Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

General Poker Discussion Discussion of other uncategorized topics related to poker.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2011, 11:37 PM   #651
gnvsnnkv
old hand
 
gnvsnnkv's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,455
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by novahunterpa View Post
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.
Pretty much this.

"The Middle Coast" issue is the culprit here, imo. It has never been addressed, not even by Fossilman. I, personally, can't support an organization that is trying to educate, dispel the stigma of poker as an industry being something very shady and sleazy, while not being too genuine themselves. Made me feel pretty used.

I think the idea is great and would still support the FP if they came here, addressed the mentioned issues and took the necessary steps to rectify the situation i.e.

On the C/M: Why would Caesars/MGM be aiming at creating a fair business ground for online poker in the US? Why would they pay millions of $, putting all the work behind opening the doors for anyone else? It's just very unfortunate that we, the players, could suffer because of it.
gnvsnnkv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2011, 11:57 PM   #652
icracknuts
old hand
 
icracknuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,508
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnvsnnkv View Post
Pretty much this.

"The Middle Coast" issue is the culprit here, imo. It has never been addressed, not even by Fossilman. I, personally, can't support an organization that is trying to educate, dispel the stigma of poker as an industry being something very shady and sleazy, while not being too genuine themselves. Made me feel pretty used.

I think the idea is great and would still support the FP if they came here, addressed the mentioned issues and took the necessary steps to rectify the situation i.e.

On the C/M: Why would Caesars/MGM be aiming at creating a fair business ground for online poker in the US? Why would they pay millions of $, putting all the work behind opening the doors for anyone else? It's just very unfortunate that we, the players, could suffer because of it.
Obviously the ground is not fair...but competition will still be there. There is little question to who would dominate the market. The ones with the most money and biggest name would of course have a huge advantage and most likely stay on top for many years. This is just how the world works.

Just like the poker scene where FT and STARS reign supreme; any legislation that passes will result in US based major casinos dominating the market.

Fight the system all you want....I prefer to stand behind the major casinos...I firmly believe what is good for them is good for the professional player.

Any legislation pushed by the casinos will most certainly emphasize fair taxation. Their bottom line is just as important or more so than ours.

We only suffer is legislation fails to pass. Any legislation will ease the suffering that is going on atm. More fish = more money = ability to pay higher rake(if that is what happens)
icracknuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 12:07 AM   #653
22riverrat22
veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: AmayAids™
Posts: 2,447
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by icracknuts View Post



What are you guys so worried about that you want to insult and run off supporters of online poker legislation?

Do you really think the rake is going to be so high that you won't profit?

How high would it be before this is the case?

remember that amount of weak players that would play with passing legislation...even if rake doubled(which is not likely); the influx of bad players would more then cover this...at least for awhile.

But that is a meaningless concern when currently the US online poker status is pretty much dead in the water.

I will take triple the rake; f it...quadruple it...if it means immediate legislation; count me in. Whats the alternative? Wait and pray for someone to carry our weight so that a perfect bill is drafted and passed? Keep waiting...that day may never come.
the bolded... ya.....

and what do you mean dead in the water, things are looking more promising than they have in a long time (just dont expect it to come before the other messes congress has going right now)
Quote:
Originally Posted by icracknuts View Post
Obviously the ground is not fair...but competition will still be there. There is little question to who would dominate the market. The ones with the most money and biggest name would of course have a huge advantage and most likely stay on top for many years. This is just how the world works.

Just like the poker scene where FT and STARS reign supreme; any legislation that passes will result in US based major casinos dominating the market.

Fight the system all you want....I prefer to stand behind the major casinos...I firmly believe what is good for them is good for the professional player.

Any legislation pushed by the casinos will most certainly emphasize fair taxation. Their bottom line is just as important or more so than ours.

We only suffer is legislation fails to pass. Any legislation will ease the suffering that is going on atm. More fish = more money = ability to pay higher rake(if that is what happens)
like ceasars and MGM are going to make an effort to compete with one another by offering decent rake, if you dont think it takes less than a handshake in a backroom to prevent that then lol, its already done



i dunno, basically your last few posts just sound irresponsible to me like a junkie needing a fix regardless of the cost
22riverrat22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 12:26 AM   #654
pianospike
adept
 
pianospike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,081
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news...r-online-poker
pianospike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 01:49 AM   #655
permafrost
old hand
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,968
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by permafrost View Post
You are good with the feds forcing online poker on states that don't want it? And they ought not complain? That is quite a change from your past stance, iirc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEngineer View Post
There's no proposal on the Hill that seeks to force online poker on unwilling states.
You said "they ought not complain if the feds do it for them." I wondered why you approve if that power grab were attempted. I'm not sure why you thought I asked about whether a proposal exists.
permafrost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 02:01 AM   #656
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 28,003
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by permafrost View Post
You said "they ought not complain if the feds do it for them." I wondered why you approve if that power grab were attempted. I'm not sure why you thought I asked about whether a proposal exists.
I was referring to the fact that no state has licensed online poker yet. As they have not, despite having over a decade to do so, they ought not complain if the feds pass legislation allowing interstate poker -- especially given that states will have some mechanism to opt out of participating.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 02:22 AM   #657
LirvA
self-banned
 
LirvA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Free Manning, Hammond, and Brown.
Posts: 42,857
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by FairPlayUSA View Post
Our new approach will include poker players while also bringing into the coalition law enforcement officials, internet consumer protection and safety advocates, and others concerned with the risks of illegal internet gambling.

Boy that sounds great


LirvA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 03:04 AM   #658
icracknuts
old hand
 
icracknuts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,508
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by 22riverrat22 View Post
the bolded... ya.....

and what do you mean dead in the water, things are looking more promising than they have in a long time (just dont expect it to come before the other messes congress has going right now)

like ceasars and MGM are going to make an effort to compete with one another by offering decent rake, if you dont think it takes less than a handshake in a backroom to prevent that then lol, its already done



i dunno, basically your last few posts just sound irresponsible to me like a junkie needing a fix regardless of the cost
I am talking about being able to play poker from the US is as bad as it has been. Major casinos supporting legislation is exactly what online poker needs. If you think a "grassroots" group of poker players is going to get the job done, you are sadly mistaken.

Irresponsible and a junkie is pretty absurd comment.

I am not going to be afraid of some obscene rake structure....which is the obvious reason this thread has become worthless.

To me, everyone afraid the big casinos are going to ruin the profitability of online poker is pure ignorance. And shows how naive a lot of posters are.

Like the saying goes, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you".

We need them and insulting their "staff" isn't going to help anybody.

You live in fear of casino pushed legislation; I welcome it. We will see who is right...if we are so lucky.
icracknuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 03:21 AM   #659
Land Of The Free?
old hand
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,695
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by icracknuts View Post
I am not going to be afraid of some obscene rake structure....which is the obvious reason this thread has become worthless.
Actually that's not the reason at all, so either you [deleted] can't understand what he reads or you didn't read the thread at all before commenting on the contents of the thread. [deleted]

Last edited by Rich Muny; 07-29-2011 at 03:25 AM. Reason: No need to get personal
Land Of The Free? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 06:09 AM   #660
rwperu34
Pooh-Bah
 
rwperu34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Please Help w the Daily Action Plan
Posts: 4,214
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by novahunterpa View Post
The only bad thing about the Reid proposals were they didn't pass. If C/M couldn't get a bill passed last year with Reid why should we believe they can now.
Players are more united and there is a lot more attention this time around are two off the top of my head.


Quote:
Originally Posted by novahunterpa View Post

We don't want FPUSA to become the "Voice" for regulation and legislation and to have FPUSA be seen as the Voice for players.
+1. The PPA needs to remain the voice of the players, even if they work with FPUSA.
rwperu34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 06:26 AM   #661
CheckRaise_
veteran
 
CheckRaise_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: too late axe in the car
Posts: 2,746
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

MGM/Ceasers probobly are just interested in passing legislation in hopes of securing the online poker market with a product of their own

regardless all they can do is help at this point
CheckRaise_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 06:37 AM   #662
JohnWilkes
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,013
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheckRaise_ View Post
MGM/Ceasers probobly are just interested in passing legislation in hopes of securing the online poker market with a product of their own

regardless all they can do is help at this point
If Ceasars cannot pass such legislation, Ceasar will settle for the total destruction of on line poker in US.
JohnWilkes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 08:37 AM   #663
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DrewOnTilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 106 miles to Chicago
Posts: 7,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnWilkes View Post
If Ceasars cannot pass such legislation, Ceasar will settle for the total destruction of on line poker in US.
This is exactly why we need to engage them. I don't know if you have noticed or not, but in case you haven't: online poker in the US is taking its last breath already.
DrewOnTilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 09:42 AM   #664
Riverwood
The Situation
 
Riverwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 581
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

I think some are overlooking the points mpethy is talking about. His post on ethics are clear cut and I commend him on this stand.

About the treatment of C/M toward the poker players:
6 months ago, a skilled player could make 2.5pt/BB at NL50 and be toward the top of the food chain. 6 years ago, it didn't take near the skill level to obtain the same win rate. The game has gotten tougher. This caused many players to simply quit the game, because they no longer were able to show a profit.

If we get legislation that severely increases rake (fewer providers will do this), the games will even get tougher. Some ITT believe that the poker eco system will not allow this. I believe they are wrong. Look at the standard B&M games now. There is no way to obtain a standard win rate, yet people flock to them.

Most on here look at poker as a game of skill and expect to achieve a certain WR. The fact is, many more see it as another form of gamboling. They aren't going to care the the game is unbeatable. They just want to fork over the $100 on any night they choice and see if they can run it up.

If we don't get the CORRECT legislation, poker can reach this point. So, we don't need to jump at the 1st bone thrown to us simply because it means we get to play faster.

I mean really, how many of you expect to make a profit off of poker if the rake is 2x,3x, or higher like some have said they'd accept? I would simply just stop playing. I don't play the B&M games for this very same reason.
Riverwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 10:03 AM   #665
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DrewOnTilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 106 miles to Chicago
Posts: 7,748
Love these guys or hate them, they are doing at least a few things right in terms of getting attention. Go to Google News and search "internet gambling." An ad for FairPlayUSA is the first ad shown.
DrewOnTilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 11:25 AM   #666
gman339
veteran
 
gman339's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Is online poker back yet?
Posts: 3,449
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverwood View Post
There is no way to obtain a standard win rate, yet people flock to them.
Not sure what you are saying by this. Are you saying the lives games are unbeatable or just that it's impossible to calculate your actual win rate since no one knows how many hands they have played?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverwood View Post
If we don't get the CORRECT legislation, poker can reach this point. So, we don't need to jump at the 1st bone thrown to us simply because it means we get to play faster.
I understand what you are saying. I think for a lot of players though their concern is not about getting to play faster, but getting to play at all. Let's face it, we have not made a lot of progress since the passing of the UIGEA. Due to BF, we have gotten a lot of press and some may feel that this is not only our best chance but possibly our last real chance to make something happen. That's doesn't mean we should just line up and support anyone who comes along claiming to be "pro" online poker. At the same time though, we shouldn't just blow someone off who could potentially help our cause because all of their interests don't line up with ours.
gman339 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 11:34 AM   #667
DonkeyQuixote
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: setting strawman arguments ablaze
Posts: 3,283
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnWilkes View Post
If Ceasars cannot pass such legislation, Ceasar will settle for the total destruction of on line poker in US.
No, that does not fill their need for access to as younger demographic or get them entry to the market.

Based upon 2011 statements by Jan Jones, Caesars would likely slug it out at the State level in larger markets, while keeping a federal oversight effort alive.
DonkeyQuixote is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 11:36 AM   #668
Lovesantiques
A Classic
 
Lovesantiques's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New Castle, Delaware
Posts: 3,879
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu View Post
Let me tell you a little about my interactions with FairPlayUSA and my take on them.

First off, there is no question in my mind that they are an astroturf organization. Amazingly enough, I believe that Marisa and the rest of the FPU staff believe their own claims that they are a grassroots organization and not an astroturf. The explanation for this will follow.

My interactions with FPU began last week, starting with a phone call I received from Greg Raymer. He told me of his involvement as a member of their Advisory Board, and wanted to find out if I'd be interested in doing work for them in a similar manner to what TE does for the PPA. I said I could be interested but had a lot of questions (which would have largely revolved around whether or not FPU would be truly grassroots, i.e. input from players would matter). The next step according to Greg was supposed to be a phone call from David Satz of Ceasars (Vice President of Government Relations and Development), but that call never came.

As I found out later, what actually happened after my discussion with Greg was an e-mail from Greg to Marisa about me, including a suggestion that I receive compensation (pay) for my work (something Greg & I discussed). This, according to Marisa, "sparked an internal conversation about having a paid person from the PPA/2+2", and it didn't go any further. (Note: Means "paid person" for FPU, not that I am paid by PPA or 2+2 - I am just a volunteer for both.)

So here is my take on this part of it (speculation): David Satz, a senior lobbyist for Ceasars, came up with the idea of funding a new organization to muster public advocacy support from interests groups that could be aligned with Ceasers federal online poker legislation goals. The money was put up by Ceasars and MGM to start (others have been approached, according to Greg) and Middle Coast LLC was selected to staff it.

The intent was to develop a "grassroots campaign", which in the political advocacy industry has a very specific definition which differs greatly from the common definition. To them, "grassroots" means that it involves garnering the support of individuals of special interest groups who will express support for their political agenda when called upon through e-mails, phone calls, petitions, etc. to Congresscritters. This is distinct from "lobbying", which is a process of one-on-one meetings with Congresscritters by paid lobbyists.

To us, this specialized definition of "grassroots" is nearly identical to the definition of "astroturf". To them, this definition of "grassroots" is just a common definition within their industry, and incredibly enough is not equitable in their mind to "astroturf". To Marisa, their use of "grassroots campaign" was truly not a lie, and they do not believe that they are an astroturf organization.

What is the difference in their mind? I think that within their industry there is distinct definition for "astroturf" just as there is for "grassroots". In my communications with Marisa (more on that later), she knows of and considers Poker Voters of America to be an "astroturf". To them, an "astroturf" must be an organization that purports to do what FPU is doing, but doesn't actually.

So really you have two types of astroturf: 1) an organization with a set political agenda that reaches out to individuals of special interest groups that agree with the agenda, in order to get these individuals to participate in coordinated citizen lobbying efforts (as opposed to lobbying by paid lobbyists); and 2) an organization with a set political agenda that purports to do #1 but in reality uses that as a cover to do their own direct lobbying by paid lobbyists under the guise of representing the wishes of citizens. FairPlayUSA is type #1. PVOA is type #2. Marisa and her staff do not consider type #1 to be an "astroturf" but rather the very definition of "grassroots" - hence all the back and forth in this thread.

More to follow...
Thank you for both of your posts (only one quoted here.) This clears up a lot of the confusion that quite a few of us in this thread have been having.

Totally different definitions for the same term, resulting in confusion and charges of lying. I learned all about the hazards of such things while studying philosophy way back when while in college. Here, though, the blame can be fairly (it seems to me) placed on FairPlayUSA because they should have known that they were using the term "grassroots" in the opposite manner of the general public.

Why can't they just use the same definition of "grassroots" as the general public? I know, a rhetorical question....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg (FossilMan) View Post
tldr warning.

First, let me apologize for not posting in this thread since the start. I am currently on vacation with my family. I took off some time from that Tuesday morning to make my initial post, and was trading a whole bunch of emails with Erin and Marisa early Tuesday (east coast time) to help them with some of your initial questions and concerns. And I warned them that you would be a tough group with lots of hard questions. ;-) Since then, I have been busy with my wife and daughter and visiting relatives until today.

I would like to make it clear that I have been paid nothing by FPUSA, nor by Caesars, MGM, or anybody else in exchange for my involvement on the Board of Advisors. There is also no promise of future payments, endorsement deals, or anything else of even marginal value. The only promise involving money is that if I travel or otherwise spend money on behalf of FPUSA, that I will be reimbursed. So, no matter what, I will break even financially with respect to my involvement here. Zero profit potential.

On a related note, PX wrote in post #543 his involvement with FPUSA, mentioning me. He also mentioned himself getting paid. I had told FPUSA that they could use somebody like The Engineer, who would spend lots of time on the forums, and could point them to relevant threads and answer questions on their behalf, and do it so well. I recommended that they talk to PX, but only after I spoke to him about it. PX is the one who asked if this were going to be a paid position, and I told him that was between him and FPUSA, but that I would support the idea of him being paid, just as I supported it when the PPA decided to hire Rich Muny in a paid position to continue his efforts here on 2+2 and elsewhere. I was not trying to buy off or bribe PX, nor was FPUSA IMO.

Anything I post is my opinion only, and not necessarily the official position of FPUSA. Anything posted by the FPUSA account IS their official position, whether the person actually typing the post is Erin, Marisa, or anybody else (not that I know of anybody else who might be posting thereunder). So not really sure why this has been such a big deal to so many of you.

Here is my understanding of why FPUSA exists, and why I agreed to be on their Board of Advisors and lend my support. Without a doubt, FPUSA has been funded by Caesars/MGM (hereinafter C/M), and they are behind its creation. Obviously I do not expect FPUSA to ever take a position or make efforts that are contrary to the best interests of C/M. But FPUSA is not equal to C/M. With respect to lobbying and otherwise working to get legislation passed, there are things that C/M can do. But there are things that are not easy for them to do directly, but which an organization like FPUSA can do. IMO, the main purpose of FPUSA is not to try and get any specific legislation passed, nor to advocate for any detailed issue, such as low rake, high rake, who does or does not get a license, etc. The purpose of FPUSA is to build public support as broadly as possible for the general concept that online poker should be legal, licensed, and regulated.

We know that all poker players are behind this concept. But amongst the bulk of the population who don't play poker at all, or very infrequently, how many of them are behind this concept? Many of these people are indifferent to our concerns, and many are actively opposed (because they think all gambling is evil and dangerous or whatever). The purpose of FPUSA is to enlighten as many of this latter group as possible, and get them to support the cause of online poker. And that is it.

It is not the goal of FPUSA to get a bill passed that creates a duopoly for C/M. C/M can make that push on their own if they choose, but won't be using FPUSA to make that push for them. If they did such a thing through FPUSA, I would be stepping down immediately. If they used FPUSA to advocate any clearly anti-player positions, I would step down immediately.

I decided to help FPUSA, for free, because I felt that helping them would help me and all poker players obtain the licensed and regulated online poker that we all want. But I do not think that FPUSA is going to help, or hurt, when the fight becomes about more than just getting online poker, but getting it with all the details just the way we would like them. But until we get licensed and regulated online poker at all, there is no point in all of us engaging in in-fighting about the details of how it is licensed and regulated.

Now none of this means that questions about how legislation is worded, and all those details, aren't important at this time. They are legitimate issues that we should worry about now AND later. But the purpose of FPUSA, as I understand it, is not about any of those details. It is just about building a broader coalition of support for the generic idea of promoting licensed and regulated online poker in some form. All of us as individuals, as well as our other groups like the PPA, and organizations like C/M as well as other interests, will work on the details as they also try to get online poker licensed and regulated.

So, IMO, if you want to see online poker in the US, you should support FPUSA. If you care about the details, which pretty much all of us do, then you also support the PPA and make a lot of personal effort with your representatives, to make sure that the details are as favorable as possible to the players.

So, even though a lot of tough, and appropriate, questions have been asked of FPUSA, and even though many of you did not like the answers given, I think you need to consider what FPUSA is, and why it is, and in doing so I believe you will find that supporting FPUSA is in your interests.

I will continue to be on vacation with my family all this week at least through the weekend, but I will try to come back to this thread as often as possible. And if I'm not responding as fast as I should, I apologize. Try using twitter to get my attention (@FossilMan) if its really important, or using the contact button on my website, as my webmaster will forward that to me (www.FossilManPoker.com). While I try to visit 2+2 about once a day most of the time, there are times like this where I can't really do so. And thanks to you who DM'd me here about the thread. I was aware of it obv, but just hadn't been able to be more involved at this time, as already discussed. And big thanks to those who said nice things about me in this thread. I truly appreciate it.

Thanks, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)
Thank you for writing this, Greg. I only wish that Erin and Marisa had said the same things at the start of this thread that you and PokerXanadu are now saying some 550+ posts into it. A lot of hard feelings and misunderstandings would have been avoided, it seems to me!

What a shame that lobbyists can't just be straightforward and openly honest - in the same, honorable, sense that the 2 of you are, not by their own twisted definitions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote View Post
Greg,

No apology is necessary. Thanks for your insight.

Unfortunately the bolded portion of your post above, combined with the underlined portion that follows explain precisely why FPUSA had to present itself as a "coaltion", a "non-profit campaign", et cetera and "disavow any C/M direction of its mission".

Precisely because, as you point out, FPUSA will NEVER , "ever take a position or make efforts that are contrary to the best interests of C/M" it is dishonest for Middle Coast LLC to pretend it is anything more than a front FOR Casears/MGM.

We get that Caesars/MGM cannot directly post for itself and pretend it is a "grassroots" coalition, that would be implausible deniabilityI guess. So, ..... C/M hires a PR firm to front for it, tasked with building support for a specific agenda which Caesars created and controls in its own best interest.

Good luck with FPUSA, just remember to cut the cards twice before every hand you play with them.
Yes, cut the cards and "trust but verify". But I am more in agreement with Greg on this one. Caesars and MGM can only control to a limited degree.

Taking what FairPlayUSA is saying at face value (risky, but probably correct here, given their total lack of support for any specific bill and their refusal to lobby congress themselves) then they are looking to educate the public as to the advantages of fully legalizing, regulating, and taxing on-line poker.

This is something that we should all applaud. And the end result doesn't have to be tailor made for Caesars and MGM to benefit. They'll end up benefitting from ANY bill that legalizes poker and lets them participate.

As I noted above, it is a shame that FairPlayUSA didn't say at the start of this discussion the same things that Greg and PokerXanadu are now saying.

Maybe (please take this hint to heart, Marisa) their website could be updated to include Greg's quote in particular? In full - or perhaps slightly rewritten by him for the purpose? That would help a lot, I would think!!

Lee

Last edited by Lovesantiques; 07-29-2011 at 11:38 AM. Reason: added a word
Lovesantiques is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 11:47 AM   #669
Riverwood
The Situation
 
Riverwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 581
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by gman339 View Post
Not sure what you are saying by this. Are you saying the lives games are unbeatable or just that it's impossible to calculate your actual win rate since no one knows how many hands they have played?
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear on this. I was referring to games such as Black Jack and Slots.


I understand what you are saying. I think for a lot of players though their concern is not about getting to play faster, but getting to play at all. Let's face it, we have not made a lot of progress since the passing of the UIGEA. Due to BF, we have gotten a lot of press and some may feel that this is not only our best chance but possibly our last real chance to make something happen. That's doesn't mean we should just line up and support anyone who comes along claiming to be "pro" online poker. At the same time though, we shouldn't just blow someone off who could potentially help our cause because all of their interests don't line up with ours.
Maybe this is what is skewing my thought process. I've always believed that we will have legislated ipoker. I thought this before BF. I believe it's just a matter of time. Again, jmo.
Riverwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 12:17 PM   #670
Fiveafterfive
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 353
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnWilkes View Post
If Ceasars cannot pass such legislation, Ceasar will settle for the total destruction of on line poker in US.
Isn't operating online poker from a Indian Reservation in the US really the quickest and easiest short term solution?
Fiveafterfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 12:30 PM   #671
PokerXanadu
Commander X-2
 
PokerXanadu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 10,583
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveafterfive View Post
Isn't operating online poker from a Indian Reservation in the US really the quickest and easiest short term solution?
No. They can't offer i-poker to players located outside tribal lands any more than a state can pass a law to offer i-poker to players in other states.
PokerXanadu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 12:59 PM   #672
Fiveafterfive
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 353
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troveur View Post
Lets get 1 thing straight--you are not a grassroots operation. You are a astroturf group funded by Ceasars/MGM (as you have already admitted) that want to pretend they come from a grassroots campaign.

Any bills that may be advocated by this group will 100% be in the big casinos interest first and foremost. Clearly any player interests that may conflict or oppose casino interests will be ignored.
Last I heard this is how politics works.

As for input from players I think that the marketplace will dictate what the operators will and will not offer.

Poker players do not have many options at this point.
Fiveafterfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 01:49 PM   #673
JohnWilkes
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,013
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

We will have to go where the fish are or we will not play. The fish will go to where the TV ads tell them to go. Rake will mean nothing to them and little to us.
JohnWilkes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 01:50 PM   #674
Jonaspublius
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The America becoming
Posts: 2,182
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

It is pretty clear this group is not a player group. Why not just shrug and move on? They stated they won't lobby, and they won't organize. It has been clear from the first that neither the online rooms or the B&M casinos would ever back a player-oriented, player-run organization. I think they will realize sooner than later that failing to spend the LITTLE money it would take, compared to their direct lobbying and astroturfing, to get players organzied and working was a huge mistake when legislation is stalled or crippled by the far right.

If Caesar's takes anything from this thread its that players won't respond favorably to measures like this, but if they come honestly to the table with good faith and $, there is a whole lot of goodwill to be gained, and a lot of active political support for this. You may never become what Party or Stars were, but you will make money from us, if you commit to work with us.
Jonaspublius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2011, 01:59 PM   #675
alecr45
journeyman
 
alecr45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 217
Re: New Organization supporting online poker legislation

I'll be the first to admit that I am not an expert on this issue, but I have followed the legislation efforts since UIGEA first passed.

Firstly, the only way I ever see ANY federal legislation passed is if the big casinos are completely behind it. There is no way the Federal Government will be allowing PS/FTP or whoever back in the US market. (The software has a chance to be licensed, but the companies will never come back). Everything I have seen in the bill department requires a casino to have been a land based casino, etc.

If the big casinos are not behind it, there is just no way the bill will have the support (money) to be pushed through. What's the closest we ever came to a federal legislation bill? Dec. 2010 with Harry Reid. How did that happen? Caesers/MGM lobbying Harry Reid. Unfortunately, in today's politics our politicians are following the money.

FairPlay USA may have made some statements that some perceived as misleading. Regardless, I believe it is to ALL of our best interests to work with them so we have a voice with Caesers/MGM. The only way this will ever get done is with their support. We have chance to at least have our opinions heard here and we take their wording of "grassroots" and "not for profit" and immediately cast off on them?

We need them in our corner for the eventual pass of federal legislation.

I know people are in this thread talking about how the casinos just plan to **** us.

Really? How is that in the best interests of the casinos? Firstly, there will be multiple casinos offering poker if federal legislation passes. Will it be hundreds? Probably not, especially in the beginning. But there will be more than one.

I don't understand how having 2-3 big casinos serving US players automatically means they will be out to *** us? PS, FTP, UB could have raised their rake and made it more player unfriendly. As we can see now, they had literally almost no competition in the US.

Why didn't they? Because they competed with each other and knew that was not a good strategy....which is what I believe the US casinos will do as well.

Think of the marketing/advertising the big casinos will do here. Between the few casinos offering online poker in the beginning, there will be fierce competition. The casinos need the multi table grinders (more rake) (the only site who ever did not allow this to my knowledge was Bodog, specifically because they wanted their sportsbook to be the main attraction, which the land casinos will not have). I believe 100% that they will compete for our business. Online poker is a hugely profitable venture....even at fair rates to the players.

We will never have legalized online poker without support of the large casinos. Yes, they initially were responsible for UIGEA and now understand this was a mistake. They are trying now....which is much more than we have had for quite a while and I believe we need to support them in any way possible. Passing federal legislation is going to be difficult enough, the last thing we need to do is segregate ourselves over the wording used in the posts of one of their staff members.
alecr45 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive