PPA did not issue a statement of support. Rather, we issued a statement welcoming them to the fight and requesting that they consider supporting current and future legislation: http://theppa.org/press-releases/201...-usa-07262011/.

That being said, they can be a powerful ally for us. I hope they'll take the discussion here to heart. Many here made excellent points that FPUSA can use to proceed effectively in their outreach to the poker community.

I thought the bill was fine because I have a different view then these grinders. I was glad Stars and Tilt would be banned. I was glad there was no international player pools. There are enough Americans playing, I don't want to play with with cheaters or scammers from another country who would have no consequences. The blackout sucked, but I don't trust offshore sites in the first place, so I was ok with it. I didn't mind player penalties if we had a regulated place to play but the PPA and grinders felt like that was the main issue with the bill. It would be nice to have a low rake, but I play one table and I wouldn't care if the rake was the same as card rooms.

Like I said before, any bill I've seen would be better then how it is now. Even the SB40 bill in California that would give tribes and card rooms a MONOPOLY. I wanted that to pass at first, but it's a pretty bad bill, but even that is better than what we got now.

You mean along with every other business in the history of the world?

I want to express my admiration for your intelligence and brilliance.
You tore these shills apart with such unshakeable clarity of mind, it was truly beautiful to witness.

It scares me to see how good they are at weaving in and out of and gliding around simple questions while rarely giving a direct answer.
People like you are the reason this forum is great. You just slash through the veils of ignorance and deceipt without hesitation, armed only with knowledge, sound values and a critical mind.

I agree 100% with your view that it's unacceptable that they started their relationship with us by lying, and the fact that it's insulting is the least concerning aspect of it.

You have all my respect and your efforts and integrity are much appreciated.

When FairPlayUSA is getting people like John Kyl and Spencer Bachus on our side is it really gonna matter how bad they looked to you guys in this thread?

You're still missing my point. I'm not on a weird mission to prove only that FairPlay USA = Caesar's/MGM. I am on a weird mission to show you that the fact that Caesar's came to 2+2 under false pretenses is evidence that Caesar's still plans to screw over players.

Proving the false pretenses was just step one in the process. Marisa McNee saw clearly that we were headed to step two, and left before we got there.

This is what I don't get.

Some of you seem pretty paranoid. Ceasars/MGM and whoever else have huge incentives to keep rake low and offer rewards programs. With high rake and no incentive to grind 10 hours per day (think supernova elite) they will lose a ton of business long-term...simply because fish will go broke faster and marginal winners will soon become losers. A business model intent of ****ing over players may make massive amounts in the short-term but it won't be sustainable long into the future. In short, it would be terrible for business. Some of you really seem clueless as to what drive traffic to poker sites.

Also, comparing $5 max-rake at a brick and mortar casino to an online room is absolutely ludicrous. The overhead associated with running an online room is much, much lower than paying dealers, cocktail waitresses, and floor man to oversee a game.

The only thing that leaves a sour taste in my mouth is STRENGTHENING the UIGEA. If legislated sites come along that seems completely unnecessary as no one is going to want to grind on merge and cake anyway.

In regards to Fairplay, I find it kind of juvenille and embarrassing that half of you jumped their asses. As another post said, read between the lines. It's ****ing obvious who they are and what they want. They aren't going to come out and say it, they are a PR firm for christ's sake - if you don't know what their motive is you're being an idiot or your just trolling. It's POLITICS!

Sure. But if you as a player are willing to help them limit competition so that they can charge you exorbitant fees to play in a duopoly, then you are as silly as you appear so far ITT.

If you as a player are not willing to help them limit competition, then what the **** are you trolling me for?

Please explain the contents of the Reid bill, if this is true.

To be honest I don't know what opportunity may or may not have been lost since they weren't here long enough to even know. Obviously the firm they hired was terrible but that doesn't mean the idea behind it was.

If you're saying that the only reason they were here was to pick up supporters, well them being active in the forum would have certainly picked up supporters, and I consider that a loss.

The people who are saying things were great pre-BF when there were three sites controlling 90% of the market, weren't around when there were 10+ sites fighting for our business. Things went quite a bit downhill as competition dropped off.

QFT, well said.

How they look in the thread is an indication of how successful they might be in doing things like that.

If you look through my posting history you will see I am very supportive of the help we will get from Caesar's/MGM/etc and I think they are, in many ways, the most important allies we have.

That said, they did an absolutely terrible job in choosing this MiddleCoast LLC company to help them.

IIRC dozens of Casinos/Horsetracks would have been able to qualify under the previous bills so I'm not sure what exactly you think they're trying to do.

I would love for you to give me the specific wording they would use in the bill to create a monopoly for themselves.

See, Rich "gets it"

I would love for you to pay me for doing your research for you. say, $150/hour?

sure. they want to limit competition in order to gain a greater % of market share. I understand that you feel less competition will equate to higher rake but I just explained why that reasoning is faulty and counter intuitive. Sites can't greedily gouge us because it will ruin the online poker eco-system in the long term. Plus, I really feel like there will be a lot more competition than was post UIGEA. Plenty of larger rooms will be eligible to apply for a license, so presumably we'll have more competition than in the days of Stars/FTP and possible even less rake as the sites won't have to pay out disgustingly large processor fees.

I think your a smart dude, but perhaps a little too angsty. The angle Fairplay is taking is pretty genius because it speaks in the language that motivates politicians and soccer moms - protect the innocent, keep the kids off of ipoker, etc. Leave the voice of the poker player to the PPA.

TTS,

"I would love for you to give me the specific wording they would use in the bill to create a monopoly for themselves."

If you mean "could" use, then I could give you a million examples. Is it that hard to imagine a scenario whereby the industry is extremely limited to start? Lawmakers have a great political reason to do it after all - they get to say that the industry will be small and thus easier to regulate... and they then get (directly or indirectly) campaign contributions from Caesar's/MGM.

If I'm not mistaken, the latest California bill had language that was going to severely limit competition there, so it's not like limited competition isn't something we should worry about.

Based on FP's performance ITT they couldn't convince a man dying of thirst in the desert to buy a bottle of water for a couple grains of sand. On the other hand it was a very entertaining train wreck. I thought PR type folks were supposed to know their audience?

Anymore I don't know what to do. I think Greg Raymer has done more than his share for online Poker. I don't think he would support FairPlayUSA unless he thought they would help get online poker in the USA. I don't think we can get online poker in the USA without Caesars on our side. I don't think pissing Caesars off can help us.

Right or wrong I signed the petition. I'm just hoping to get US online poker ASAP.

and i think your argument about the poker eco-system is flawed in that it your model is a closed system and the poker eco-system is an open system that will continually receive an influx of new energy ($$/players). So bleeding dry each generation of players is a perfectly sustainable model, as caesar's proves in its B&M operations.

But much respect for engaging on a rational level.

Agree to disagree with you.

Of course there should be a free market where any small site that wants to enter the market should be able to with excessive regulatory restriction. Is that even remotely on the table? Is anyone with any influence, besides Harry Reid and Barney Frank, going to use up political capital to get this small niche issue passed?

The casinos should be expected to do everything possible to maximize their interests. They have the most influence in getting legislation passed. They invested heavily in Harry Reid's reelection (most expensive Senate race ever I believe.) They now are going to maximize their payoff. Its terrible that is the way things are, but the alternative could be bill gambling bills getting killed in committee in perpetuity. Poker is really only a major issue to those who have a financial stake in it, and that is a small percentage of the population.

+1. Seems pretty obvious they didn't do enough research and just thought 2+2 would embrace them. That's a pretty horrible mistake for a PR firm, but is perhaps a little understandable.

To compound that mistake by making snarky comments, dodging questions, and then abandoning ship the way they did is just awful.

Their performance in this thread doesn't matter to the people who will be voting on the bill. They will be telling them that the bill will protect the children, protect problem gamblers, and protect players from being cheated by offshore sites. Those things are fact and that's what will convince people to be on our side, not how FairPlayUSA acted in an internet thread.

You are not understanding the point. We are saying that the fact that they sucked so hard in this thread is not a good sign that they will be able to convince people to be on our side.