LirvA, nobody owes you an explanation when you have your fingers in your ears shouting "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU BTW **** THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT"

OP: I have tried arguing with mods and found it doesnt get me anywhere. Self-censoring in some forums is usually the best approach.
Tough to swallow but there you go.

Do you have some commentary on my infractions and the lack of infractions for the other posters goofyballer?

Well my point in starting this thread was not to argue with mods, it was to raise this issue to the administrators.

Also, Skallagrim's response when I bring up the fact that he's willing to sacrifice all other Internet gambling for the sake of poker is: "Go form your own Internet Gambling Alliance!"

Very professional.

If you can't even clarify this then I don't see how you can be a mod.

Of course, it probably isn't that hard when the entire forum is tooting the PPA's horn, and you are on the board of the PPA.

PPA is not seeking to throw anyone under the bus. Our interests are for poker and that's what we champion. That being said, we're not going to let the unpopularity of casino-style gaming or sports betting on Capitol Hill work to throw poker under the bus, either.

There is a bill in Congress right now that seeks to license online casino-style gaming. It is HR 1174, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Campbell (R-CA). PPA and poker players are the only ones who did anything to push to get this bill introduced, and we're the only ones supporting it now at the grassroots.

Without poker players, that bill would be generating nothing but the sound of cricket chirps. The Sports Bettors Alliance and the Blackjack Players Alliance have been nowhere to be found. Their prospective members are too busy attacking PPA, trying to make us carry even more of their water for them.

The Barton bill does not contain tax provisions. Once legislation is introduced to that end, PPA will be there to lobby for our members.

PPA has had success in:

• Creating an organization in DC where none formerly existed. We saw the result of that in Congress a few weeks ago, when Attorney General Eric Holder was grilled by a few congressmen about Black Friday at a hearing on an unrelated matter. We see it every day, in fact, as only anti-poker legislation was introduced to Congress from 1995-2006, while only pro-poker legislation has been introduced since.
• Raising the public image and perception of poker as an honorable game, not a degenerate vice.
• Defensively fighting federal legislative action that sought to harm further the interests of poker players.
• Defending against the implementation of Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) regulations, successfully delaying for six months implementation of those regulations.
• Giving a voice to poker players in states where poker activity has attracted law enforcement or other negative notice.
• Jumpstarting state action. PPA’s actions at the federal level have woken up some states that are now concerned that Congress will authorize online poker before these states can.

With the starting point I described earlier, it was not reasonable to think poker players could turn this around overnight. PPA certainly never promised to. Rather, PPA started a process by which we could build support for our position. Initiating this fight, even as underdogs, was the maximum EV option of the choices available to us.

So, what has happened since? Well, Congress had certainly heard from America’s poker players. We are on offense in Congress, which is our best defense. Again, no bills have been proposed against us since 2006, after years of anti-poker bills.

PPA organized letter-writing and phone call campaigns while lobbying federal agencies and Congress. PPA also set up and organized testimony at Congressional hearings that went very well for us. Poker players wrote and called Congress by the hundreds of thousands. With these efforts, PPA stopped — and reversed — the momentum of the anti-poker forces. I believe we are fortunate to have someone as savvy on the Hill as Executive Director John Pappas at the helm, as navigating that arena is a skill all its own.

At the state level, the PPA twice stopped Massachusetts from criminalizing playing of online poker. PPA also fought the Kentucky governor’s efforts to seize online poker domain names. That effort included recruiting the ACLU and EFF to aid the fight, including a joint press conference to condemn the governor’s attack on the game. PPA worked with state and national media very effectively to communicate the players’ position in the Kentucky fight. PPA also stopped Minnesota from proceeding with a plan to ISP-block online poker and other online gaming sites.

PPA got very involved in elections as well. Players helped push UIGEA sponsor Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) from office – a fact he readily admits. PPA also contributed greatly to anti-poker CO Senate candidate Ken Buck’s loss to Michael Bennet. PPA’s PAC, PokerPAC, is an active participant in national elections.

On the media front, coverage of poker issues was often negative prior to passage of UIGEA. Thanks to the efforts of PPA, we now get our opinion mentioned in almost every mainstream article on the topic. I write a column myself, at http://biggovernment.com/rmuny.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of inertia in DC. Some politicians still think the anti-gaming types enjoy the support they did twenty years ago. We are chipping away at this every single day.

PPA continues to keep pressure on Capitol Hill. A poker-only bill will be introduced in the next couple of weeks. It will be introduced by a conservative Republican, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas. This bipartisanship will help the bill’s prospects greatly. Here’s a good article.

When UIGEA passed, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) promised to introduce new legislation to finish what UIGEA started.

The fact that the DoJ came after poker is not evidence that PPA did anything wrong. To the contrary, it's evidence that we need legislation. The DoJ has made that insanely clear.

Anyway, PPA is very open about everything I posted here. The fact that we support poker first and foremost is no secret, nor is the fact that we are seeking legislation to address this issue. Both are right there in our mission statement.

I think that's the right answer.

PPA is a group that represents the rights of poker players. While we are the group that has done more for other online gaming than any other group, if you want a group that represents all online gaming equally, I recommend founding such a group.

Amusing that you mention that bill, since it definitively shows why I do not support the PPA.

You support a bill that treats various forms of gambling differently. If you seek to prove that poker is a game of skill, you cannot throw sports betting under the bus. It is also very much a game of skill and can be demonstrated. If you want proof, feel free to set some lines for the NCAA season that I can bet on.

Without poker players supporting that bill, I'd be a lot happier. So would The Sports Bettors Alliance, since their trade is PROHIBITED by that bill.

Did you even read the text of the bill before posting that as an example?

Then you should have no problem with me speaking against the PPA's mission, since Poker Legislation could very well be called Sports Betting Criminalization.

Counting chickens before they hatch.

In order:

1) Creating an organization that I think is bad for Internet gambling overall isn't a point in your favor. You are making a list about how you are "helping" poker players. This is not my argument nor is it much of my concern. You are sidestepping the issue.
2) Cannot be quantified; citation needed.
3) Citation needed.
4) Can it be shown that your organization is the sole reason that the UIGEA was not implemented sooner?
5) Sure.
6) Citation needed.

The fact that no bills have been introduced certainly has not stopped the US Government from destroying online gambling on multiple fronts, so I have no idea how you can count this as an accomplishment.

And Obama has promised a lot of things that haven't happened yet. Politicians have been known to do this kind of thing.

And neither is it evidence that your organization has been effective.

Yes, I did. I was talking about casino-style gaming, not sports betting.

Sports betting was thrown under the bus long ago. The Wire Act, PASPA, and many other laws have targeted sports betting...laws that were passed long before PPA came into being. Funny that you're advocating that poker players follow the same failed strategy as sports bettors.

Your beef is not with poker players. Your beef is with those who are actively seeking to stop sports betting. IMO you'd be better off spending some time seeking to address that.

As for PPA, that's not our mission. If you choose not to support PPA because of that, that's fine, but don't like we're not right up front about being a POKER rights organization.

PPA does not endorse criminalization of sports betting. In fact, we're the ones who have pushed to keep bettors from being the targets of enforcement efforts.

Use ur sooper admin powers

At no point did I say that the PPA should do what sports bettors have done. (Which is basically nothing.) I ask you to retract your erroneous statement or find proof that I did say this.

I couldn't agree more. Your organization actively seeks to stop sports betting. The evidence is in this thread. So I am against it.

You'll have to excuse me. When I read bills that are endorsed by the PPA that read like this:

I think that maybe the PPA supports bills that prohibit sports betting on the Internet. It's a weird disconnect; I have no idea why I feel that way.

Kyle, if TE left it at "the PPA won't take any action that it feels might compromise its goals of legalizing online poker for the sake of other forms of gambling", would that satisfy you?

Is it possible that the PPA can support a bill that seeks to prohibit sports betting without what TE said actually being incorrect? I wouldn't consider supporting a bill to be tacit endorsement of everything inside it; not every congressperson that voted for the Safe Port Act in 2006 necessarily endorsed criminalizing online poker.

The first statement is too vague. "...it feels might..." is too nebulous.

To your second point: No. When you vote for candidate X, you get everything candidate X brings to the table. Same goes for issues. Now if you feel that sacrificing sports betting for the sake of online casino-style gaming (or poker, or free ponies, or whatever) is worth it, then fine. But come out and say that. You cannot say that you fight for the rights of all Internet gamblers then support a bill like the one mentioned here; this would be obviously duplicitous.

And to be fair, TE is saying just that - that the PPA doesn't care about other Internet gamblers. (Except that he posted that the PPA supports this bill, which is bizarre but does lend credence to the idea that they only care about some types of Internet gambling.)

At any rate, if the PPA fought for the rights of poker players but didn't tread on other Internet gamblers, I'd be more sympathetic to their cause, regardless of my disdain for all things political. But they don't and they have shown they are willing to sacrifice other industries to secure poorly-defined rights for online poker players. This is certainly their prerogative; they can do whatever they want. But I think it's bull**** that they do that.

I thank you for being honest about that.

We don't support that specific provision. We didn't ask for it, didn't want it, and we certainly didn't lobby for it. We do support the broader bill, of course, as it promotes the game of poker.

Your beef is with those who sought that provision. They are the same ones who have owned sports betting on Capitol Hill for decades.

Sports betting is already prohibited on the Internet. As for the legislation in question, no poker bill will move through Congress that does not clarify the scope of UIGEA and the Wire Act. Surely you're not expecting PPA to oppose poker legislation and throw its membership under the bus to fight for sports bettors -- a fight even sports bettors are not fighting.

While you are spreading your pro federal regulation spam through yet another forum, I think you are forgetting to address a couple relevant posts.

Maybe you should be infracted for off topic posting. Oh wait, you're a mod. Nevermind.

Kyle,

There's a very good reason there are specific phrases addressing sports betting as strictly illegal in some of the bills you are referencing. And when you say this:

you are being intellectually dishonest, because that is precisely what you are saying. Any senator or rep that wants to vote for this bill with any sort of family values pull in their district (read: TONS of them) is going to want that language in there, period. The language itself changes next to nothing as the Wire Act covers much of what you are upset about already. It just makes these guys feel better since the stigma, as discussed below, could destroy them if it is ever construed in any other way in the court of public opinion.

Online sports betting or other forms of gambling will not anytime in the near or distant future be legalized in the US under a federal legislation regime. It simply will not happen. 0% chance. Possibly never. Anyone who votes for that bill takes a poison pill.

I, and others, believe it was Barney Frank's absolute insistence on non-poker gambling being included in his bill that precluded it from passing... in a Congress dominated by his party. Consider that he is a very powerful member and an influential person in US politics; this should speak volumes about the odds of anything non-poker being legalized.

If the PPA insisted on sports betting being put in the bill or actively resisted language proscribing sports betting or left the status of sports betting ambiguous, they would be doing a massive disservice to the people who donate money to them and support them. They would essentially be throwing the final nail in the coffin of any online poker legislation they support. Odds are they aren't the ones who even put it in the bill. I'd be surprised if they are, but someone along the road wanted it, and they are gunna need that someone if it ever wants to pass.

Perhaps decades down the road it could happen, but it would only follow online poker paving the way. As it stands now, online poker alone remains a long shot.

As purely a strategic move, they can't include sports betting. Just. can't.

You may argue it's a game of skill and you may be right, but you need to consider the overall social stigma about sports betting and the various positions staked out by conservative and family value Republicans in Congress. The same goes for many Democrats too. NO ONE wants to be seen supporting something a vast majority of the general public sees not online as gambling but associates with organized crime, degenerates and violence.

You could reply saying BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE SPORTS BETTING ISN'T LIKE THAT. You're right, but the general public's perception will rule the day here and there is next to nothing you can do to change it.

Poker doesn't have that strong of a stigma. It's on ESPN every Tuesday, everyone knows famous poker players and many accept it is a game of skill. That's why we've seen traction. Everyone has played a game of poker in their life.

You may argue that people gamble on NCAA March Madness pools and make friendly bets over football games all the time, but, again, they don't associate this with the type of industrialized sports betting you want. Washington doesn't operate on logic and voters often don't vote on intelligence. Emotion is the controlling aspect for many of the constituents in the family values/moral majority districts.

I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. If the PPA started pushing sports betting hard, I would be extremely critical about it and disappointed in them, because it's an awful strategic move.

But they aren't, because their top execs and lobbyists (who I can personally assure you are quite smart and capable) know how DC works and are reacting properly.

Trust me when I say that getting a poker only bill done is likely the best step forward if you ever want to see online sports betting legalized in a federal regime.

I am not telling you what you should do. The PPA can do whatever it pleases, just as I am free to say that IMO it's detrimental to set a precedent of settling for poker but not these other industries; that it is bad to separate poker and other forms of gambling which are inherently the same thing. The law of unintended consequences often rears its ugly head when people settle for enacted legislation. History has shown this to be true.

Done.