FPUSA hired a bunch of hacks to represent them as in Middle Coast LLC. Perhaps Greg will get that message to a "decision maker" that will show them the door and hire a company that will represent FPUSA more professionally in the future.

FPUSA is Middle Coast LLC.

The concern isn't that FPUSA is backed by C/M or that they're not "grassroots" or w/e

The concern is they have been less then honest

We don't want FPUSA to become the "Voice" for regulation and legislation and to have FPUSA be seen as the Voice for players.

Sorry for showing any kind of ethical backbone, really...

No! The people coming in here acting like "omg there was our meal ticket and we messed it up by wanting them to be forthrite with us and not lie blatantly to our face" are the ugh.

Its not like C/M are just gonna say "welp we tried to help you guys and let you get some of the table scraps from our banquet but you messed that up". They're still gonna go about their business and we're still gonna be going about ours.

Edit: and nobody is stopping you from becoming one of the "supporters". go fill out the damn petition.

Meh the trolls would like to believe that (I'm not calling you a troll), but I really don't think what we do or don't do in this thread makes much difference. Things that matter include our other political advocacy efforts.

People used to bitch about the PPA now people want to bitch and whine about FPUSA. These are the very people that are working towards the overall goal of getting online poker legalized and all numerous people can do is say how they don't support them. If you don't support them what do you support?? The status quo that gets worse by the day?? I welcome the fact that there is a new organization willing to try and meet our end goal of legal online poker. Who cares if it is grassroots or not. I welcome the casinos in this fight because they are going to bring a lot more money and political weight that we need. We need to look at the bigger picture. We need all the help we can get if are gonna have any chance at getting any type of legal online poker. We need to all do something that our gov't can't right now.... compromise.

+1

Why wouldn't the B&M's care about the unfair tax code for "amateur gamblers"? They don't want to lose a good chunk of their customers once their customers see the tax bill for playing Ipoker.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Raymer for returning to respond, despite being on vacation with family. Greg is, IMO, an extremely trustworthy and believable individual (disclaimer: I only know him from the television) and as such, I believe him to be a perfect representative for the players.

I do not trust casinos or "grassroots organizers" to have our best interests at heart, but I do trust Greg since he obvious IS "one of us" and based on his words I am willing to put my anger and angst over events of this past year aside and see where the chips fall, so to speak... no more negativity from me.

Oh... and... you already know *my* personal concern (tax code, see the quoted post above). Clearly the casinos do not care about this issue, so that has to be a focus of the PPA, IMO.

I'll take a different view.

Caesars/MGM may have decided that ANY so-called "Federal" bill that could pass will effecctively allow States to get the revenue and retain their traditional role in regulating gaming. Accordingly, FPUSA is Caesars/MGM's move for the post-bill scenario where they will need a "friendly foothold" in each State they want to add to their current State locations.

A battle between lotteries and race tracks and large B&Ms and small B&Ms and tribal interests will be fought over and over again in each jurisdiction.

Trust me... they don't care and never will. Why should they? Call it the PT Barnum effect if you like (there's another sucker ready to walk thru that door as soon as I walk out).

It's not the casino's problem and they will never fight the player's fights for us. I hope the PPA will, and Rich Muny (The Engineer) did respond positively to me on this topic.

Are you serious? What about all their customers who play inherently -EV games and still have to pay taxes on their "winnings"?

How long have B&M's been worried about those idiots' taxes?

I may be mistaken as I haven't followed this issue too closely, but I thought poker was treated differently somehow? As in an amateur player could break even but still owe a huge tax bill since he is not allowed to deduct losses from his winnings.

I have nothing against moral backbones, I just think people's expectations are unreasonable.

Here's the OP:


They say their coalition includes poker players, they never say they're going to advocate for poker players specifically.

They continue to answer questions over the morning and afternoon of the day they launched, avoiding the tough ones, in all likelihood because they needed to verify with their superiors the stance of their employer before posting it publicly.

DrewOnTilt had a reasonable post here:

Mpethy got very accusatory a few posts before, with, in my view, very little reason to:

And the thread devolved.

Mpethy claims they lied about being a grassroots organization, which they had already responded to earlier by saying they defined themselves as a grassroots organization as opposed to a lobbying organization, which is SUPER standard PR, and shouldn't equivocate lying to any reasonable person whose had any experience in the PR world. I was surprised people weren't satisfied with this initial response tbh.


I'm all for vetting, and the investigative work done by 2p2ers, in this thread and others, is excellent.

However, I also fear that 2p2, and, therefore online poker players, have a reputation of being paranoid and untrusting to the point of being unreasonable, which keeps us from being taken seriously by outside groups.

This thread is a perfect example of something that could have been talked through without a flame war, but wasn't, and we could now have soured a relationship with a group that could potentially help our cause a great deal.

This same **** happened with PPA, remember.

I don't think there was a flame war, I mean it did get heated but far from out of control.

It's frustrating trying to get answers on some very specific questions which they danced around or ignored completely.

FairPlay USA's self-serving definition of a grassroots organization is a lie. The fact that it is a common lie in the PR field IS THE PROBLEM, not a justification for them telling the lie.

Again, it bears repeating: There is no such organization as FairPlay USA. It is simply a name Caesar's executives and Marisa McNee dreamed up for a public relations effort designed to mislead people into thinking that they are supporting an organization of people that care about child internet safety when they are actually unknowingly supporting Caesar's bottom line.

It is contemptible dishonesty, and I would challenge it and expose it even if I knew it meant wrecking our chance to get online poker legalized.

Did you read the entire thread?

In addition to avoiding the tough ones (by ignoring them), numerous answers they gave, especially on day two, bordered on the nonsensical.

Actually, we "amateur gamblers" can end the year with a fairly sizable net loss at the tables and yet still owe a fairly sizable tax bill. Doesn't matter if it's poker or not to the IRS.

You can deduct your losses by itemizing your deductions. In my case, this essentially meant I lost the "standard personal deduction" of $5200 or so (since I would not have itemized my deductions otherwise).

That is why I call it "terribly unfair" (to say the least). For me, it made the game (as a tournament-only player) essentially unwinnable. I'm not going to grind all year just to line the IRS's coffers. That would be a rather foolish way to spend my time.

In America we like to claim if some rule or regulation "stifles commerce", then it's a bad rule that needs to be changed. Common sense, right? Not with "gamblers" tho - we're like the black sheep nobody cares about.

Is there any chance C/M is not even aware of this issue? I think they would advocate to change it since it is unfair and it will hurt their bottom line once more players like you see their tax bill, which will be mandated for players in a regulated Ipoker environment.

First off, you say FairPlay USA's Self-serving definition of a grassroots organization is a lie, then you say there is no such organization as FairPlay USA, so your phrasing needs fixing there.

Saying FairPlay USA is an organization dreamed up by Ceasar's that's self-serving is fine.

This "contemptible dishonesty" you seem to have such a huge problem with seems like basic branding to me. How do you know Caesar's doesn't support Child Internet Safety? Do you think Coca-Cola is contemptibly dishonest for calling Gatorade "Gatorade", instead of "Coke-Sport" or something?

They responded unequivocally that their funding came from Caesar's the first time that they were asked. The legitimate discussion seems to be whether or not FPUsa will be a worthwhile voice for Poker players, not whether or not they're contemptibly dishonest for how they branded themselves. This is capitalism.

I agree that they could have been much more professional in their responses on day 2, and contributed to the derail then, I'm just trying to point out that our questions may have gotten too accusatory, too quickly, and we need to be conscious of how we are viewed as a community by those outside of our community.

Whoa ....... something of substance.

There is a very good chance that C/M is not aware of this as an issue, especially in the context of poker. (Among Las Vegas casinos, Stations may be unique in that they will generate an annual report of daily losses/wins for machine players.)

The point is a good one, especially if the legislation will deal with witholding obligations on cashouts.

The ONLY argument the casinos care about however is one which is directed to their bottom line. ..... so if this is to be raised as an issue FOR them, it has to be couched in that context ....

1. Like overly burdensome withholding, an unfair annual tax bill also lessens the customers' access to funds with which to gamble.

2. A fair system would ..... insert whatever you think will make the most money for Caesars, .... I am not up on the issue, but perhaps they can appreciate something lsuch as "A. casino witholding on cashouts can be limited to calculation on net win since last cashout AND B. the player can rely on that Net Win figure in computing win/lose. .... No cashout, no witholding and no tax..... you have one long session, which ends only when you cash out, i.e. go to the cage.

3. This mirrors the treatment casinos adfford B&M players, I think.

not to derail, but for the people (rightfully) fighting against half-assed to borderline disingenuous efforts to legalize internet poker, i hope you are equally putting effort in supporting actual presidential candidates that are fighting for the same thing as you. there are two of those this election, and one of them is backed by 2+2.

I'm sorry you don't care about honesty, integrity and ethics. I do. We will just have to agree to disagree.

By the way, please send me that $1000 you owe me for coaching.