I have a set of Google search queries to capture poker news that interests me and my business. Today I picked up a thread on REC.POKER started by FDJ attacking Rich, the mod nazis and the PPA. Funny read.

Wow, this thread has gone to crap. How about some updates on what's going on?

The House won't be back in session until mid September (13th i believe) so not a lot going on until then. Any new developments will probably be posted in a new thread anyway, as this one has served its purpose

so in terms of getting this bill passed before the end of the year are we chasing a 2 outter on the flop?

I say no, because we should not be chasing 2-outters, but we should be chasing (actively pursuing) the most expeditious route to getting this legislation signed into law

Yes September 13th is the correct date for Senate to come back. Otherwise, just do your business before this bill comes back in game.

My 2 cents on former DJ and the PPA. It was only a matter of time untill the "online Poker" debate and it's recent succeses were going to start tapping mainstream politicians and folks feelings. Along with that they ar enaturally going to want a platform to voice there oppinion, and where else but 2+2. You won this July PPA, and the ripple effect seems, they are going to 2+2 to vent the frustration's. "Whoever" Former DJ is, its apparent, he has been affected in some way by the success of our moverment, i.e- PPA and there funding are having a positive effect for Poker players. Otherwise, people like this, wouldn't bother to spend an ounce of their precious day here, with us.

More like ATs vs JJ. Fortunately, it's a ring game and we can continue to play for as long as it takes to get unstuck. In the meantime, we are learning everyone's betting patterns and tells, and developing our desired table image.

Hopefully we don't get a forced table change in November to a tougher table with a lot fewer donkeys. Rebuilding our table image there might take a while.

(caveat: I haven't been keeping up with the political stuff of how much Republican victories in November would impact our chances, so I might be off-base here and I'm not operating from an informed viewpoint at all... just had to go for the sweet metaphor extension.)

interesting article:

http://www.bookofodds.com/Daily-Life...lace-Your-Bets

Gee I thought you were trying to push the PPA to try and spend some time and money to try and get better information on where the states might end up BEFORE supporting an opt-out clause........

But I could be confused

From your lips to God's ears, but I dont think its going to happen.

If we spent only $100K per state to find this out, we'd spend $5M on this. As the answer would change every election, every time the bill changed, and every time a politcian changed his/her mind, we'd be spending millions each year keeping a running tally on opt-out states. Adding to the problem is that many state politicians are noncommittal on this right now.

What would we get for that tremendous expense? For the sake of discussion, let's say PPA spent half our its budget on collecting data on opt-outs and learned that 20 states could potentially opt out (again, we'd never know precisely). Would we quit and decide to milk the status quo for a couple of years?

Where do you get your figures? They remind me of the thinking back when you had less than 1,000 posts. We all thought everything was going to cost a lot more in dollars, but know now that with a little creative thinking and a little group effort, that the important things get done very cheaply in dollars just not time or effort. Utilizing all of the free tools you lauded in you 10k post I'm sure the cost could be much much less.

A table change seems to be coming. The lame-duck strategy looks to be a 2 outer as well.

If we had to hire lobbyists to go out and get information from those who have never provided even a hint of a position on this, it would not be cheap. Not cheap X 50 = expensive -- any way you look at it.

You're right about that. That's why we're not spending millions quantifying opt-outs, especially as these quantifications would start going stale the day they were printed.

We're addressing the situation in the least expensive means possible. We're having our members write to state lawmakers. These letters are two-fers, so to speak, in that they both advocate and inform. We're also working to ensure that the legislation has the appropriate rigor for opting out, along with sufficient carrots to gain opt-ins. We're all also doing a lot of work with media to put our position into the mainstream.

There are some states where we have full-time lobbying efforts. CA, MA, and KY come to mind. While it doesn't make fiscal sense to do this every state, we have been able to apply some of the lessons learned across the fifty states.

This is IMO the biggest hole (the other word is blocked as a racial slur, i guess) in the armor of the PPA.

Why rent talent when with a fraction of the cost you can own it. The PPA is clearly not the Yankee's, where is the effort to build and train a homegrown farm team?

Please, someone convince me this bill has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. According to Alan Grayson, there are 300 bills that the house has passed sitting in a stack waiting to be addressed by the Senate. Won’t HR 2267 end up at the back of this line? And won’t the filibuster-happy Republicans become even more emboldened to obstruct if they pick up seats in November, as is predicted?

Then there is the issue of the Republicans possibly taking back the House in November. I don't want to be the voice of doom here, but I think the prognosis is pretty grim for internet poker becoming legal in the US any time soon.

I don't know about that one, D$D.

One area where we really can't skimp is in lobbying. We're up against the best, so we need the best as well. We also don't have a level load of lobbying need. Some weeks we need comparatively little lobbying, while at other times the full court press is on. I don't know that it makes sense to have a full-time team, given our needs.

If it doesn't pass, we'll at least have continued improving our momentum while keeping the status quo firmly in place.

I guess I wasn't clear. Yes I understand the need for lobbyists, but I do know from experience that members/volunteers can be trained to pick up part of the work.

Developing the talents of the membership to strengthen the grassroots activities will cost a few bucks to start but ultimately cheap in the long run. Heck if done right should increase donations.

If the current tea leaves are correct, we are going to need all of that momentum and much more, as the power of those opposed to us will have increased.

That's true. It's probably going to take a lot more time than the optimists predict, but at least progress is being made.

We have members picking up some of this. I've done a bit myself. That being said, we really don't have many situtations where we're paying lobbyists to do what volunteers could do on their own.