There's an embedded assumption here that Reid's FPUSA subsidiary makes me nervous about embracing.

You are misreading, but thats my fault. I explicitly dont think you are doing anything but working for the poker community or doing anything you dont honestly think is in the poker community's best interest right now.

You guys have done your best in what you think is best in a tough spot.

I think you are likely all-in on '12 and there's not much of a future for the organization, as is, if that fails and we head down the intrastate path. I think you guys have made some strategic mistakes, but Id never question the integrity or whose interests you were attempting to work for.

Well then you might as well spell out the assumption.

If you think that if Reid and the casinos fail to get online poker legal this year they are then going to turn around and embrace further Federal laws against online poker next year I think you are very wrong.

And for all we really know at this point it is possible that the next Congress will be better for online poker than this one.

And if Congress remains clearly unable to act on the issue then we are preparing for ways to help move things state by state.

Skallagrim.

I won't try to take anything away from this as yea it is cool they did this BUT. if the people who make and pass our laws can't attach any kind of Ipoker bill because it would kill the other bill, the FOP writing a letter to these people didn't get us any closer to getting Ipoker.

I don't believe this for a second. It seems the PPA cares more about keeping their lobbyists employed and the IGC happy fighting for federal legislation instead of whats in the best interests of the player.

Why doesn't the PPA get behind some of the state efforts to pass online poker legislation along with the federal push? Why put all your eggs in one basket on the federal front where the chance of success are slim at best. How come no daily action plan for any state efforts?

FYP.

You meant "advance poker players' interests", correct ?

So, why shy away from the opportunity to get online poker before a pool of "lotttery" players ? I think those players interests in playing in a highly liquid arena are hurt by actions and statements which, however inadvertantly, cast player representatives on one side of the casino/lottery wrestling match.

I also think that the PPA can have a critical role in providing player input at the State level, where the action appears to be advancing, but not with its current DC-centric focus and inability to raise funds from players themselves.

I disagree here. I think the PPA thinks that the Federal legislation route is best for the players. They probably arent wrong about that.

I thought it seemed insulting, too and a bit short-sighted, but the perception may have been something born from frustration, not mean-spiritedness by anyone. (I'll take LG at his word that, bottom line, any perceived insult was not intended.)

If no federal licensing authority passes in 2013, or if it becomes State-centric, then the slogan should be "Don't mourn, re-organize.".

I think the PPA leadership is capable of re-focussing in 2013 if needed, getting player funding on a sustainable basis, and moving forward representing players, wherever the industry develops online.

That may involve a serious change in its allocation of resources away from the Hill and DC lobbyists, but the Board should be capable of such change.

Ceasars' astroturf organization wants Congressional action to choke off intrastate gaming of all shapes and sizes and unlicensed foreign gaming. Its far from clear that Harry Reid or the AGA (currently neutral to Federal legislation IIRC) wouldnt view that as a 2nd best alternative to bridge to the day Federal i-poker was palatable.

Right now there is a food fight going on between lotteries, tribes, and casinos but there is one area of common ground...they'd all like to see all i-poker currently offered in the US banned. Restricting the state-by-state option would give the casino interests more leverage at the table for the future carving of a Federal pie.

Its particularly a risk because Harry's a favorite to lose his majority leader role next year. His majority leader role provides our only realistic shot at passing legislation as there is no evidence we are anywhere close to passing a stand alone bill.

It was more frustration, mostly because I dont think there is much, if any, probability of the PPA successfully moving to a state-centric strategy or getting self-sustaining player funding at this point and continue to be baffled at how smart, well-meaning, dedicated folks continue to drastically overestimate our chances for success at the Federal level.

I probably shouldnt have said it and I honestly didnt think about the integrity implication. Only the fact that I, unfortunately, think that the PPA is not well equipped for fighting for our rights if '12 turns into a pumpikin.

no

We don't have infinite resources, and taking anything from the federal effort could be the difference between success and failure.

The daily action plan is not generated by PPA. It is generated by the poker community. If you think of state actions you'd like to see, please post a proposed plan in one of the daily action threads.

No, that can't be it. That paragraph strangely asks for a framework for "legal gaming" (and that already exists). Sad to say, we have NO legal internet poker sites yet, so the legal gaming phrase can't include them. I ask again, how does that letter lead to some kind of call for Congress to act on online poker?

Also, why does legal internet gaming need more "framework" than the obvious one that it already has?

How do you know all gaming license discussions included poker sites?

Also, if you are saying the FOP letter favors fed gaming licenses, where do they say that?

LOL, nice. ..... and "To Serve Man" turned out to be a cookbook ?

While I appreciate the positive spin people are trying to put on this, FWIW, I'm with LetsGambool. The letter actually made me feel a bit uneasy. A clear statement supporting a strong regulatory framework for online poker would have been boss. But as written, it does not excite me. And if that's the best they can do, I'm close to giving up and moving on.

Wouldn't it be cool if the North Koreans gave up their militaristic dictatorship, embraced democracy and human rights, turned their industry towards feeding their people and abandoned their nuclear weapons? That would indeed be cause for excitement.

Suppose they just gave up nuclear weapons? Would that NOT be cause for excitement simply because they could do so much more?

Similarly, the concession by the NFOP that they would be OK with allowing us to play poker (or whatever, from their point of view) pursuant to federal licensing legislation is cause for excitement. These are folks who only a few years ago preferred that we all be locked up as criminals.

It ain't all it could have been, but it is still a good step forward. And it should be taken for what it's worth.

Skallagrim

Groups like this lined up against us in 2006 and prior, claiming that online gaming would create a tsunami of crime and addiction. Many on Capitol Hill still believe this (I hear it all the time), while others there simply need political cover to be able to support us.

Bringing law enforcement over to our side in any fashion really is huge for us.

North Korea isn't a bad analogy. North Korea sometimes give minor concessions they could later renege on at no cost to themselves as well. This is a slightly better deal than most offered by North Korea though because it might go somewhere a small % of the time.

It's pretty straightforward. The NFOP may make a compromise that is poker friendly, which is good. They may help bury poker if the political winds turn, which is bad. It's good for Federal Legislation in 12, no doubt. One thing they are most certainly not doing is telling Congress to support poker.

It would be as accurate to have said in 2006 "FOF tells Congress to support online gambling on horse racing" because they supported UIGEA. No it's not semantics, because the title implies we have new supporters in the fight in Congress. We don't, we have a group that might be willing to compromise now or burn us later. Good for the Federal route, maybe not so good for plan B IMO. To read it otherwise requires Baghdad Bob type spin around why poker support doesn't mention poker.

I think your interpretation takes just as much spin. You're picking and choosing individual words and sentences to literally interpret without any context.

Disagree obviously, but hope you're right.

Im curious as to what context you are seeing though. I see a letter asking for stronger enforcement against illegal gaming, one mention of regulating legal gaming, and zero mention of the word poker.

What do you see that suggests NFOP would only support stronger action against illegal gaming in conjunction with Federal regulation of online poker? Always possible Im missing something.

Top paragraph on the 2nd page, I'm paraphrasing here:

"Millions of americans currently engage in offshore gambling"
-This has to be poker. If you take out poker, there are NOT millions of americans playing pit games via offshore sites. When you talk about volume in the millions of players, that can only be poker.

"Freeh/Ridge op ed identified a need for regulation and we the FoP agree."
-That op ed piece was about poker and specifically mentioned poker several times.

"Players are unable to go to a court in order to get quick and accurate cashouts", "framework for legal gaming", "no regulatory controls to prevent misuse of customer financial data"
-This obviously implies the desire for legalization, not for increased bans. If they merely wanted to crack down on overseas sites without creating legal US sites, they would not have identified these problems since cracking down on overseas sites will not fix the problem of allowing US players to 'seek legal recourse when victimized'

--

so - yes, FoP never says 'poker'. But the volume of players they describe and the studies they quote are both about poker, so that clearly indicates to me that the letter is about poker. Lots of people use gambling synonymously with poker or as a more general term since theres no need to be so specific so the lack of the word poker doesn't bother me one bit.

And regarding whether they just want to shutdown illegal sites vs creating legal ones - most of the specific problems they identify are completely irrelevant if the end result is just shutting down offshore sites. That whole paragraph only makes sense as a list of features to include in regulations to create legal US poker sites. Right, i mean, why say "oh noes, people can't go to court to get redress if they are victimized by fraud" if they just want to shutdown illegal sites which still wont allow people to go to court to seek redress.

I don't think they would "only" support stronger action against illegal gaming in conjunction with Federal regulation of online poker (nor do we need them to). The point is that instead of only supporting an outright prohibition, now they have come around to possibly supporting regulation. Is that a seismic shift in our favor? No. But is definitely favorable news for us.

Rollwave-

Federal legislation which has only all the following fit all your points and the FoP letter:

1. UIGEA-II: Clarify the Wire Act to cover all types of interstate and international online gaming that are not currently authorized (all but horse racing, lotteries and intrastate); and change the UIGEA to turn enforcement over to the DOJ with additional enforcement tools.

2. Establish strict federal regulatory standards for intrastate online gaming that a state chooses to license and regulate, and including horse racing and state lotteries.

If the FoP also supports such federal legislation which includes the licensing and regulation of interstate/international online poker, they should have said so. We shouldn't have to pick apart their letter with our rose-colored glasses, looking for details that we can argue means they must support ipoker.

Yes, I agree that it is somewhat favorable news for us. But it is a far cry from "tells Congress to support poker!" I think it has more to do with the DOJ opinion letter on the Wire Act than any call for ipoker legislation.

Back when the states were calling for the prohibition of Internet gambling, the FoP took a stance with the call for prohibition. Now that many of the states are calling for the licensing of Internet gambling, the FoP is taking the stance that there has to be a strict federal regulatory framework for "legal gaming", and clear laws and enforcement against illegal online gaming. I don't take away from this that the FoP is making some significant shift in their opinion of online gaming or online poker.

Their opinion used to be that all online gaming was bad and should be illegal.

Now their opinion is that unlicensed, offshore online gaming is bad and should be illegal but if the Federal government wants to license some online gaming that would be OK.

Remember that old saying about not being able to see the forest because of concentrating too much on the trees?

Skallagrim