PPA has decided they're against California intranet poker, and wants me to send letters to the California Legislature.

The most discussed proposal however, would create a state-sponsored monopoly which would be a huge step backwards for online poker players in California. So we need you to voice your concern before this hearing! If you have not acted already please do TODAY.

We are concerned, however, when state proposals, like the one being contemplated in California, seek to cut Internet players off from the rest of the world and limit their choice in the marketplace.

I would welcome a California poker intranet. I'm tired of big poker sites like Stars and FTP that operate on Eastern time. All their tournaments are on Eastern time. The tourney that starts at 9PM Eastern starts during my dinnertime. The weekend tourneys that start at 1 or 2 PM Eastern start in the early AM.

Did PPA take a vote of its California members before sending out this mailing? Or is PPA just doing the bidding of FTP and Stars?

What time do the Stars & FTP tournaments that start at 4pm or 12am Eastern start in California?

Note that the California intrastate poker sites, as proposed in the current legislation, will likely have few tournament choices as the player pool will be much, much smaller than what you find on PS and FTP. You'll also probably pay much higher rake and fees.

Player pool will be fine. Sweden has population 9mil and govt run site has decent pool California has 4x population which should lead to a juicy player pool. On top of this licensed and regulated in US means credit card direct deposit easy cashouts and bigger pool base because of trustworthiness. Player pool should probably be comparable to FT. Fees will be less bc no reliance on Neteller etc. Accounts will not got frozen and funds will not get seized. Why would rake go up...my guess is that it most likely would be less.

Most likely in my opinion which would be a shame. It's one thing when an organization/media group is obviously delivering false hopes and propaganda which everyone can recognize but another thing when it sits under the guise of "player interest". More like "affiliate interest" if you ask me.

This (which I assume is the critical part of their letter if not all of it) seems 100% true to me.

Going to OP's complaints regarding tournament schedules, I don't understand your issue or how you think a monopoly intrastate site would help. I'm in Mountain Time (only an hour better than you) and can find plenty of tournaments at any time during the evening and well past the time I'd want to be starting another. It is true that some of the tournaments with bigger guarantees start at times more optimal for the East coast. Why do you think that is? The answer should be obvious and this proposal isn't going to make it better.

Do you think a monopoly is going to give you the tournament schedule you want? Enough players to give you plenty of choices for cash games at the limits you prefer (if you play them). Comparable or cheaper rake than what you pay now?

I'll concede that there might be a few advantages over the status quo, the main one being the ability to move money onto and off the site and a clear legal status (assuming the DOJ doesn't take exception to the California Legislature's right to do this under some pretense).

Something additonal that might not be a concern to California PPA members, but is to those in the other 48 states, is the precendent this would set. This is a model that will work for a limited number of states and would potentially throw the rest of us under the bus.

IMO the PPA is doing what is best for all their members including those in California. Whether this is what PS and FTP would prefer or not is immaterial.

Also, a CA-only game might offer some other advantages:

1. The house would be accountable to someone. Who do you trust, the CA State Gaming Control Board, or the Kahwanake Gaming Commission? Where can you sue? Los Angeles? Or the Isle of Man? (Assuming CA doesn't put the damn Indians in charge of the whole thing.)

2. Would there be more or fewer fish? Who cares whether there are hundreds or thousands of players, or where they are, or anything else besides what proportion of fish there are? Who would be the most likely players? Probably a mix of cardroom regs and new players who don't live near a cardroom.

It's entirely possible that other US states could link to the CA game, just like with the Powerball and Mega Millions interstate lotteries.

I'd welcome it, too. What I'd not welcome are steps CA would take to ban non-CA sites. Keep in mind that the tribal leader of a tribe seeking this testified at the last Congressional hearing on federal legislation in favor of UIGEA. In fact, he acted like poker players are stealing his money by playing online rather than playing at his casinos.

CA licensed sites would enjoy tremendous competitive advantages over non-licensed sites, for reasons already mentioned ITT, so why do they need protection? Their desire to put up a protectionist wall just reeks of a high-rake plan to me.

[ ] Because the player pool will be sufficient, you should back the current monopoly legislation.
[x] There are better options to pursue.

[ ] Competition and lower costs will keep the rake down.
[x] Rake will be at least equivalent to the B&M casinos because it will be a monopoly plus any lower costs will be offset by higher government taxes.

[x] There will be better consumer protections versus current offshore sites without U.S. licensing.
[x] Some of the Indian tribes are behind this legislation and the legislation and regulations will favor them over the consumers.

[x] Likely there will be a higher percentage of fish (not necessarily more in terms of real numbers, just a higher percentage of the player pool, whatever number that may be) versus the current offshore site.
[x] Likely there will be far fewer game and stake choices due to little to no activity most times of the day, so you won't get to play the fish much except some evenings and some hours on the weekends.

[ ] The DOJ won't apply the Wire Act and the UIGEA to stop interstate online poker compacts.
[x] It will take an act of Congress to make interstate online poker compacts legal, which is likely to take one or two more decades to gather enough steam to pass and only if enough states first implement an intrastate online poker system.

[x] States will want to reap far greater revenues through taxation of monopoly intrastate online poker systems than will be garnered through the current proposed federal legislation. It will be far easier for a state to raise their taxation at any time, thereby raising costs to players through rake or loss of competitive promotions (rakeback, bonuses, etc.), than for a change to be made in the federal government fees on poker sites under federal licensing and regulation.

If it eventually comes down to the a choice of only intrastate legislation as currently proposed in California (a protectionist monopoly system), then that may be the way to go. However, there is no precedent set yet anywhere in the country for intrastate online poker. Don't jump at the current California proposal as the right solution, since a far better solution can be found, forwarded and implemented (if no federal legislation is passed). There is no reason to settle now for the monopoly system being touted by the California Indians. Even the current NJ bill, which outlaws playing on anything but the in-state sites but a least allows the offshore sites to be competitive system providers to the casinos, is far better than that.

Below is my scale (revised), from best to worst, of the possible state legislation options. The California proposal is the worst option of those that include intrastate licensing.

1. Pass federal legislation and remain an opt-in state.
2. Intrastate licensing of payment processors to process online poker transactions (the Skallagrim Solution).
3. Intrastate licensing available to all sites, in-state and foreign.
4. Intrastate licensing of existing casinos with choice to be a skin for existing foreign sites.
5. Intrastate licensing of existing casinos for in-state sites only, but no provision to make unlicensed site offerings illegal.
6. Intrastate licensing of existing casinos for in-state sites only under a competitive system, and making all other sites illegal.
7. Intrastate licensing of existing casinos for in-state sites only under a state-run monopoly system, and making all other sites illegal.
8. Make all site offerings illegal.
9. Make playing illegal.
10. Make all site offerings illegal and make playing illegal.

The Morongos did not help us by testifying at the UIGEA hearings. They need to see a PPA boycott to understand the might of the grassroots organization in California. Is there a grassroots organization in CA?

A strategy of incremental legalization is possible and should not be summarily dismissed by the PPA. At worst, a strong educational message may need to be communicated to CA PPA members if national solidarity is more important than allowing a CA legalization regime. CA is much larger than Sweden.

Incremental legalization is one thing. Incremental legalization where you give a broke-ass state a revenue source, and then expect them to pass laws that give up some of that revenue for no tangible benefit... yeah, not so much.

Look eobmtns, when you say something like what I have bolded above you add ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the debate. Do you suppose that if PPA were supporting this it would mean that the PPA was just "doing the bidding of the Morongo tribe" ?

As to whether the PPA should support it or not, you should by now see that there are obviously 2 sides and that neither position is perfect.

My PERSONAL VIEW, and (based on my limited and hardly scientific sampling of poker players) the view MOST players have, is that an in-state only monopoly site is the WORST possible model for legal online poker.

It is, of course, still better than online poker being illegal; but thats about it.

Skallagrim

Today, when you play online poker you compete with other individuals from across the United States and the world. Essentially you are part of a multi-million person global network of poker players. Under the “intra-state” model being pushed in California, your play would be limited to only other California residents. Ultimately, this means fewer players, fewer games, fewer stakes/limits and less opportunity for you to play poker how you want, when you want.

Of greater concern, however, is the idea that the intra-state poker model being discussed would eliminate the various Internet poker brand-names you know and play with today and replace them with a sole provider of Internet poker in California (at best there would be two provider platforms). So, not only would you have less people to test your poker skills against, but you would be forced to play on only one Website or platform. From a consumer standpoint this is a definite step in the wrong direction. It limits choice, destroys the competitive marketplace and dramatically reduces the need to provide player incentives like rake-backs and bonuses.

To be clear, the PPA does not oppose state-based licensing and regulation of Internet poker. We strongly believe that a regulated marketplace will provide a better experience for the Internet player. In fact, that is why we have invested so much time and so many resources to push the U.S. Congress to enact a sensible federal policy of licensing and regulation. We are concerned, however, when state proposals, like the one being contemplated in California, seek to cut Internet players off from the rest of the world and limit their choice in the marketplace.

Proud to play,

Drew

PokerStars.it, Svenska Spel, EU-only sites...wtf at the usage of the internet.

The economy is globalizing. Communication is too. Why the **** do people want to chop the net into little tiny pieces? That's the antithesis of what the internet was made for!!! How's online poker gonna look if this same deal would go down in say, Idaho? There'd be like 4 tables running, none full, and craptastic software. I bet these sites wouldn't even offer all games we now enjoy at the large sites we play at now. **** that!

/rant on protectionism

EDIT TO ADD: If this happened in my state of PA, I'd probably give it a huge middle finger and stay grind'n at Stars and FT.

It makes me nervous when people use Idaho for their example. (This is the 2nd time.) I sure hope you people don't know something I don't.

Haha where was the first? I chose Idaho at random, I know nothing.

I forget which thread, but someone chose Idaho as their empty flyover example state a week or two. It brings out my paranoia. For future reference Wyoming is a *much* better state to use.

Whatever California decides to do in regards to intrastate internet poker, players can always opt to play the offshore poker sites if they object. Does the PPA represent online sites outside the US to compete in the California market?

Are you sure about that?

If CA goes forward with this plan, they'll seek to ban offshore sites. The state can criminalize play, for example, on the grounds that such players are somehow stealing from the state. They could also impose a tax on players of out-of-state sites.

Backers of this plan have already testified in Congress in favor of UIGEA and of increased enforcement.

The PPA does not represent sites. We represent players.

You should tell the Washington Post, because they are reporting that PPA is bankrolled by offshore sites to the tune of $4M. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, just don't insult my intelligence by denying it.

With 1.2 million members, the alliance is funded largely by the Interactive Gaming Council, a Canada-based trade group for offshore gambling firms. Together, the groups have spent more than $4 million on Washington lobbying over the past year, and the alliance says its members have recently sent more than 300,000 mailings and e-mails to members of Congress.

PPA represents players. Sites contribute to the PPA, but PPA doesn't represent them.

IGC contributions are no secret. I've said the IGC contributes to PPA many times, most recently at http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...10&postcount=5.

Anyone who doesn't think PPA should take money from the IGC ought to try contributing, because it's an expensive fight.

I do deny it.

Don't insult me or attack my integrity. I put a lot into this fight and it's getting annoying having people who've done zilch for this attack me personally just because they don't understand the nuances of the decision.

In response to a post by someone, TE wrote:
I am glad to voice support for TE and his integrity.

(I understand his annoyance at smear campaigns. Some posters here try and spin questions about PPA stances into some sort of personal attack, so they can puff their own chests out and smear perceived opponents. TE's conduct is far above that, he answers questions and works extremely hard for player interests. He desrves support and respect for his efforts.)

Thanks TPC. I appreciate that.

Everyone,

Given PPA's role, I have no problem whatsoever with people asking tough questions, nor does anyone at PPA. In fact, questions are welcomed, as one person with a question represents many others who had the same question but didn't ask. I try to get them answered quickly and accurately.

Where it gets old is when people jump to their own conclusions about the motives of PPA and then post those unwarranted conclusions as fact. Unfounded personal attacks are always unwarranted, of course.

As someone who plays 1 million hands of midstakes cash game hands per year, I 100% support California intranet poker IF they intend to compete with existing sites. It is quite clear given Morongo tribe testimony at the UIGEA hearing that this proposal is intended to be protectionist and they wish to operate a monopoly. As a result, I 100% support the PPA position here. I really doubt I am in the minority.

There is an informational hearing tomorrow, February 9, in the Senate on this issue.

This is basically the PPA's position too.

And based on my unscientific poll of various CA players, I also really doubt you are in the minority with this position.

Skallagrim

Every single word in this post applies to me also. Didn't know that there was a hearing on this tomorrow, thanks for the heads up.