Much like the PGA for golf, I propose the formation of the Professional Poker Player Association (PPPA) as a governing body for the game of poker.

The purpose of the PPPA is to promote the welfare of the game, increase awareness of the game, reduce the gambling stigma of the game, promote the skill component of the game, and to establish standards of behavior and etiquette at the tables.

The prize pool for sanctioned PPPA events is generated from PPPA sponsorships, media rights, donations, tickets to events, concessions, merchandise, PPPA member fees, and advertising.

Because prize pools are generated from the above sources, the “gambling” element is removed. This opens the door for any physical venue, including those on non-casino grounds. In addition, it allows for national and/or international online sanctioned events.

In addition, the elimination of the gambling element increases potential sponsorship opportunities for PPPA events and players.

The PPPA reserves the right to deny admission to players for official PPPA sanctioned events who have demonstrated poor character, sportsmanship, and a failure to adhere to rules. (I.e. known cheats, people who make threats and/or espouse hate, severe criminal behavior even if outside of poker venues/events, etc.)

Penalties include the suspension or revocation of PPPA card. Without a valid PPPA card, they are unable to participate in any PPPA sanctioned events. These players would be permitted to contest any suspension or revocation of their PPPA player card before the PPPA board but rulings by the board are final.

Types of events supported by the PPPA include - PPPA Open Events, Pro-Ams, Online Events, Signature Events, Elite Events, Senior Events, Women’s Events, and Beginner Events. The PPPA can partner and sanction with existing tour providers such as WSOP and WPT that already have solid infrastructure in place.

In addition to monetary prizes, winners will receive trophies, status on a PPPA leaderboard, and any sponsored prizes (a Volvo sponsored event may include their newest model vehicle, for example).


Feedback?

You are proposing funding this yourself? In that case, I’m all for it.

It would be a non-profit organization under tax code 501(c)(6) which is classified as an organization for the benefit of its members rather than charity. Again, similar to the PGA.

Start-up funding would be via the same sources as outlined in paragraph three above.

1) The only reason a major brand would sponsor your PPPA is for positive return on their marketing investment. They can already get all the same value very cheaply by sponsoring the WSOP on ESPN. Why should they invest 50M on a series of tournaments over 1M on one that already has a prize fund? Why would the WSOP partner with you on this in any way? They have the monopoly, they have the ESPN deal, they essentially own the IP you want to get.

2) Poker would need to be done in a similar fashion to golf or tennis. Part of the attraction of those sports is the different venues/courses/surfaces that give certain players advantages. You can have poker tournaments all over the world, but the actual game action always looks exactly the same.

3) Part of the attraction of golf/tennis is that the main guys usually are at the top. In the early days of the WPT, you had your Gus Hansens, your Phil Iveys, your Phil Hellmuths regularly final tabling because the fields were much smaller. If your PPPA tournaments are somehow funded, and somehow on TV every week, it will just be usually a different random 6 people.

4) I think you're going to struggle more than you imagine on that "it's not gambling so we can do it anywhere" part. You're parting a fine line that most brands and venues are not going to see the value in taking risk on.

You need to propose this PPPA from the perspective of "how will it benefit the people who are going to pay for it", not "how will it benefit the people who will obviously benefit from it". If there's enough money behind it, sure it could be a success. But what's in it for Volvo?

1) WSOP no longer has a deal with ESPN, they’re with CBS Sports. Regardless, I don’t think they pay “cheaply.” I’m not sure where you’re pulling your 50M number from but ok. Any media sponsorship wouldn’t happen overnight, obviously, but brand exposure would still be what’s in it for them, just as every other sporting event brands sponsor. Why would this be any different?

2) There are multiple variations of poker. This would offer variation similar to different court styles in tennis.

3) I don’t think you fully understand the concept. These tournaments aren’t open to just anyone. You can’t just walk up with a set of clubs to the US Open and think you’re going to play. Similarly, you’d have to earn your membership card into the PPPA and only those who have valid membership can play in these events. You would most certainly have the mainstay players (Ivey = Tiger Woods; Hellmuth = Mickelson; etc.) while beginner events would serve as qualifiers for new players to try to show their chops and earn enough points to qualify as a PPPA member. Again, similar to a pro card in golf.

4) It’s not gambling if no money is being fronted to gamble. I don’t see this as a fine line at all and I’m not sure why you do. There would be rules against side bets and prop bets and whatnot but if the players aren’t risking money, it’s not gambling. It just isn’t.

Again, the answer for “what’s in it for Volvo?” goes back to my number one response - brand exposure. For the same reason Mercedes-Benz sponsors golf and tennis tournaments from time to time. Of course I’ve thought about this from their perspective and, again, I realize a Volvo sponsorship (or whoever) won’t happen overnight. But I can absolutely see high-end sponsorships like that in the future once the PPPA gains market share, credibility, and esteem. None of which we currently have since it doesn’t currently exist and I just typed this up on my phone this morning.

Hard pass. Poker should remain in the realm of seedy degeneracy and shady characters where it rightfully belongs.

Fair enough. But to that point, there would still be a place for that, much like there’s a place for sneaking in flasks and telling inappropriate jokes while doing donuts in the cart on the putting green of the 11th hole in golf.

This part would just be the “elevated” bit which would be good for public perception.

I had a government job for ten years. The only thing to do was smoke, drink , eat, sleep, sickies and corruption.

Brands like Volvo can get exposure anywhere. Maybe ask yourself more specificially: what does Volvo get from having their brand associated with poker? You could make a strong argument that for most mainstream brands that being associated with poker is more negative than positive. Even if you look at most major sports these days, check who their sponsors are; some major brands, but a loooot of companies specific to some way to make money from that sport (think equipment and clothing companies, or gambling companies). To play poker, you need a deck of cards and some nickels. Poker clothing is low end comfort and there's no money to be made from it. No one is going to make bets on who the PPPA champion will be, so you have no base.

As for "if the players aren't risking money, it's not gambling. It just isn't". Let's just say - a lot of gambling businesses over the years have made perfectly logical legal arguments about why what they're doing is legal. Then the DOJ shows up and bye bye business.

In the end - if this all made sense from a business perspective, someone would have done it. It's not like no one has ever tried to find a way to make money from the poker world. That no one has should tell you something.

You’re losing the forest through the trees. Stop getting hung up on Volvo, maybe it would be Ford giving away their newest model truck (poker is a male dominated arena and that’s who trucks aim to appeal to). Or a motorcycle company or Nike or a thousand other companies that might be interested in reaching the male demographic.

The purpose would be to change the image of being associated with poker is more negative than positive. Remove the seedy gambling aspect and make it more a game of skill and intellect and that would elevate it to something corporations would be more inclined to get involved with.

Why would nobody make bets on who would win? People don’t bet on golf or tennis? Again, there’s no current base or care because this doesn’t exist yet. But you do realize everything has to start somewhere, right? You don’t just start something and assume thousands of people will be waiting for you before you even begin. It will take time to build a base. You make a lot of assertions as though they’re fact when they seem more like misguided assumptions with no vision.

You said “gambling” businesses had the DOJ show up and it’s bye bye business. But again, this removes the gambling element entirely. Are you worried the DOJ might show up if you’re playing chess with your kids? Maybe when playing miniature golf? It’s the same thing. There’s no gambling whatsoever if there’s no money involved other than prize money.

Your last statement is just a testament to a pessimistic perspective on life in general. I guess nobody should ever try any idea they may have because every idea has already been tried by someone else so there’s no point. Come on, man.

This idea sounds... Epic.

A lot of Phil Hellmuth FT appearances in those days, were there?

Overall, though, gotta agree with Punker post (including the part where I get that Volvo is just an example, a stand-in for a large, non-poker entity that might sponsor this.) It's predicated on an "if you build it, he will come" philosophy, but these don't work that way. It's not like you launch an organization, instantly get Ford or Nike to fund it, then it takes off. No, you launch an organization, it takes off, and only then do major corporate entities start coming along to slap the blue oval or swoosh on its ass.

Even the "you’re losing the forest through the trees" line is misplaced. The OP is effectively saying, if we decide we want a forest right here, trees will grow.

Oddly, NickMPK's question is apt if we're to use the PGA as the analog. That organization began because the guy who conceived the idea put up the prize money for the inaugural event (about $75K in today's dollars).

Fortunately, I've heard of a potential backer: supposedly, someone is working on a poker-themed hotel.

They can all get that same association way way cheaper than sponsoring some sort of poker tour or organization. Just make a commercial showing a bunch of dudes playing poker then going home in their trucks. Professional poker has no unique selling point that makes brands want to associate with them. It almost managed to achieve it in the mid-2000s with the lure of playing for big money and the main celeb players but it burned itself out, with most of the damage coming from inside the poker world - how many threads and tweets are there talking about how Hellmuth is a jerk or Negreanu is clueless or Matusow is a drug addict, and not from fans - from their competitors.

Problem is (as someone else has posted) you have to change that image first.

Why wouldn't I bet on a bunch of people whose sole mission in life is to maximize their own EV? Let me ponder that. Match fixing at low levels of tennis is bad enough. At poker it would be worse.

I've seen enough stories on this very forum of places with membership fees that don't charge rake "so it's legal", or places that wager tokens "so it's legal", or internet sites that didn't offer sports because the wire act only applies to sports "so its legal" or internet sites that used crypto which isn't banking "so its legal". What's legal is what the DOJ decides is legal, end of story. When they decide they don't like it, you're done because they can afford to lose. You can't.

People can try ideas. There's just nothing new in yours that hasn't been tried and failed many times already, and part of the value of discussing ideas is understanding what's been tried before.

If you want to go for it, try just like Mori and Lyle did with the WPT, or Annie did with Epic or Mike did with the Tournament of Champions. Every single one of them had dreams of corporate sponsorship, every single one had top player support, some even got a few steps down the road.

If you're proposing this idea, just answer this question: what are you going to do differently than they did that's going to allow you to succeed?

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the majority of your posts but to address your last question, this would be a completely separate entity designed to allow for the advancement of the game without gambling and without negative stereotypes. By establishing rules of etiquette and decorum, it would help ensure fair play and a level of sophistication not currently found in seedy dank card rooms. It’s not the same as what the others tried to do with their own tournament ideas and such. This is a governing body, not a tournament series or half-baked TV show.

Incidentally, I appreciate your feedback and skepticism. It’s important to hear that type of feedback to learn from it.

I agree the prize money and start-up, especially for an inaugural sanctioned event, would be the most challenging aspect.

You want to start a non-profit freeroll club? Not sure I get it. So the sponsors donate + pay the operating costs? Where's the $?

Agree with hardball, you want to start a club, go to your local titty bar, round up a couple strippers and rich guys and offer a private game with topless dealers.

Perhaps the opposite of your idea

This is a nice idea, but it’s been tried before and it’s never worked. Why do you think your version would succeed where the PPT or Epic Poker League failed?

Both Epic and PPT were more interested in just the TV show component of it all rather than a formal governing body with the goal of advancing the professionalism of the game.

PPPA isn’t starting from the position of “how do we make an interesting TV show?” It’s trying to start with the firm foundation of a professional governing body with a focus on elevating the standards of the game with the understanding that televised sanctioned events would follow at a more organic pace.

Epic was doomed from the beginning with its dopey trendy name that was already getting played out at the time. It was clearly designed to be an unsustainable gimmick and that’s exactly what it was. I think people saw through that and had no interest in watching.

PPT was getting closer to PPPA in the sense that only qualified participants were allowed to play. But again, they lacked the whole governing body aspect and the goal wasn’t the same.

Both Epic and PPT were more about event organizing and that’s not what PPPA is all about. Yes, that would be an eventual component of it but, in theory, others could organize events and get the support of PPPA by meeting its standards and requirements. It certainly wouldn’t be the sole initial focus and I think that’s where others have failed. They didn’t have the deeper vision and only saw a quick money grab.

Bencb proposed something similar. His idea was a sort of sponsored online league, and I think he was envisioning a way for the best in the world to put in massive online volume against each other to compete for who is really best in the world. Prize money would come from sponsors like you proposed, to incentivise the best players to play each other rather than seeking out the softest games.

I like his idea and your idea in theory, but I do think there are a few major problems.

The biggest one is where would the money come from? The seedy aspect of poker might make major brands hesitant to associate with it. Pre black Friday I could see the major poker sites sponsoring it as a way to drive traffic to their sites, but that ship has sailed.

Also the best players in the world can easily sell action to real money events at mark-up, so they can already effectively compete without risking their own money. The amount of sponsored prize money would have to be larger than the amount of EV pros can gain playing traditional poker. Otherwise the top pros would have no incentive to play.

Now if it was sold as a form of sports betting where spectators can bet on matches from an app, then that could have potential. I agree there would be a lot of potential for abuse, but imagine like the Negreanu vs Polk match where spectators can make various bets... Who is going to win the match, who will win the next hand, will the flush draw hit on the river, etc. That could be fun for spectators, draw increased revenue and attention to the game, etc. but I still think it would be tough to get off the ground.

I think you'd need to get a handful of the best in the world to invest and commit to competing for it to have any chance. Then those faces could sell the idea to outside investors.

OK, this part of the idea is fine. But I don’t see how it relates to the proposal to run freeroll tournaments with prizepools funded from sponsorship deals. This part of the idea is basically just “Wouldn’t is be great if someone gave us a lot of money!”.

Unless you have a solid idea of where exactly this money is coming from, I don’t see how it’s going to be more successful than the failed efforts in the past. In fact, if this organization is more focused on “advancing professionalism of the game” than a TV product, is seems -less- likely to attract sponsorship than Epic or PPT.

I don't want to be a "someone's wrong on the internet. I must fix this injustice" type (immediately followed by me trying to fix the injustice).

The issue is that you believe the thing stopping mainstream sponsorship money from coming into poker is the image of poker; what you are actually kind of proposing is less like golf or tennis, and more like billiards or darts, which has a similar seedy reputation, but have built professional tours that gain actual sponsorship. Not perfectly the same, but those are the models I'd look at.

The problem is this; I looked at the Pro Darts tour and here's the prizes they offer on their stops:

2024 Players Championship Prize Funds
Winner £15,000
Runner-Up £10,000
Semi-Finalists £5,000
Quarter-Finalists £3,500
Fourth Round Losers £2,500
Third Round Losers £1,500
Second Round Losers £1,000
Total £125,000

A pro billiards tour event such as https://probilliardseries.com/vegas-...egas-open-men/ has a $400 entry fee and pays out $100K in prizes. A world championship such as https://poolplayers.com/world-pool-championships/ pays out $30K for first. (I'm happy to be corrected - I just googled pro billiards tour prize fund so for all I know these are rinky dink events and I'm overlooking some actual events where the prize funds are massive).

Top poker players aren't going to support your idea if this is the money we're talking about.

World Darts Championship this year paid out over 2.5 million pounds…

ition (no. of players) Prize money
(Total: £2,500,000)
Winner (1) £500,000
Runner-up (1) £200,000
Semi-finalists (2) £100,000
Quarter-finalists (4) £50,000
Fourth round losers (8) £35,000
Third round losers (16) £25,000
Second round losers (32) £15,000
First round losers (32) £7,500

The darts example you used is the lowest level of the professional tour played in leisure centres and streamed over the internet, subsidied primarily by their Premier League exhibition selling out arenas. As OCD highlighted, the top event of the year pays substantially more

I work in the real Estate World when I am not playing poker. For RE there is a community funded Real Estate Commission in each geographic area. They are responsible for creating and instituting at their CORE a set of values and ethics along with a set of operating standards and paperwork. A playbook per se as to how to and what to use to conduct business the right way. They have no legal authority to do anything to anyone however a lot like a game referee if caught cheating the system or misconduct amongst peers or public etc they can and will ban you from the community and you no longer will be selling Real estate. Black Balled. Break actual laws they will refer you to the proper authority for being prosecuted and give them to documentation to prosecute you. They are funded by annual membership dues paid by almost everyone that wishes to part take in the Real Estate Profession; inspectors appraisers etc we are all held to the same level of conduct and ethics standards. **** around get banned for life, it's simple. Show the community that you are a dues paying member and honesty and ethics become implied. POKER can do something just like this, pros and poker rooms tours skins media sites alike all pay their dues in exchange the commission will audit all rooms and skins live and online and set a standard of ethics etc and when a room or skin meets standards they are allowed to operate and maintain their "status" players want to give their business to only "approved" rooms that can be trusted. Players want to know someone will hear their complaints and act on them accordingly. If businesses allow themselves to be open and audited and players have a dropping point for complaints against others who do not operate correctly, Banned from paying in the sandbox is the answer. Bye Poker King Bye Jake and Ali Bye Bye ACR players won't use them they will die slowly and surely. Commission can afford to hire tech and financial based experts a group of peers to hear and vote on ethics violations and players voting with their money by playing in rooms and skins that have been verified to a level we all agree on; Just imagine having the access to ACR security and protocols and having 3rd party pressure of them to do their job. I could die happy. -stoker out.

This is actually the way it could likely work. Just like they created the TDA rules and promoted them to the point that they became the standard, if you could create this PPPA and build a black book and get it accepted, you could in theory make something of value.

All poker needs is more rake, getting funneled into some sort of "oversight" slush fund. (sarcasm)

Legitimate operations already have gaming control oversight. Black/grey market sites are unlikely to ever be secure.

The idea of a black book of proven cheats that is shared around the industry and barred from playing could be a step in the right direction though.

Even this is not as simple as it sounds. Where do you draw the line. Does account sharing warrant a lifetime ban? What about someone who purchases databases of hand histories to study off the table when it is against sites terms of service?

It would also be important to actually prove someone is cheating if you're talking about black balling people. Whenever someone is winning a lot players naturally suspect them, and you wouldn't want innocent players getting banned just based off of paranoid suspicions.