

4) In SC, a case (as in CO and KS) where the PPA was actually involved in presenting the body of its expert evidence, both the trial AND appellate court ruled that poker is a game of skill. The SC Supreme Court has yet to rule.

5) In the Kansas case (which you don't mention) a trial level judge ruled poker is a game of skill over time but interestingly concluded that because a cash game of poker could be played as a single hand against strangers, it fit the KS defintion of game of chance. The case is pending appeal. *Interstingly, the Swedish Supreme Court recently made a similar ruling that allowed tournaments in Sweden but not cash games.

6) The Rousso case was lost. Direct PPA involvement in the Rousso case began at the Appellate level, which turned out to be a problem. Federal courts are free to disagree with this state court interpretation of Federal law.

The results are mixed and the fight continues. To say it is a "disaster" is wrong in my opinion and reckless if one considers the above points.

As a final matter, the PPA's actual litigation in these cases was led by attorney Thomas Goldstein (best known for producing the SCOTUS blog). Any person who wants to figure out whether to decide to follow the advice of Mr. Goldstein or the author of the above post and blog may wish to google their respective names.

Skallagrim

++++100 to that post..u said what i was thinking

OK, I will bite.

Please explain to me how it is in the interest of poker players to either:

1) Not say that poker is a game of skill; or

2) Say it is a game of skill but be unwilling to go to court and argue the point.

Skallagrim

Not really directed at you, but I've seen statements like this alot. If it were true our task would be easier. This is an old article but it illustrates my point. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in598218.shtml

We're not up against an apathetic public, we're up against one of the largest voting blocs in America. The Christian right lobby is huge, they donate tons of money, and can singularly swing a vote in some districts (especially primary elections). Republicans are terrified to cross them and even Dems from conservative districts pander to them.

The only way to counter a group this large is to have business (money) on your side, and powerful members of congress who stand to benefit personally or professionally. Of course the PPA needed the support of Stars/Tilt, they were the ones with the money who were willing to donate. Now we are going to have to get the monetary backing from a group like Harrah's. We're also going to have to convince Harry Reid (senate majority leader), Mitch McConnell (senate minority leader), and John Boehner (speaker of the house) to support us. Any one of these three can shut down legislation they don't like. They also have the power and influence to convince enough members of their party to vote in our favor.