People seem to ignore/discount Lirva because of his reputation and posting style. But generally, he is right about a few things.

The best scenario for poker players and poker as a whole would be a non-regulated, free market, legal application. The argument stating that this is impossible is completely reasonable. But only because the US government is corrupt, inefficient, and only willing to legislate based on self-interest and campaign contribution.

Thus, the PPA only exists because it has somewhat admitted defeat towards fighting for ideal conditions. If they were truly interested in putting the players and the game as a whole first, without sacrificing principle or compromising with ridiculous agenda, they would not exist.

I think the PPA often acts in a very corruptible, heavily influenced manner, mimicking the actions and strategies of a bad/ineffective lobbyist. I know for a fact that a huge contingent of prominent (poker-famous), intelligent poker professionals think that the organization is closer to a scam than the perception that is championed in their forum.

I never could quite understand why people like Mason and David would associate themselves with a lot of the things the PPA stands for. Before BF, it seemed to make a little bit of sense. After, I have no idea.

Lirva posting the same thing over and over again accomplishes nothing. Everyone knows your views. You've crossed the line from a contributing poster to nothing but, at least to an outside observer, an annoying troll.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=127

The PPA posts the same thing over and over again.

They don't derail threads about other things, and they're very respectful.

I don't think you defined the problem quite correctly here. When UIGEA passed in 2006, Congress believed they'd get kudos for ending the "scourge of online gambling." Politicians were proud to oppose us. The GOP even put a plank in its platform calling for a ban on online gaming. HR 4411, the bill that became UIGEA, passed the House as a freestanding bill 317-93.

I spoke to lawmakers a few months after it passed. They all believed the U.S. people were strongly supportive of UIGEA. They definitely didn't think they were doing an end-run around the will of the people. Why would they? Many U.S. players stayed quiet, believing they'd play Party forever, while media portrayed us negatively (and with no rebuttal).

For a look back, I recommend you read the HR 4411 testimony: UIGEA House Testimony: July 11, 2006

How would fighting for something with a 0% chance of success help anyone?

Sorry, but we are not sacrificing principle. Our principle is to turn back UIGEA and other anti-poker actions and to create a market in the U.S. where we can play.

That's a lot of diatribe with no evidence to back it. First of all, when have we "acted in a very corruptible, heavily influenced manner"? Please provide some examples. Secondly, are these unnamed pros experts on government affairs? Do they know how to move legislation? How is their anonymous purported opinion of value here? I don't get the relevance of your post. Besides, we're not the Professional Poker Players Alliance.

You act like this is an easy fight. You seem to think one comes back from a 317-93 defeat in the House just by asking nicely. Sorry, but this fight is much tougher than it may seem from the comfort of your couch.

Anyway, they support us because we'd likely have seen UIGEA II by now. Rather, than being on the offense on the Hill since 2007, we could have even had a bill banning intrastate poker (like the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, a bill that ban intrastate sports betting in the 46 states that had not yet authorized it).

To further highlight where Congress has been on gaming issues, check this out, from the PASPA article linked above:

Ishmael, do you think that dungeons and dragons has gone past the point of ever becoming mainstream, or do you think that it can happen one day?

There are rules that only apply to me, as evidenced by the infraction you gave me for making an off topic post. The post I made which was a response to another posters previous off topic post, and that poster did not get an infraction, by your own admission.

Strengthening the UIGEA is not "turning it back".



hint: more federal regulation would be UIGEA II

Your post did not comply with site T&Cs. The other post did.

It turns it back in its applicability to poker. The very fact that the bill has to include that to win over support in Congress should tell you something.

If you need anything from me. I am good. Friends are hard to find. I have an extra ticket to the Saints-Lions game. Scooter is coming. You should come too. We can pick you up in Dallas.

Elaborate please. How did it not comply with the T&C, and how did the one I was responding to comply?

What about all the posts I reported last night? I was infracted for making an off topic post (in response to a previous off topic post), and most of the posts I reported last night were off topic. Were those posters infracted?

How about all the people that have attacked me personally. Were they infracted?



*for certain states
*for certain government approved sites
*every other state and every other site is thrown under the bus with further prohibition

<insert PokerXanadu trolling me with a government regulation bus running over a monkey>


The very fact that the PPA is willing to support something that actually strengthens the UIGEA should tell you something.

While I may not agree with a reach-around infraction, I must admit that 'TheEngineer' is such a sick Matrix reference that I'm jonesing to watch that trilogy.

What????


You infracted me for not giving you a reach around ...

I didn't give that infraction.

If LirvA had an issue with that, I have no idea why he didn't come to me with it.

Hehe.

Yours did not comply because it did not comply. The other post did comply.

Of course not. Those were related to the topic.

They weren't attacking you. They were complaining about your argumentative posting.

Yes....it tells me that it's a tough fight. Your idea is a nonstarter. Our membership does not want PPA to embark on something with a 0% chance of success, as your own poll shows.

supporting uigea strengthening in return for POKER "legalization" (regulation) seems like a very good deal for the POKER player's alliance

if we were the blackjack player's alliance i'd be furious.

lololololol


"if problem gambling is the only issue"







"Will Merge, Cake and other US Poker Rooms continue to accept US Players after a Bill passes"


Harry Reid, "I-Poker will get done."





hey here's some guy vulgarly talking about woodies, that's kinda in line with reach arounds, wonder if he got an infraction ...

here's a filter dodge


then the thread goes off topic on a rigged direction

wonder if the people discussing rigged poker were infracted ...


That's just after a quick look at a couple threads.


looks like you have a lot of infractions to give out. I'm sure you'll get right on that ...

No I don't.

Omar,

"do you think that dungeons and dragons has gone past the point of ever becoming mainstream, or do you think that it can happen one day?"

Implicit in the question is the assumption that Dungeons and Dragons has not, hitherto, gone "mainstream." With sales in the 10 figure range and myriad instances of media coverage, one could argue that this assumption is at best tenuous and at worse overzealous.

That said, these modern times have seemingly left the classic twenty-sider in the proverbial slow lane, and prospects of the grand game going mainstreameeer look slim.

lol standard. nice modding sir


Why don't you tell me how those posts are topical and not personal attacks?

Since TE has been willing to derail the thread into a PPA discussion, I will post my public thoughts here: The PPA is completely willing to (and does) throw all other Internet gambling under the bus for the sake of nebulously regulated online poker in the United States. This is my main objection and I think it is total garbage to support an organization who is willing to sacrifice other gamblers' interests to protect their own. There is NOTHING inherently different about online poker and sports betting or blackjack. All can be played as skill games where there is positive expectation to the player, and creating a divide between them reinforces nonsensical stereotypes.

Furthermore, they are willing to push forth with legislation that is not clear on how the games/sites will be structured and how it will be taxed or raked. This is a very good way to get completely unplayable rake structures at anything below 10/20 limit, which does no good for micro/low limit players.

Lastly, the claim that the PPA has done something to protect the interests of online poker players while the situation has nearly melted down is ridiculous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. TE claims that "it would have gotten worse without us;" this claim is specious and requires an alternate universe to validate. His "evidence" indicating that this is true is nothing more than anecdotal at best.

And instead of a large sting operation to catch PS/FTP/AP, they would have detonated nuclear arms in major metropolitan cities, I guess. It could always be worse, right? Donate today!