I believe we need to maintain our focus in this fight.

Thus I believe that we should concentrate on expressing our displeasure towards the party that has most visibly caused that displeasure. In this instance that is the Commerce Casino. They have placed their own narrow business interests above the broader interests of all poker players and I believe we should call them out for public flogging on each and every point.

Along that line here is another point worth mentioning.

Quote from Commerce Casino Press Release 08/27/10

link: http://campaign.r20.constantcontact....U8WvB6XHA-E%3D

"In addition, we oppose the Frank bill because it would authorize all types of gaming."

Simply misinformed or blatantly stretching the actual scope of the legistlation?

Hi Todd--

I actually thought about the other casinos while I was making my earlier post. I see no hypocrisy in making Commerce a priority:

• They were the ones who testified.
• They have released a really offensive press release.
• They only say that they are speaking for the other poker rooms--I thought those guys were competitors. I haven't seen where the others have spoken up.
• Commerce are the guys who called us out.
• Commerce is the big dog. Might as well start with them.

As a practical matter, I think we are in this to win, and should pick our battles:

• Commerce has made themselves a target. I suspect there is considerable disgust with them right now, so we could organize an effort against them.
• If we immediately go after all the card rooms who oppose us, we will be unfocussed and our effort diffuse.
• It will be a lot easier to get poker players to skip one event at one casino rather than trying to get a noticable action at several casinos over several events.
• There are several months before the Commerce WPT events. That is enough time for us to organize our effort and enough time for Commerce to see the error of their ways.

I don't see how you can suggest agreeing to disagree with an organization that is lobbying the government to deny your rights. They took deliberate, public step to damage the rights of poker players. We should not just shrug that off.

It's wrong to single out the Commerce when several other CA card rooms share the same position. We need to take the same action against all casinos that share the same view as the Commerce, otherwise, no one will take us seriously.

That just it. If we go after only one, we will hurt that one all the more.
Then all will take us seriously.

Or they'll thank us for sending them business.

I disagree, it makes it look as though there is some "other" agenda specifically against the Commerce, even if this isn't the case.

According to that released statement, Bicycle Casino, Hawaiian Gardens Casino and Hollywood Park Casino all fully support the position taken by the Commerce Casino. If they have a different position they would've retracted any association with the Commerce once their names were mentioned.

In order for the PPAs and players position to be taken seriously by CA lawmakers and other parties who might have an interest in IG in CA, we can't single out the Commerce when other casinos share their view. It may look to these parties like the Commerce was singled out for other reasons then the stated one.

It doesn't make any sense to me to worry about being fair to a business, when the very gripe we have against them, is that they are not being fair to us. And you want to talk hypocritical, how hypocritical is it to think the law should protect your access to an industry, but should deny the same access to your competitors?

Boycotts are hard to maintain. Targeting just one casino makes that job easier. Commerce put a big target on their back by being out front on this. We would be foolish and impotent if we didn't hit it. Our job as poker players is to look out for our rights, not the rights of those that are trying to limit our rights. Maybe we should line up to give Kyl foot rubs while we're at it.

If commerce loses business for being vocally opposed to our interests, I think that the net effect will be that commerce and other card rooms will be less vocally opposed to our interests.

If you think there's a better way to go about this, then suggest one. (Id be down to sign a similar letter to other card rooms, for example.) If you don't want commerce to support the law, then ok fine we disagree on something. As it is, I have no clue what your point is.

The industry wants to diffuse our power by dispersing our focus. If we are effective against Commerce, then sure, we should expand our focus. It seems to me we should take it one step at a time.

My points are:

1. I think that trying to harm them for opposing the legislation is unwarranted (with which you disagree).
2. Singling out the Commerce is both unfair and counterproductive -- since the beneficiaries of a loss of business by the Commerce would primarily be the other LA card rooms who share their view on the subject.
3. Stars and their pros who signed the letter are being hypocritical -- they are publicly chastising Commerce while they are about to host a big event at the Bicycle.
4. The convergence of points 2 and 3 might not be a coincidence.

And no, I'm not particularly interested in terrorizing them into supporting the proposed legislation.


Edit: But I'd be fine with Phil Ivey boycotting next year's WPT LA Poker Classic, obviously.

I think by singling out the Commerce, hurts our overall message, it might give the Commerce cover. The Commerce or any other critics can simply say there must be some other agenda if they're being singled out when other casinos in the area take the same position on the Federal bill.

Sure, I think sending this letter and e-mails to the Commerce is correct because of their position but we should also be sending it to the other casinos who have aligned themselves with the Commerce casinos view.

This is a step by step process. Calling out Commerce because of the outrageous position they decided to publicly champion is and was the appropriate first step.

Commerce then issued an equally outrageous press release. In it they also claim to have 3 allies (out of the more than 20 card rooms within easy driving distance of LA).

When they see that their press release has failed to turn poker players' opinion in their favor, maybe they will change their tune.

If they do not, new steps need to be taken by us. And by then we will know for certain whether those steps should include the three alleged allies.

At present no one is calling for a boycott. Of course no one (well except maybe Todd Terry) is discouraging individuals from expressing their displeasure by playing at a different card room (and hopefully not one of the other three card rooms), but no one is making an organized call for it (at this time) either.

And I personally hope it never has to come to an organized boycott. But it is clearly a -EV move for us to allow card rooms to treat us like sheep to be sheared without responding and standing up for our interests.

Skallagrim

Commerce, Hawaiian Gardens and the Bike are the three largest poker rooms in the world. Not playing at any of them would be a massive sacrifice for a lot of people.

Then other card rooms take their place that respect their players more. Throughout history the largest companies in their industry have either adapted to progress/innovation to thrive or failed.

I'm not missing your point, but it seems relevant to the issue at hand (or at least slightly cute) to note that PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and PartyPoker are actually the three largest poker rooms in the world. Not playing at them would be a massive sacrifice for a lot of Californians.

We're not going after people or groups for their positions. We're going after Commerce for its actions.

Also, we cannot boil the ocean here. Our goal it to be effective, and we're most effective concentrating our efforts on the most visible, most appropriate target. Commerce volunteered for this by having Malkasian testify. They asked for whatever they get.

Yep....they gain by not sending their executives to testify against us in Congress.

Again, I thought according to the PPA that witnesses before Congress at that hearing didn't volunteer, they were selected by Congress.

Seriously you must be joking.

+1

Commerce is trying to goad us into expanding this to the point of irrelevancy.

Commerce sent someone to Congress. It's really that simple.

Expanding this effort would give Commerce cover, IMO, With an expansion, it would no longer be about Commerce's actions against us. Rather, it would be seens as a dispute over how best to have online poker offered in the U.S.

And I believe you were among the many folks who reminded the PPA that invited witnesses were not required to appear. If the PPA is expected to speak with an invited witness and ask her to decline to speak not because of her views but because of her association with certain sites, then surely Commerce can be expected to decline an invitation to come to DC to argue against its customer's interests by trying to stop anyone from getting an official ability to compete with them in terms of future online poker.

Skallagrim

I didn't know witnesses were not required to appear. So hopefully that means no more Annie Duke at least.

You're missing the point there. PPA had a choice between using the selected witness (Annie Duke) or possibly getting no witness at all. Having no witness is not an option for us, as we need to stay the primary force behind the federal effort.

We had another issue as well. Had we not gone with the selected witness, those in Congress advocating for our position could have seen that as us giving less than our best in this fight. Had they come to that conclusion, we'd have risked having them respond by giving less than than their best for us.

I'm not saying I'd have made the same decision PPA made here, but I do understand why it was made.

Commerce, OTOH, had no such problem. They had nothing to lose by refusing an invitation by Congress. They could have said "no". They chose their actions.

Not at all. Let's see which room sends an executive to testify at the next hearing.