There's no reason this has to be held in a casino to begin with.

I'm sure Las Vegas Sands will do whatever they can to weaken the resolve of the poker community and to make us look like we're not united against Adelson. It's probably included in their anti-poker lobbying budget.

I think m resort is perfect. I offered to go there tomorrow to check it out. No one has responded. They have huge convention areas, and are running a poker series already in mid June.

Adelson didn't just come out against us last week. There's been ample time.

+1

I've seen the work the PPA has done on the political front fighting Adelsen. But has the PPA come out and said that it supports/endorses/encourages poker players to boycott the Venetian? Mason said that twoplustwo hasn't, because he's worried about if the boycott is effective, that workers at the V poker room would be hurt by the business dropoff. But that sort of seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too. What is the PPAs stance on the V boycott?

Thanks.

Online poker is to B&M poker as rivers are to lakes. Online poker brings in new players and gives them a place to learn the basics before trying it out in B&M rooms. Blocking online poker may temporarily increase B&M participation in the short term as online players move to B&M rooms, but will dry out the game eventually as potential new players are not exposed to the game.

As for "whiney nits," many of us fight Adelson day in and day out. He just lost a House subcommittee hearing -- with a completely stacked deck in his favor. Many of us worked day in and day out for that outcome, so don't think we just tilt at windmills.

And, BTW, I believe Matt Savage understands the gravity of this. I hope he can get this rescheduled. It's important.

PPA has provided the poker community with the information players need to make this decision. I can't make players stay away from the Venetian, of course, but I've made it very clear that the right decision is not to patronize Venetian or Palazzo in any manner (not just the poker room).

That being said, this isn't an individual player. I think leaders in the poker community, like Matt Savage, have a greater responsibility. Again, I believe he understands the situation and wish him success in getting another venue.

It's hard for me to go to people like former Rep. Ron Paul, explaining that we're up against the political establishment, if we are not united. Dr. Paul did come to our aid during the lame duck session in a big way, even joining me on my live webcast, helping to keep Adelson from victory.

These issues don't fight themselves. Many lawmakers, conservative and libertarian think tanks, and others are going out on a limb because they feel we're right here. That doesn't happen if we players are not invested in the fight.

But B&M poker was around long before the internet? I understand numbers have dropped in the WSOP but is it because there is a lack of new players or a lack of poker sites offering satellites to the WSOP for American players?

In the current state of online poker most players, new and old, don't even know that you can play online poker. For that ones that do they don't trust the sites.

I'm all for online poker and have played a lot of it but to say that the B&M games will dry out because of a lack of online poker seems a bit far fetched. I see new players all the time where I play.

If people would stop complaining about tanking and FCOTD maybe something would actually get done but those issues seem more important to the majority of the people currently.

I'm not trying to nitpick things, or question the effort of the PPA. But your answer strikes me as evasive the same way that Mason's was. You don't say that the PPA endorses/encourages/etc a boycott of the V poker room or any LVS properties. You say you do as an individual, but not the organization.

It just strikes me as odd. Maybe there's a legal liability if you do. But for example, if you go to the PPA website, there is no mention of boycotting LVS properties. If that is a recommended action as part of the fight, we is it not listed under "Take Action"? Same thing as to why is there no "Boycott LVS" banners on 2+2 (I know you can't speak to that). But in both cases, it's like the leadership on the one hand says "people can make that decision for themselves" which of course is true, but falls short of endorsing a course of action. But then criticizes those who make the other decision. Yet organizations and companies sometimes endorse political candidates for example, even though voters "can make that decision for themselves".

It just seems very strange to me that two organizations that have so much at stake in this fight, and call out those who go to the V, to not be willing to be upfront and say it as an organization or company. Again, I'm not in any way denigrating the PPAs great work. It just seems like a weird blind spot to me.

FYI there is a charity tournament featuring Phill Helmuth and Linda Johnson coming up in Daytona beach that is sponsored by the Venetian and Pokerstars.net. I find this strange that Pokerstars.net would sponsor said event when the Venetian is doing so as well.

http://www.deepstackcharityclassic.com/sponsors.shtml

The effect on Adelson personally -- none -- or on his company -- microscopic -- is irrelevant. My abstention from providing revenue to the Venetian -- or to the Atlantis in my home town, Reno, since owner John Farahi announced support for outlawing online gaming -- is not a boycott (an organized effort to dissuade others). It is precisely to make me feel good, or, more accurately, to avoid the distaste of providing revenue to those who are cynically attacking principles that are important to me.

That said, the situation of the TDA vis a vis the Venetian is different from a player deciding whether to play there, as The TDA's accepting the Venetian's offer would actually cost the Venetian money. But that is also not relevant; the implicit endorsement of the Venetian as an enterprise should be avoided.

Were you playing around 1999? Trust me....the game is has exploded since. This happened because the online boom, along with increased television coverage of tournaments.

Yes, of course we all still see newer players, but it's undeniable that the rate of new players is dropping.

It just makes sense that a game with a low barrier to entry provides a great platform to get new players into the game.

I believe the reverse is much more likely on a regular basis. People get online, play for a while and if they don't lose everything they deposited in the first couple sessions might keep trying it online for a while. But once they start finding out about 'winning players' using HUDs and thinking that's why they are losing, they figure its all rigged and walk away. And that's just one scenario.

Why would someone take time from their family and travel 30 minutes each way to spend 5+ hours playing poker at some casino? Dealing with other players face to face who are 'going to get a tell on you', trash talk you, and other intimidating in person things. Not always something to look forward to. Stay at home and spend that ~6 hours with the family and play a little here and there is much more appealing. Especially if the player figures they're going to lose anyway but just want to play to kill a little time and suck out every so often on a decent pot.

We also don't know if Matt tried anywhere else or not. Perhaps holding the summit at the V every two years was a part of the TDA getting the room back in 2013 before Sheldon's big anti-online push. The TDA may just be honoring with the agreement they made back then by planning to have it held at V this year as well.

I guess one of the cunning things the anti-poker lobby is funding is all the players keeping the room well populated on a daily basis and during their tournaments. Perhaps we should contact his lobbyists and ask them to fund buyins.

As others here have said, if the PPA/2+2/other poker lobbing group is not willing to take a fairly simple action such as calling for a boycott, why should the player community think you're serious about trying to stop Sheldon's plans with more than lip service? Calling for a boycott, if it works to any significant degree, would hurt some of the V's employees. But if you believe in your position about online poker, how many more people are being hurt by Sheldon's efforts? How many of the V's employees would suffer short term pain for the greater good and brighter future for all in the poker world. "The needs of the many..."

Our answers aren't exactly the same. For example, Mason mentioned concern over Venetian Poker Room employees. I feel for them and all, but it they are impacted by any of this, I place the blame on Adelson's shoulders.

We have no legal barriers to calling for a formal boycott. We simply haven't at this time. One reason is that I suspect those who choose to play there (poker, slots, etc.) wouldn't be swayed by a boycott if they're not already swayed by Adelson's attacks on the game.

Thanks for the headsup Steve. I won't be giving them my business either.

I'm not here to bash Matt. I think he's a good guy and I think he recognizes the situation here.

Our position is not about Venetian employees. I don't root against them, but it's not on us. It's on Adelson. That being said, players know PPA is serious because we fight the fight each day. Fortunately, we don't have to impact Adelson's bottom line to defeat him here. We just have to keep up the fight, and part of that is showing solidarity.

My 2 cents are worth exactly that, but the TDA does not have a budget. It's a non profit that exists because the board members donate time and energy to keep it alive. Free is free. There is no TDA summit if the price of a meeting room can't be paid. So the outcry needs to stop. Either pay the TDA to have the meeting somewhere else, or accept the fact that they have to meet in a place where they can afford.
Incidentally, wherever it's at, I will be there.

Which I think is what's happening.

At least, that's the part of Chainsaw's post that is of most interest to me — Dreyfus offering to pay for the summit like a boss, plus a few people willing to chip in as part of a grass-roots effort.

I'd bet you thousands or oreos that Adelson has never heard of many organizations But I want 1.35 to 1.

I'm pretty sure I'm right. He is way too rich to personally spend all this time on everything.

But for some reason online poker seems to be some personal afront to him. So maybe he pays more attention than I know.

Hi Everyone:

I need to state that I now understand that the TDA Conference includes way more people than we can handle at our facility in Henderson. So our offer to hold the conference has to be withdrawn.

I apologize for any inconvenience that this might have caused and have asked Linda Johnson to keep us informed relative to all aspects of this conference.

Also, I'm still hopeful that it can be moved from The Venetian, and Alex Dreyfuss' generous offer may allow them to do so.

Best wishes,
Mason

It was a generous offer.



Can you throw in a little money for a different venue? I really just mean a
little. I'll throw in $500. I know this is nothing. I am one non-rich person.

The TDA is very appreciative of the offers that have come in to help with sponsorship money and/or with host locations. It does take time to get a contract but I think that there will be some news within a week or two. Please stay tuned regarding the location.

We also appreciate the offer of help with the A/V. As some of the posters have written, resort hotels require conventions to use their A/V and the cost is a lot more than we could get it through an outside company. The TDA uses a lot more than a screen and a projector

Thanks for your hard work, I think it's appreciated by the vast majority of the poker community.