figured this poll would belong here more than it would belong in legislation

most ineffective lobbying group of all time but they are trying so yes even though they haven't actually accomplished much

Maybe if they get a bunch of no's, they'll realize their public image isn't that good and do something about it?

I had a reasonably positive opinion of the PPA until they decided to allow Lederer and Ferguson onto their board of directors. And this was long before Black Friday and their insistence on keeping Lederer on board and defending him. Other such decisions like having Annie Duke lobby on player's behalf, again even before she was involved in various scams, left also left me scratching my head. It seems very clear somebody of her charisma, and as was late to be seen - character, is not exactly the sort of face you want for online poker.

I've no idea what's going on behind closed doors leading to decisions like the above, but that was more than enough to lead me to realization the interests of poker players in Ameica and those of the PPA are not necessarily aligned, let alone the same.

That's a solid yes. When I was a kid (late 60s/early 70s) Putt-Putt was big, and the Professional Putters Association tournaments were on TV on the weekends. That was no hokey miniature golf with clown and windmill holes. This was the real deal!

Agreed, well said. Preach on...

Yes if you understand that their main agenda is getting online poker legal in the USA and not a lot of other issues about poker. They are somewhat underfunded lobbyists for a non mainstream issue. Don't think their actions or motives hurt anything, but they are not a bunch of heavyweights getting things done either. No need to be fanboys or haters on PPA IMHO.

Pretty much this.

"Irrelevant" should be a poll choice, although the way the question is worded, I'd have to say "no".

Perfect thread, and the real results show true before the PPA sends all its goons to overload the "yes" side.

People don't trust the PPA, and for good reason. It never fought for players rights, only a players' right to play online. And consumers were left battling online operators, tooth and nail, before black friday, just to gain the most basic customer services. And all the while, the PPA accepting funding from FTP, appointing Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson to its board, and using poker consumers and their 'signatures' to at least in part, further empower the scumbags that would come to be known as the biggest violators of consumer trust in poker, FTP.

I think the idea of an 'alliance' among poker players is nobel and a great concept for poker. I just feel that a PPA that is dismissive of its members and poker stakeholders can never fulfill a duty to speak for the poker, consumer public.

Page 1, first responders
38 no
25 yes

I voted, "Yes", (and am hardly a PPA goon)

Here is why: Three plusses and one neutral factor

1. (+)The PPA has been effective in a defensive stance on Capitol Hill, which has been crucial to online players continuing to have any access to unlicensed online poker in the absence of any federal prohibition bill passing. Sure, one or more Board members is ever ready to trade away a complete BAN today, for the hope of some States' players getting some licensed poker at some point in the future. However, that misguided line of reasoning by the PPA does not change that their best value has been to defend ..... however less productive their efforts to pass a federal licensing bill.

2. (+) The PPA has been a useful in channeling player discontent and delivering those messages, however ineffective it may have been in resolving those concerns.

3. (+) Entertainment value: For example, despite recent posturing that the PPA somehow caused/influenced the December, 2011 DOJ response to Reid and Kyl, it was clearly a Wire Act battle already fought and won by State Lotteries the previous September. PPA sideshow puffery and over the top boasts have been a comic foil on a regular basis over the years, the gift that just keeps giving.

4. (Neutral) The PPA has not had any negative effect on States' moving to legalize online gaming, despite years of campaigning against States' rights to regulate online gaming. It is incredible that the PPA recently tried to take credit for jump-starting State interests, ignoring historical opposition and rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth posts about the evils of lotteries and State-level development of a legal framework and multi-state compacts.

I don't agree Don. Ultimately, the PPA claims to represent the players' best interests. But it can't do this when it either minimizes or criticizes consumer concerns.

Poker players wine, don't do anything and don't support the PPA. What do they expect?

Profit?

Without a lot of player support, and in a field where the casinos are the big dogs and are running a "It's us or nobody" campaign that is so often against player interests, I think the only thing out of whack is the expectations that so many give the PPA.

Expecting the PPA to get massive changes done themselves is like expecting the Charlotte Bobcats to win the NBA Championship, when the playoffs are a very big accomplishment.

The PPA is outmanned, outspent, outlobbied by orgs that stand to benefit a lot more from legislation. At least the PPA's interests often align with the players, and it's clear that the PPA actually listens to players.

The best the better spent interests of the casinos can do, is make fake grassroots orgs to pretend to garner player support. And these are casinos that will run online poker one day in the USA, you would think they would have MORE incentive to get to know and establish a stronger relationship with the community.

For those reasons, I vote yes.

They wanted us to believe that online poker could be legalized without bringing it to the Mainland. Didn't quite work out.

Sorry I am reminded of the medical industry...the last thing they "cured" was polio. After that, the industry developed so you would continually need medicine to live with the condition.

I think the primary goal of the PPA now is the survival of the PPA...just my opinion

The PPA does well with the resources they have and with what the players are willing to do. I vote yes.

The problem is they are trying to work within the system in a corrupt country where they have no chance of getting their demands met. It would be more effect to spend their time/energy working without the system, either in an effort to bring it down or just ignoring it entirely & not pretending it is legitimate.

I paused for more than a second before voting, but I voted yes. The main reason is this: for me, TheEngineer is the face of the PPA. And long before Black Friday, shortly after UIGEA, prior to the real impact of these laws being felt, when nearly every poker player was uninvolved and apathetic, TheEngineer stepped up and lead the troops on 2+2, and he has remained in that role ever since. I respect that.

Wish there was a "neutral" choice. That is what I would have selected...

I don't. Not in dead horse kinda mood today tho.

I joined the PPA several years ago but I no longer support them. I do not want them to use my name as a "signature". How do I unjoin?

I voted no. After I joined I realized they are simply an online gambling lobby, using online poker as the face of their efforts. Yeah, I would also unjoin if that info is posted.

I vote NO for to many reasons to list....oh yeah and **** Skallagrim, that ******* thought answering questions of there ineffectiveness with pure sarcasim and snarky bs remarks soon after BF hit....idiot

honestly the saddest part is that the best representative we could get was fossilman. dont get me wrong he's a nice guy, but the face of legalizing online poker should not be jabba the hutt..

while i dont have an opinion of the PPA, i can understand how hard it must be to lead people (let alone poker players ). its just that time and time again they've done really silly/dumb things, like calling for photoshops of sheldon adelson(as opposed to constructing a substantive platform of debate where they would easily win), or losing their cool and attacking posters. very split on the ppa.