Interview with PPA Executive Director John Pappas
There will be no comic today because I don’t want the focus on anything else but this interview with John Pappas, Executive Director for the Poker Players Alliance. I am sure you understand…
Grab a cup of coffee because I’m sure this will be a long read. I’ll try and keep it interesting.
First, I want to say thank you to John for taking the time out of his busy schedule to answer some of our concerns. I very much appreciate his willingness to sit down and discuss these important issues. Matt Waldron and I conducted the interview via email and his answers are word for word as received, without any editorial changes. There are a few notes made in YELLOW by me for the sake of this blog entry. There were no follow-up questions asked because quite frankly I have heard enough.
Before we get started I would like to say a few things starting with the resignation/withdrawal of my PPA membership effective today. I will request proof of my membership termination as I no longer want my name or body counted as a supporter of their agenda. I will be pro-actively seeking other PPA members who wish to do the same. We will then submit a list of a predetermined number and ask for a group withdrawal. (look for details soon) Instead of their little counter meter moving forward it should move back, even if for just a few minutes. The size of the dent doesn’t matter because it is all about the symbolism. A concept the PPA refuses to adapt. So if the PPA won’t publicly condemn cheating by well known top tier sites than I say boycott the PPA. They don’t speak for me anymore. As of this posting there were 934,798 members. I expect a posted drop by 1 should there be no new members today.
It should also go without saying, but effective immediately I am also withdrawing all support of the PPA by Life’s A Bluff. The series of supporting PPA comic strips will be removed and I ask that they be taken off any and all other websites that may still be showing them. This includes the PPA.
It is clear now to me they have no intention of keeping to their mantra of ensuring the integrity of the game. I am also now convinced the political position of the PPA will only in the long run hurt poker. I no longer think regulation is needed. We need less laws, less big brother, not more. In fact I worry that we are headed for some very dark times should the PPA get their way. Has anyone truly thought for a second what regulation could mean? Because I tend to think the majority of poker players don’t really understand what is going on or what the UIEGA and wire act is or means. They are just as confused about recent legislation as the banking institutions are. Maybe I have this all wrong so correct me if I do… and explain it to me like you would a child.
How do you expect they (the man) plan to regulate Internet poker? Is the plan to stop the flow of traffic to sites certain states deem inappropriate or against local laws? Since online poker is illegal in Washington State for example, would they block them from going to Full Tilt? Even though a site like Tilt offers games for fun without wager? Are we really going to allow the government to make a morality decisions on what will end up (is) a free speech issue? I want to know exactly what this regulation would mean. Because the day we start regulating the flow and telling people which sites they can and cannot visit is the day liberty dies. Are we that close to being China?
I will never understand why they are taking a position for a carve out, when what they are essentially asking for is a carve out of something that doesn’t even pertain to poker. (child like explanation here too … yeah thanks) They are raising an issue where none needs to be raised. Poker is fine as is right now. Please again tell me if I am wrong. Anyone who has been on Tilt since the UIEGA has seen that site EXPLODE. Doyle’s Room is back. Online championships attracting record fields. The sky did not fall. Things are calming down and people are returning to business as usual. I can (and always have) fund any of my poker accounts any time I want.
Once again… POKER HAS NOT BEEN BANNED. The PPA and it’s propaganda machine would have you believe it is. They have everyone convinced the UIEGA pertains to poker and it clearly does not. I am no lawyer but I suggest you ask one familiar with the recent legislation. Or you can just listen to this debate between John Pappas and Preston Oade. Preston IS a lawyer and brings up quite a few good points that Pappas seem to not have any real answers for. Things I really thought he should know or have a quick fire response for were ignored.
As Oade illustrates better than I, the UIEGA as legislation is to enforce a law that was already in effect. The wire act. The wire act makes specific mention of all kinds of stuff EXCEPT POKER. If they wanted it included it surely would have been mentioned. People who draft laws are not morons. If they intend on something…. its in the bill. I suggest listening to that debate and decide for yourself who is right or wrong.
I vote for the lawyer.
In fact it seemed to me that John was a little naive about some issues. Who knows. I may be as well. It simply doesn’t matter though because I am not the one using a million people to forward any agendas. I think the PPA is harmful to poker. I think they are more harmful to poker than the cheating scandals. If they have their way. We are in deep shit. Those of you who are PPA members need to seriously rethink what is really going on. You need to wonder if the PPA really does have YOUR best interests in mind. Or is it really the best interests of off-shore non-American gaming conglomerates….
You really have to wonder why the PPA refuses to condemn publicly the cheating scandals and those who own both Ultimate Bet and Absolute Poker. One of the state directors seems to think the situation has been rectified and nothing more needs to be said or done. I would like to know what exactly he means by rectified. If rectified means paying a measly fine (that is at best, a fraction of what was stolen) BACK to the body that is Kahnawake then you got to be out of your mind. We did a comic on what that basically was. As far as the UB thing goes… I think the surface is just being scratched.
You know… The PPA has been around for a few years now and they still don’t have the support of land based American casinos. How come? It really seems to me like they are super slow at doing much of anything. I mean, they put out a call for state directors sometime last year and just now picked them. They also only recently starting utilizing its massive member list to send out a newsletter. And then praise it as if it is some sort of profound idea or new technology. Some keep repeating it as if they expect pat on the back for it. This newsletter should have been and should continue to be a constant (and on a set reliable schedule) but it is as rare as Joe Sebok WPT final table. (lol kidding! Joe) 
Look… I am not trying to make waves where there are none. We are already in one helluva storm. The argument that we shouldn’t be raising a stink about integrity of online sites because we might give them more of a reason to say “this is why it should be banned” is ludicrous. If you think for one second any of our Senators or for that matter any major media are paying attention to this blog, 2+2, the PPA newsletter, or any other ‘in the know’ poker entities looking for more fire power… you need an ego check. And even if they were. It’s no reason to not stand up for the right thing and make your peers aware. And it’s not going to scare off any new players for the same reason. All I ask from the PPA and the poker media is to make sure poker players are fully aware. I can’t go one day without reminding someone as to why they shouldn’t play on those sites. And the answer when hearing about the cheating is always the same…. REALLY????
Yes really. And the PPA refuses to inform it’s membership to steer clear of shady sites and those who have cheated their customers.. I ask again… how is it they ensure the integrity?? I am not asking them to be the watchdog for shady sites. But when some confirmed news hits in regards to the community it CLAIMS to represent than I think it is their duty to make their members aware. What do you think?
Before I get to the interview I want to make sure everyone knows that I agonized over the decision to withdraw LaB support from the PPA. For a long time I was a loyal supporter. I did what I could to help increase membership and make others aware of various political issues. I really didn’t want to see the day where I was tossing in my membership.
Membership #36946….. I was proud of that number. Yet there are those within the PPA now who joined long after me who have insinuated that I have not done enough. To them… they know where they can stick it.
In closing…. I did not intend on ripping into Pappas or the PPA when starting this inquiry. So I apologize to him now if he feels bombarded here. I am still not quite sure if this blog post is an appropriate lead-in but I felt it very important. The PPA is speaking for a million people now and I think those people deserve a little help watching out. After all… the entire group is based on an idea of protecting its members. Isn’t it? The members are owed at least that.
They also expect to those in the upper echelon know they are talking about. I listened some recent interviews with PPA Chairmen Alfonse D’Amato and I am convinced the man has never played poker online. If he has, I bet he needs help logging in. Some of the misinformation he is constantly spewing is how regulation would assure that minors don’t gain access to poker sites. Well if he had ever tried to FUND a poker account he would know how strict each site is. I have had to fax in the front and back of both my debt card and drivers license along with copies of bills addressed to me. It is easier for a teenager to buy alcohol than it is for him to play for real money online. Al is clueless and has no idea what it’s like to be an online poker player. Why pick him? There are at least 20 other people in poker who would have been a better candidate. I also should have asked Pappas where he plays online. You would think that would be an important quality for a board member.
BTW as you know, Alfonse has endorsed John McCain for president. It seems the voice of the PPA feels Republican beliefs and morality are more in line with our goals than say oh I dunno, a poker playing Barack Obama. Anyone see anything wrong with that? Where did this guy come from and why is he the face of the PPA? How about Carrot Top? I nominate Carrot Top. Who were the other choices??
I have a theory as to why they won’t denounce the scandals publicly and it’s the same theory as to why some news sites are selectively reporting stories that may offend their advertisers. I believe the PPA does not want to offend those who may fund it either directly or indirectly. And while I am at it… There are some serious questions that now need to be asked of the PPA. It’s up to you (the poker media) to look into this. (that means investigate) I think the members should have a right to all accounting of PPA funds. How much do the board of directors make? Do they all work for free? Who has donated over $1000? Are special favors being granted for donations? (ie silence)
I hope I have done my part. I have raised a big ole stink and it seems to be making the rounds. It’s up to others to pick up where I leave off and take these people to task.
- ————————
John Pappas:
LaB : Does the PPA have a preference for the bills submitted to congress or an “ideal” compromise with the US government on regulation?
John Pappas: The PPA is encouraged by the pro-Internet gaming bills introduced during the 110th Congress. Just a year ago today, very few in the poker world, and even less in the world of politics would have predicted such legislative progress. Never-the-less, our ultimate goal is affirmative passage of new law, not simply the introduction and support of these bills.
Since their introduction the PPA has been the leading advocate on Capitol Hill for both H.R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act and H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act. The bills are very pro-poker (albeit, H.R. 2046 considers all Internet gaming) and have earned the sponsorship of dozens of Representatives
We are also active in seeking a Senate sponsor for a pro-Internet poker bill as noted in the March 14 edition of the Las Vegas Review Journal, “Study of regulations slated for ban on web gambling.”
The PPA does not favor one proposal over the other, since both are good for poker players, but we are realistic and are actively seeking opportunities to refine the bills in order to garner more support. For example, H.R. 2046 has been criticized for its provisions that would allow for regulated Internet sportsbook. Whether you agree with it philosophically, it is a political non-starter that is vehemently opposed by the NCAA and the major sports leagues. Thusly, the PPA has been in the middle of negotiations to adjust the bill so that this opposition will be removed – a significant step to the ultimate approval of the bill.
In short, any compromise or any new bill will only be considered “ideal” if it preserves the right and strengthens the protections for Americans who choose to play poker on the Internet.
–
LaB : Do you have a record or online location for the monthly newsletters where members and non-members alike can find them?
John Pappas: We do not have them archived on our current site, but will be posted on our new website which will launch soon. Of course, anyone can always come to our Web site and get updated news and information, not only about the PPA, but the poker world as it relates to political, policy and legal issues.
–
LaB: What is your purpose and goal with these newsletters?
John Pappas: To inform our members.
*doesn’t get much deeper than that.
To inform the members of what?
–
LaB: Outside of the membership fees in the PPA, where do you draw your funding from?
John Pappas: The PPA receives it funding from member dues, merchandise sales, individual contributions and financial support from the Interactive Gaming Council.
* The Interactive Gaming Council is comprised of online gaming sites. Members include; Full Tilt Poker, MicroGaming, Golden Palace, Poker Stars, and a slew of others. I didn’t see Absolute or UB up there but I assume they are somehow connected. You can view the complete IGC member listing here.
Some of you may remember an aggressive PPA member campaign a few months back where certain sites were offering free memberships by playing a ($1000?) freeroll. They signed quite a few members up during this time. Some people even signed up 3 and 4 times. I remember signing up at least 2 different times. I am not sure if they counted duplicates but I assume they did. I would like a complete member list made public. We can start by checking for dead people and dogs first.
I see all sorts of conflict of interest.
–
LaB: Are you willing to publicize a list of your donors of over, say, $1000.
John Pappas: The PPA lists its donors as required for a 501(c)4 under federal law.
* I would like to see this list.
–
LaB: Has the PPA accepted funding from casinos?
John Pappas: The PPA has not received funding from casinos. However, we would be thrilled with their support for poker community through direct contributions or in-kind contributions. We are actively engaging with the American Gaming Association, the casino industry trade association, on ways we can collaborate to advance the goals of the poker community.
–
LaB: Has the PPA accepted funding from the Kahnawake gaming commission?
John Pappas: No.
Again see the IGC member list and you will notice a listing for “Mohawk Internet Technologies“- MIT lists Kahnawake Gaming Commission under “community”. I am not sure what the connection between the two are. I think Mohawk hosts Kahnawake on it’s servers. I would like to know what the connection is. It sure does appear as if the PPA is taking indirect funding from all sorts of suspect places. Is this the real reason behind the lack of interest in the scandals?
–
LaB:Do you feel that the focus of the PPA will have to change as the landscape of online and live poker changes?
John Pappas: Of course! We must be able to serve the poker community as it evolves. We will always be responsive to the needs of poker players whether they play online or in home games. Fortunately, I have found very few instances where the interests of the online and terrestrial poker players are inconsistent with each other.
–
LaB: Is the PPA capable of growing or changing and does it have a contingency plan in place?
John Pappas: Again, the PPA must evolve and be responsive to our members. Are we capable of change? I think many would argue that we have changed, and for the better, in the past several months. We have added two new employees. Our membership relations manager has the primary responsibility of responding to our member questions and concerns and helping us develop new ways to communicate with our membership. Three weeks ago, we added another full-time employee who manages our grassroots and member relations. As I am sure you have seen, just this week we announced the selection of 50 PPA state directors and the formation of state committees so that PPA members can become more active in shaping and participating in our grassroots efforts. And I can only promise more positive change to come in the very, very near future.
–
LaB: What can the average poker player expect to get out of a PPA membership?
John Pappas: Whether you are a dues paying member of the PPA or not, the poker playing community has gotten and will continue to get a strong political voice in Washington D.C. and state capitols across the country. Does anyone truly believe that the bills introduced in the Congress, the multiple hearings on Internet gaming and the stalemate of the UIGEA regulations would have happened without the significant influence of the Poker Players Alliance? Of course not! Lawmakers respond to constituencies and the PPA has given poker a respected constituent voice.
The PPA is a conduit for the poker community to bring its policy concerns directly to lawmakers and we have access to these lawmakers not available to average citizens. We bring decades of lobbying and public policy experience to the fight to promote and protect poker. That is only part of the puzzle. We also inform and then activate our member to make their voices heard. In a 5 month period last year, PPA members using our online tools sent more than 25,000 letters/emails to Congress on the bills we support. That doesn’t include the thousands of phone calls and other communications we facilitated
These are just some of the substantive things you get with the PPA. And very soon we will be adding even more services (think legal support) to members. Not to mention other ancillary benefits such as discounts on purchases from thousands of online merchants. Stay tuned!
–
LaB: What role do the members have besides being a number if they feel their voice and concerns are not being aired?
John Pappas: Again the PPA provides the best opportunity for members to communicate directly with Congress. Last year we held a Washington D.C. “Fly-In” where more than 100 average Joe poker playing PPA members and some of the top pros in the game converged on Capitol Hill and had more than 50 meetings with lawmakers. We intend to do this again this year in early fall, before the elections, and hope that PPA members who want to get their voices heard will come to DC in droves.
–
LaB: Have you seen our poll concerning PPA members’ thoughts on how well the PPA is representing them?( http://lifesabluff.com/ main page, below our archive calendar) Is the result of this poll shocking or surprising to you? What could you do to change that?
John Pappas: Yes, I was very surprised that there were less than 100 votes. When one considers how vast the poker community is, that is very little response or interest in the question.
*Nice non-answer. I guess the opinion of the LaB reader is not worth a response. Maybe its worth asking of the PPA members via a poll on the official website or within the “newsletter”. 100 people is enough sampling for any poll. If we could get 1 million PPA members to answer the question. The results would be pretty much the same.
–
LaB: Why was D’Amato chosen to be the spokesperson? Who chose him?
John Pappas: Senator D’Amato is a respected Washington dealmaker and a poker aficionado. This issue requires a special kind of operative to represent it to policymakers and Mr. D’Amato posses the qualities needed to be successful. We are pleased have him on our side and he is doing a good job for poker players.
He was selected by the PPA Board of Directors in March of 2007 to serve as Chairman and replaced Linda Johnson who served as the PPA’s first Chairperson
*I think someone should ask some very basic online poker questions of Mr. D’Amato and see if he can answer them. Maybe we can get him to agree to a Random Questions.
–
LaB: Do you find it strange that he supports John McCain for President, even though McCain is not showing favorably towards legalizing online gaming?
John Pappas: I think we are in a great position to move John McCain on our issues, particularly with the influence of D’Amato.
*Riiiiiiight
–
LaB: In November it is possible that Colorado voters will again decided to increase stakes to include no limit poker, craps, etc. Does the PPA consider various state issues relating to poker a priority? How do they plan on assisting? Will they grant resources to those pushing for the increase?
John Pappas: Yes, Yes and yes. While I will admit I have not given the Colorado issue my full attention as of yet, I can assure you we will be involved if in fact the proposal in question advances the rights of poker players. We will consult with our CO state director and make determinations on the best course of action.
We are very active in the states. For instance we are at the forefront of removing a provision in the Massachusetts casino gaming bill that would make it a crime to gamble online, punishable by two years in prison. Our surrogates have testified before the state legislature, we have successfully alerted the media to the hypocrisy of the bill, we have activated our members to write and call their local reps and as I type we are planning a pro-poker rally on the State House steps for another hearing scheduled for next week.
*This issue is very important to me. I think the PPA should be heavily involved and grant any available resources whenever possible. It should be top priority of the PPA at each State level to expand the game any way shape or form. Despite my withdrawal from the PPA , I plan to do what I can in regards to this and hope to work closely with those representing Colorado.
–
LaB: Does the PPA plan on being active in Europe considering the recent bans and ongoing challenges for online poker in Germany, etc.?
John Pappas: Our membership is almost exclusively people residing in the United States whom would have little influence over the European political system/process. We have no immediate plans to establish a PPA Europe
The following questions are based from current events as they relate to the mission statement for the PPA. I have copied the Mission Statement here for your reference.
The PPA’s mission statement:
Mission Statement
The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) is a non-profit membership organization comprised of online and offline poker players. Our membership consists of enthusiasts from around the United States who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game, ensure its integrity and protect the right to play poker.
The PPA’s mission is to guarantee poker players a secure, safe and regulated place to play. Through education and awareness the PPA will keep this game of skill, one of America’s oldest recreational activities, free from egregious government intervention and misguided laws.
–
LaB: It is VERY clear that the integrity of the game is paramount in the PPA’s credo. Do you feel it is the PPA’s job to highlight and fight back against issues and occurrences that lack integrity or are obviously unethical?
John Pappas: Admittedly, our mission statement overstates the PPA’s interest in serving as the “integrity police” for the poker industry. Our fight needs to focus on providing the legal/legislative framework for licensed and regulated poker to prosper which will lead to a secure and safe place for poker players to enjoy the game they love. Like any industry (even highly regulated ones), there will be bad actors and those who will take advantage of consumers. What we should strive to achieve is an industry that can be held accountable by the players and compete (with integrity as their hallmark) for the business of poker players.
Sadly, the current prohibitionary stance of the U.S. government is depriving online poker players who are wronged the direct recourse they should be provided. We hope to rectify this by opening the U.S. market to licensed and regulated competition.
*Then they should remove all mention of integrity from their statements.
LaB: Does the PPA have an official stance and statement on the AP cheating scandal? For that matter, the current UB scandal?
John Pappas: We have not issued an official statement on either. We are pleased that the industrious actions of poker players uncovered the improprieties and that continued pressure from the community forced action. I have no doubt the dutiful commitment of those poker player who were cheated did much, much more than a statement from the PPA could have done.
*yeah he is right. Notifying 1 million poker players wouldn’t have done anything. Except maybe prevent future sites from doing the same. Just maybe. Instead what we have now as a precedent is minimal embarrassment and minimal fines. Scary.
–
LaB: Why is making no statement on the AP and online cheating issues better than releasing a note condemning those responsible for the cheating and those that supported it?
John Pappas: I don’t understand the question.
*With all due respect…. does anyone reading this NOT understand the question? Come on. John is a smart guy. He knows what we meant. It may be a poorly phrased question but it’s clear what we are asking. This non-answer single handedly sealed my decision to resign my membership.
–
LaB: If not a public position, then why not at least an email to the 800,000 person member base to apprise them of the situation and warn them of what has happened? It may be past the time to do it with any effect, but if it happened again, would this be an option?
John Pappas: Again, the PPA does not endeavor to be the “integrity police” for online poker. We believe that poker players are smart people and don’t need to be told by a grassroots political and public policy advocacy organization where to play poker. Just like we wouldn’t send a mass email to players should an online poker site be named the “most trusted” in the game and encourage them to play there.
We did provide regular and updated news on our Website as it was made available and the issue was discussed on our forums.
*didn’t understand the first question but the followup to it was no problem? I don’t recall seeing the regular updated news on the Absolute OR UB scandals… does anyone else? And the issue was discussed on the forums WHEN I brought it up. And if poker players are such smart people how come a great majority of them believe the UIEGA banned poker? Could it be all this mis-information by party leaders?
–
LaB: Should sites associated with a site found guilty of cheating be forced to have an outside audit, overseen by a third party, to ensure the safety of their players?
John Pappas: This certainly is something that should be closely considered when online poker is regulated in the U.S. It would be excellent if sites voluntarily submitted to these types of audits. Unfortunately, it is impossible to mandate this type of regulation on other countries where these sites operate.
–
LaB: Would the PPA be inclined to “certify” online rooms?
John Pappas: No we would not be inclined to do this. Rather, we would prefer to establish a regulatory regime in the U.S. which will license online rooms and give consumers the assurance they need and deserve.
*and what do we do with the majority of offshore sites that will be “impossible to mandate” or license? Ban access to them?
–
So in conclusion I get from the interview that the PPA has no interest whatsoever in being the “integrity police” of poker. So I fully expect them to throw out the clause in the mantra about ensuring the integrity because they fail miserably there. And false advertising is illegal. They are putting up a false front duping possible members. I was duped for sure. I joined the PPA when there was no UIEGA. We had no battle on our hands. I thought the idea was to make sure we had the right to play poker freely and safely within all accordance to rules and regulations. We would be a club/group who stood up when the average player was getting the shaft and made sure it didn’t happen. Turns out it’s all a crock.
So what happens if tomorrow all was right with the world and online poker was a perfect oiled machine? Regulated and taxed. We solved all the social issues with the “potential tax revenue”. Poker is now considered the National pastime and is taught in every school. What role does the PPA take then? Do they just disband without a cause? The way John Pappas puts it, it seems as if they would. Even though it would make sense to revert into a role of watchdog using it’s million person muscle to ensure the integrity of the game.
I think I have asked enough rhetorical questions to last a lifetime. As the reader and a poker player you must decide for yourself which position you most agree with. There are enough facts and questions here for you all to do your thing. Figure it out.
- Frank
March 19th, 2008 at 9:47 am
If nothing else, anyone would have to agree that we were misled as to the purpose of the PPA as an organization.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Wow…wow, and more wow.
Misled is right.
Great write up and interview Frank. The YouTube clip was perfect. I love how the member count went down right as you cut up your card.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Well done, Frank!
You never gave up on this story, and your interview backed up some of your key points. I admire your tenacity and willingness to take a stand - in a big way.
Basically, I was under the assumption that the PPA was simply a political lobbying organization, in which case, it should state that in its mission statement instead of broadening it to make it seem like it is watching out for all of us.
Personally, I support their lobbying efforts in D.C., though it seems that they’ve had enough time to do more on a state level (as they are NOW starting to do). But D’Amato supporting McCain is ridiculous! And you are absolutely right to ask questions about D’Amato’s qualifications, whether these guys even play online poker, etc.
I’m not withdrawing my membership, but I think you have some points that should be discussed on a broader scale. I just posted about this on Pokerati and linked you up. Please keep me updated…
March 19th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Thank you for this post Frank! You ask some very important questions. I too would LOVE for D’Amato to do a Random Questions. But it has to be live so he couldn’t research his answers. LOL
March 19th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The PPA does concur that the Wire Act does not apply to poker, and cites the case Preston Oade mentioned in the debate in its auto-mailer letter to Congress. I’ve mentioned this in many of my personal letters as well, which I’ve posted on the PPA website, at http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/forum . PPA also believes that UIGEA does not apply to poker in states where it is not currently banned under state law.
PPA does have real concerns about banks overblocking legal gaming transactions. Many members submitted public comments to the Treasury Dept. on the UIGEA regulations stating the legality of poker and the fact that banks shouldn’t be stuck trying to determine the law. A lot of work was done by PPA to get allies on board against the regs as well. I think just assuming the Department of Justice will follow the law as we see it is hopeful, especially when all they’d have to do is fire off a warning letter or two (which has been their pattern). After all, what bank will go up against that?
I do think we need to continue to advocate for our rights in Congress. We fear more than fear itself. The status quo is inherently unstable. The Justice Department has been successful at keeping U.S. based companies from offering online poker, so the constituency in favor of keeping poker legal is only us players. We also have real concerns related to getting crushed every time our issue gets brought before Congress. We lost the HR 4411 (the bill that became UIGEA) vote 317-93!! And, we have real opposition, including Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America, and (especially) the NFL. Goodlatte promised to finish in 2007 what UIGEA started in 2006. Did he? Nah….our strong offense was our best defense, and that’s what maintains the status quo. It enabled us to motivate poker players behind something while getting some Congressional hearings. And, 2008 is a freeroll. So far, so good.
I know the media think online poker was banned by UIGEA. It is frustrating. You’ll see no such ignorance from PPA.
PPA is primarily an advocacy organization concerned with fighting for our right to play. That’s our mission. The old “integrity of the game” statement was in regard to creating a system of either regulation or of clearly legal status that would keep honesty via the free market, not to be the policeman of Internet poker. We can be one or the other, but not both. I’m proud of our efforts on behalf of the nation’s poker players.
Finally, I do believe this reporting is the responsibility of …uh…reporters. I agree that the poker media (that’s not us, by the way) have been negligent in not reporting this.
Cheers,
Rich Muny
PPA Board Member & KY State Director (& regular online poker player)
March 19th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
The keyword should be GAMING. Because that is who the PPA is fighting for. The offshore GAMING companies comprised of sites that allow all other forms of gaming not just poker. The PPA should rename themselves to the Online Gaming Alliance. That is afterall where the PPA get most of their money from. Is that not a fact?
The way I see it… Fighting the funding issue should not PPA’s concern. Leave that to the numerous gaming bodies, the banks, or the ACLU to do. There are plenty of other areas of the internet that Visa and others ban transactions to. Americans on average just don’t visit those areas and don’t realize how censored we really are. Visa/Mastercard has long mantained a practice of not allowing certain transactions.. Long before the UIEGA. I have been denied several times from ordering from an offshore website because of a partiular way they bill Visa. This includes porn, warez/pirate sites, funding of other online banks, gaming sites, etc… The list is pretty long.
The issue should be a basic freedom to spend your money any way you want issue fought by ALL Americans and not singled out as some poker issue. I am curious to know if the ACLU has a position on this.
We as poker players who play on POKER sites have no problems funding our POKER bankrolls. The PPA does not represent Poker Players and it’s time that is made clear… I have had enough of the spin, propaganda, and plain BULLSHIT. Let’s be truthful here.
What is going to happen is the PPA is going to end up causing POKER to be included into a law that clearly already ignores it and then there will be a government wide ban facilitated by the ISPs to block certain illegal sites from viewing. OR cause a new law to be created. I still don’t understand how else they plan on stopping ME or some guy from Washington state from playing poker online without doing just that. Explain to me what regulation will do differently???!
It is the responsibility of uh… the PPA to uh…. to not throw a wrench into a system that is NOT BROKEN. To not raise an issue where none needed to be raised. They yelled at the top of their lungs .. “UH! excuse us! governement sir…. You forgot to include us! Don’t forget to include poker in your ban! ”
And they want to criticize me for raising an issue that others may say “see this is why poker should be banned”…. its hilarious. Clarification on a bill that is clear is retarded. And we are going to suffer… MARK my words.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Well, I will certainly cancel my membership too.
This crap just sickens me……
March 19th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
PPA is not fighting for gaming. PPA is fighting for poker and poker only.
Funding is huge for all of us. We can’t play if poker sites cannot access the banking system. Also, while we decent players may be able to play, the fish won’t jump through hoops to move money. I move money just fine right now, but that may (or may not) change with the UIGEA regs. The way the regs are written now, you can be sure banks will “overblock” these transactions.
Certainly we should work to push the regs into the next administration, where we may have a DoJ that actually tries to enforce real, actual laws, rather than imaginary ones (like their imaginary expanded Wire Act…one that they’ve successfully used to keep onshore sites from opening and publicly traded offshore sites from serving America). Once the regs are done, we’ll have a clearer understanding of where online poker is headed. We have time. This year, we’re on a total freeroll that we can use to build support in Congress.
Again, we lost HR 4411 317-93. And make no mistake…they THOUGHT they were outlawing Internet poker. We need to build our support in Congress. This idea that we can afford to sit back and just hope we’ll always have offshore sites serving us, given the array of powerful opponents against us, seems weak to me.
Wexler’s bill (HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act) does not add poker to UIGEA. Nor does it declare it to be gambling. Rather, it specifically defines it as skill and it removes it from the provisions of UIGEA. This is a stable situation, as it permits sites to operate within the U.S.
No one criticizes you for mentioning the Absolute and the Ultimate Bet scandals. You should. That’s the job of the poker media. You should have your fellow reporters join you, in fact.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Feel free to stop by the PPA forum to discuss any questions any of you have. I’m very proud of the work we’re doing to keep poker legal.
http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/forum
March 19th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
You might notice the Mission Statement has been revised to remove “ensure it’s integrity”
March 19th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
“You might notice the Mission Statement has been revised to remove “ensure it’s integrity””
That’s correct. That’s why I referred to it as the “old” statement. PPA’s focus is on advocacy for our rights.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Well, that’s one step in the right direction. Will they move that to their last point?
March 19th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I am an established member of the poker media, but my specialty is tournament reporting, and not investigative reporting. I’ll write editorial commentary from time to time, but don’t expect me to do any investigative reporting. It’s not my style.
Still, I strongly disagree with most of this article/interview.
I fully support Frank’s right to resign his membership from the PPA. If he feels he was misled by the goals of the PPA, and that he signed up under false pretenses, then it is certainly his right to resign, and publicly post his reasons why.
But I really feel that this entire “controversy” boils down to a simple issue — the PPA stands for one thing (lobbying Congress to keep poker legal), and Frank thought they stood for something else (monitoring the safety and integrity of online poker). That’s it. The PPA is not the Better Business Bureau for online poker, and I was never under the impression that they were.
The PPA is a lobbying organization, and in my opinion, one that is badly needed. I signed up as a member solely so they could increase their membership numbers. Those are the numbers that attract attention in Washington, D.C. — the million-member threshold is an important one to get politicians to listen to our cause.
I disagree with your logic in a few places. You attacked Pappas for answering “I don’t understand the question” without asking the question a second time — a question you admit was poorly phrased. The fact that he answered the similar follow-up question showed he wasn’t avoiding the topic entirely.
Also, the fact that D’Amato is personally supporting John McCain doesn’t bother me at all. (For the record, I support a different candidate.) I have spent some time in politics, and I do not require leaders of organizations like the PPA to be single-issue voters. Now if D’Amato were using the resources of the PPA to support an anti-poker candidate, or preaching an anti-poker candidate to the PPA membership, I’d be condemning him like crazy. This is definitely an opinion, and I’m not saying you’re wrong — just that I judge the personal politics of group leaders differently than you do.
D’Amato may not be the most savvy person in the world when it comes to online poker, but I still think he’s a suitable choice for Chairman of the PPA. (Best choice? Probably not. Best available choice? Possibly.) I’d *much* rather have someone with a deep knowledge of Washington politics and only a basic understanding of poker than the reverse. Could *you* answer five random questions about how Washington lobbyists operate?
In my understanding of the PPA’s goals, I fully expect them to receive donations from the major online poker sites. They need membership numbers and money to achieve their goals — goals that I agree with and that are in the best interest of most online poker sites. If online poker is eventually legalized in America, I believe major sites will move some of their operations here as long as the taxes and regulations aren’t absolutely outrageous. If they can openly advertise themselves as legal in the U.S. (right now it’s a gray area at best), that will open the doors for a whole new generation of casual poker players who are not comfortable with the current system of sending funds into offshore accounts. At that point, issues that Frank is uncomfortable with (such as the cheating scandals) can be dealt with out in the open through the U.S. court system and in the mainstream media. A class action lawsuit is much more effective at “policing the integrity of poker” than an email from the PPA or a thread on 2+2.
Again, I think this is a simple misunderstanding (though a big one), and the PPA should definitely clean up and clarify their mission statement to avoid similar confusion in the future. Too many mission statements use flowery language that sounds good, rather than straightforward language that makes the meaning clear. Rewrite the mission statement entirely, and make it clear *exactly* what the PPA is fighting for.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
BJ - with all due respect… please don’t put words in my mouth. I never assumed the PPA was just the BBB of poker. The only misunderstanding is by those of you who thing the governemnt is activly seeking to end our ability to play poker online instead of just wanting to enforce old laws regarding to other forms of gaming.
I only asked a simple question one day about the PPA’s lack of response to the most damaging scandals to rock online poker for a long long time. Specifically when in their mission statement it was clear that they intended on ensuring the integrity of the game. To this day I am still confused at what they meant by that. What does ensuring the integrity of the game mean, if they ignore the scandal publicly. The PPA has no problem posting links to all sorts of online poker related issues. How about a link to a story on Absolute. That is all I asked. One question turned into more because the PPA is shady and its obvious.. its hard to escape the obvious. There are a bunch of un-answered legitimate questions.
And another thing…. You guys keep talking about when online poker is legalized. THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT IT IS ILLEAGAL. Even you BJ say it…. I mean come on… this is the complete and total misinformation that I am talking about. You are a member of the media and you are forwarding that idea. Or am I the one completely off my chair?
If the UIEGA was the deal everyone thought it was…. how come I can still fund all my account no problem and places like Doyles Room are returning. You mean to tell me Doyle Brunson’s lawyers are just plain dumb? Or is it possible they know something we might not?
I think by now we all know preemptive war gets us nowhere. It does not make things better or make us safer. I mean Engineer (a PPA representative) says he can fund his account but that (the ability to do so) it may or may not change…. WTF does that mean anyway? Either the UIEGA bans poker or it doesn’t . What could change that besides new legislation???!
I am sorry you are just as misguided as you believe I am. The PPA is harmful to poker players and I am sure someone who can better articulate that point will post eventually. At least I hope so… because I am not a politician or lawyer so I cannot pretend or try and explain all the reasons why the PPA’s position is just as potential harmful as they think the UIEGA is…
I do know though if you all spent half as much time researching this issue as you did studying your game or someone else… than you would figure out that the UIEGA, the PPA and this big sky is falling scare is all a FARCE. The info is out there.
Actually maybe it is the fact that truly understanding this issue takes more time than the average poker player is willing to commit. So its just easier to take broad positions set forth for them already by someone else. It’s nothing new.
I very much appreciate the idea behind a Poker Players Alliance but I do not believe we have a PPA. We have Gaming Conglomerate Alliance with an agenda that is based offshore.
The UIEGA did nothing in regards to any of us playing poker online. It made a few things difficult… Like the Neteller fiasco. Someone made the point once that had Neteller ONLY been funding online poker accounts and not ALL forms of gambling… you would not have seen what happened. Everything BAD regarding the UIEGA is in relation to GAMING… not poker.
I am telling you.. whats going to end up happening as a result of the PPA is the governement IS going to finally include poker into the wire act or a new form of it.
Instead if we just left things alone…. they would leave us alone.
Quite frankly… It doesn’t bother me if anyone thinks I handled this correctly or not. I have created a public debate on a number of issues I think are important. From what I hear the PPA removed the statement about ensuring integrity. GOOD. I am satisfied that my voice was heard.
Now if the PPA would just close up shop and leave poker alone…. I would really be happy. But they won’t. And you will all pay dearly for it.
Everyone reading this should HOPE I am wrong… there is no harm in being wrong. The real harm comes from being right.
In the end I have nothing to loose. I don’t play nearly enough online poker for it to matter. Should my ability cease.. No big deal. I have a casino 30 mins from my house and $150 Vegas flights. It really makes no difference one way or another. My fight is more due to basic liberty and freedom than it does my right to play poker online. AND even if the sky fell… I live in a great state where my ability to play is not at all in jeopardy.
At the end of the day its going to be the online poker players who sat back and did nothing and/or endorsed a group who takes money from suspect sources and refuses to make a simple statement about cheating, that loose the most..
You know… It could have even been a very simple and broad… cheating is bad statement and I would have been satisfied.
Now I have been told before that any idiot should know that cheating is bad and we shouldn’t need a statement saying so. Well if thats the case… any idiot should know that the UIEGA has nothing to do with poker and just because you are a little afraid of some obscure possibility … we don’t need a LAW or a clarification saying so.
Before I forget.. I wanted to mention;
There is was a disturbing 24 hour poll on the FCP forums where the question was asked,
if people still had money on UB or AP. 43 percent of the people who replied said they did. The idea that AP and UB are and will still be in business is sickening. How a well knowledged forum like FCP would generate that kind of numbers is SCARY. Either people don’t care about sites that cannot protect the game and facilitate cheating OR… they just don’t know. I still go with the thought that the majority of poker players haven’t heard a thing about it or not enough. Now I already blame the media for that. But I also blamed the largest organization of poker players for not utilizing its membership or inform them to steer clear. And nothing anyone is going to say that will convince me that a position of silence should have been taken by the PPA.
When someone proves to me that the PPA is not motivated by those that donate through the IGC than I will give up on that theory. Until then I think the PPA won’t denounce the scandals because they receive a large portion of their funding from either the IGC, Absolute & UB , or both.
I certainly don’t blame them for not biting the hand that feeds them. But then they can’t be critical of those who wonder about their true agenda and integrity.
They should take donations from everyone who will give it. But they shouldn’t pander for the sake of it. I really hope they don’t. But then it wouldn’t be politics now would it?
March 20th, 2008 at 12:02 am
“I mean Engineer (a PPA representative) says he can fund his account but that (the ability to do so) it may or may not change…. WTF does that mean anyway?”
It means the UIGEA regs have not taken effect yet.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:26 am
While I am at it:
One the particular interview where D’Amato comes off looking like a tool who knows nothing about online poker and very little about poker was from a recent Ante Up - listen here, http://pod.sptimes.com/anteup139.mp3
It really seems to me like Al knows as much about poker as every other grandfather around the kitchen table.
I would love to get D’Amato to sit down for a taped Random Questions interview with Matt Waldron where we ask the most basic poker questions. Despite what is sounds like, I have no intention on embarrassing D’Amato on his poker knowledge. I just think the members deserve a spokesperson who at least understands the landscape in which he fights. Just because he knows people in DC and how it works doesn’t make him perfect for the job. That’s ridiculous. We need someone with a little more carisma and public respect….. and someone who plays poker regularly both online and off.
(I would like to know what the PPA pays D’Amato to be it’s spokesman. Is this something that can be made public or already is?)
It’s no secret that a great majority of people think that Alfonse is a scumbag politician who while in NY was involved in some VERY SHADY and possible criminal activities. Is this a man we want as the face of poker??!!! COME ON! REALLY??? And forget the fact he endorsed McCain and is basically a typical Republican. McCain btw is going to be too involved keeping the war going on in Iraq for “50 - 100 years” than he will be concerned with our poker problems. It’s insane to me that anyone in their right mind who is a legitimate game loving poker player would think this is a smart move for us.
And you all are jumping down my throat for wanting to inform people of things they should already know? The PPA having D’Amato as a face is worse than anything I could say. I am sure the American people are going to rally behind him and his causes in droves.
If you believe that I have a bridge in NY to sell you. Oh … you already bought a bridge from D’Amato you say? Ok… moving on…
Engineer criticizes me for wanting to add fuel to the argument of “this is why poker should be banned” yet could care less about the notion that his chairman lacks integrity. (At least in the eyes of a great deal of voting Americans.) What happens when people associate poker with D’Amato as they are standing in the voting booth? Uninformed people do a lot of things based on perception.
Do we really need any more confusion? D’Amato should be replaced immediatly with someone who has a little more positive street cred and charisma. Someone who can gain the trust of the average person and get them to symptyze with the cause.
Maybe someone like Montel Williams?
Jeez.. ya know… The more I talk about it… the more about the PPA I find disgusting and wrong for the game.
—————————————-
Cited from Wikipedia:
D’Amato is also known for his public controversies and brash style. After a series of investigations in 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee reprimanded D’Amato for allowing his brother Armand, a lobbyist, to use office stationery to help solicit million-dollar Navy contracts for Unisys. Armand D’Amato was convicted on 7 of the 24 counts of mail fraud in May 1993. A federal appeals court reversed Armand D’Amato’s mail fraud conviction, finding insufficient evidence against him. Al D’Amato attributes William Weld, at the time a federal prosecutor, for an overzealous prosecution against Armand.
The senator’s brother was also partners with Lucchese crime family caporegime Paul Vario and mob associate Phillip Basile. When Basile was arrested for getting mob associate Henry Hill a no-show job at one of his discos, Senator D’Amato testified on Basile’s behalf.[1]
During the Don Imus radio program on April 4, 1995, he used a mock Japanese accent to impersonate Lance Ito, a Japanese American judge overseeing the ongoing O.J. Simpson trial (Ito, born and raised in the United States, has a characteristically American accent). He later apologized on the Senate floor for his comments.
In 1994, he insulted Betsy McCaughey Ross, the Republican candidate for New York Lieutenant Governor; he joked that in order to get an endorsement for her running mate, George Pataki, she should have sex with New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who had endorsed Mario Cuomo.
In October 1998, D’Amato was criticized for insulting Congressman Jerry Nadler. According to USAToday, D’Amato “referred to the heavyset Nadler as ‘Congressman Waddler.’ He also did a physical imitation of Nadler (D-NY) waddling like a duck.” [1] D’Amato subsequently apologized, saying, “It was a poor attempt at humor, and I was wrong, and I apologized to him.”
Zoning:
In recent years, D’Amato has been the subject of much controversy over local zoning laws in Lido Beach, New York (governed by the Town of Hempstead). His wife, who sat on the Town’s zoning board, was forced to recuse herself after accusations arose over ‘unfair’ and ‘unethical’ treatment as D’Amato made what would have been illegal additions to his Lido Beach home. [2]
—————-
March 20th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Frank, I get your points … and yes, I too question the PPA’s strategies at times. But give ‘em a little break, man … Pappas and Giblin are political grinders who have done a nice job moving up from 1/2 to 5/10. Would be nice if they could jump right into the big big game, but it just wouldn’t be smart bankroll management.
The PPA is doing more/better in 2008 than it was in 2007, and that year was a step up from 2006 … they didn’t exist in 2005. It’s just gonna take time to get there. All seems to be moving (mostly) in the right direction.
You are probably right about D’Amato … he’s just be collecting his retired-Senator’s check. Not sure what the PPA is paying him, but even so, probably better than spending it on Dennis Rodman or Paris Hilton. He’s the bestt we got right now. You got anyone better?
March 20th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Frank — It was not my intent to antagonize you, if I came off that way. My primary disagreement with you is over the role of the PPA.
First, I had to reread my own comment to find out where I said poker was illegal. I touch on the legality of poker three times in my comment (quoted below), and #2 is where I write that poker needs to eventually be legalized in America.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 —
“… the PPA stands for one thing (lobbying Congress to keep poker legal), and Frank thought they stood for something else (monitoring the safety and integrity of online poker).”
2 –
“If online poker is eventually legalized in America, I believe major sites will …”
3 —
“If they can openly advertise themselves as legal in the U.S. (right now it’s a gray area at best), that will open the doors for …”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All three quotes seem to say something different, but they are all consistent in my mind. In summary (and in order), they are (1) “Keep online poker legal,” (2) “Online poker needs legalization,” and (3) “The legality of online poker in the U.S. is a gray area at best.”
I believe online poker is currently legal in most of the United States — I wouldn’t play it if it weren’t (and didn’t play it at all until late 2005). But when I say that poker “needs legalization,” that’s an incomplete phrase. What I meant is that poker needs legislation that provides a specific carveout for online poker, or poker needs a specific court case to point to, or *something* that makes it blatantly clear to the average American (and the mainstream media) that online poker is 100% legal.
The UIGEA prohibits specific fund transfers to internet gambling sites, with three exceptions: horseracing, fantasy sports, and online lotteries. Why didn’t poker get an exception? Nobody is arguing that horseracing and online lotteries require more skill than poker — but it’s clear that those industries had better lobbyists.
Yes, there is a separate argument to be made as to whether or not poker is “gambling,” in which case the UIGEA may not apply. But until that is successfully tried in a federal court case, it remains murky. And I doubt the casual poker player in middle America wants to get arrested by an overzealous D.A. and fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court. (And don’t say it can’t happen — remember the kids who wound up in court for downloading songs?)
That’s what I mean when I say that online poker is currently legal (though murky), and at the same time it “needs legalization.” What it needs is a specific legislative exception as a skill game, clearly separating it from other (illegal) forms of internet gambling. This is what the PPA is fighting for. And once online poker is legislated, it will add some integrity to the industry by default. For example, players could file a class action lawsuit against Absolute Poker.
When it comes to Al D’Amato, I’m not sure that you understand his role, because you call him a “spokesperson.” He is chairman of the PPA, not a spokesperson. Perhaps Montel Williams could be hired (or volunteer) as a spokesperson, and he could appear in commercials and on talk shows, making the case to the American people that poker should be kept 100% legal. But the chairman serves a different role, and I’d rather have someone like D’Amato in that role, guiding the lobbying efforts in Washington.
Is D’Amato perfect? No. But it’s not exactly the most coveted job in America. If you know someone with lots of Congressional experience and influence, who is also a knowledgeable poker player, who is also willing to accept the job — suggest away!
Again, I think your disagreement with the PPA stems from a simple misunderstanding over its role in the industry. I haven’t been remotely active in the PPA (I skim the mass emails), but from the beginning, I thought it was clear that they were fighting for the “legal right to play poker.” Everything I see on their website confirms this. I mentioned the Better Business Bureau in my earlier post because it sounds like that’s what you’d like to see — warnings against shady business practices by online poker sites. But it seems clear to me that doesn’t fall in line with the PPA’s mission.
At the end of your interview, you ask, “So what happens if tomorrow all was right with the world and online poker was … regulated and taxed. … What role does the PPA take then? Do they just disband without a cause?”
No, because even when you “win” in Washington, you have to keep fighting.
Think about this — abortion is legal in America, and there is a supreme court case to back that up. But there are a *lot* of pro-choice lobbyists fighting to *keep* it legal. Why? Because there are still pro-life lobbyists fighting to make it *illegal*. Just because you “win” with legislation doesn’t mean the fight is over.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the end, let me ask you this. You are clearly 100% anti-D’Amato. That’s fine — it’s easy to dislike individuals, especially in politics. But in your most recent comment you wrote that you find the PPA “disgusting and wrong for the game.” In your original article, you wrote, “I think the PPA is harmful to poker.”
Can you clearly list the reasons why you feel this way? Because it still sounds to me like you don’t understand the role of the PPA.
When you became a member, you clearly expected the PPA to be one thing, and they are something different. It seems like you expected the PPA to be like the Professional Golf Association or something, protecting the poker industry from itself. In reality the PPA is protecting the poker industry from outside forces.
Are you still shocked that the PPA didn’t issue public statements about the Absolute Poker scandal? Are you still shocked that the PPA accepts money from online gaming sites? If you are, then I don’t think you understand the role of the PPA.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:16 am
I’ve tried rereading your comments again, because I know I’m still misunderstanding your disagreements with the PPA. I’ll give it one more try tonight.
You suggest that the UIGEA had no impact — that is clearly *wrong*. Most publicly-traded online poker sites left the United States market as a direct result of the UIGEA. Remember PartyPoker? The largest online poker site in the world. You think it’s a coincidence that they packed up their things and left the biggest market after the UIGEA passed?
And what about the WSOP? Once the UIGEA passed, they no longer accepted satellite entries from online poker sites that accept money from U.S. customers. There’s only one reason they would do that — Harrah’s lawyers are uncomfortable with the current laws about online poker, and they don’t want to take the risk.
If poker were safe from the UIGEA, wouldn’t it have been listed alongside horseracing, fantasy sports, and online lotteries as exceptions in the wording of the bill?
As you point out, the PPA predates the UIGEA, because the threat to the legality of online poker has been present for years. Most of us who work in the poker industry knew the day would come when poker legislation would come to pass — but the way Bill Frist snuck it in without debate (attached to another bill) caught us by surprise.
In your original article you said, “They are raising an issue where none needs to be raised. Poker is fine as is right now. Please again tell me if I am wrong.”
You are wrong.
The UIGEA definitely had a negative impact on the poker industry, even if individual players can still (for the time being) find “legal” sites to play online poker for money.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Another negative impact has been the U.S. employees of these sites having to make life-changing decisions (moving to Dublin or Canada) due to the UIGEA for fear of the law.
Was the UIGEA just a scare tactic? Possibly. Look at its impact outside of the number of people playing online poker and look more closely the landscape of how the sites/games have changed.
PartyPoker and PacificPoker were gold mines, after they left the market games has become a little tougher and sites have offered less marketing promos like reload bonuses.
March 20th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Online poker fueled the recent poker boom. Moneymaker’s victory at the WSOP was the spark that lit the fire, and having the World Poker Tour on TV each week fanned the flames higher and higher. But online poker was the fuel (money) that kept the entire industry growing at such a fantastic rate.
For players, online poker provided sponsorships. For magazines, websites, and poker TV shows, online poker provided a steady stream of advertising. The online poker sites also created jobs for writer/photographers like me (and many of my friends in the poker media). A lot of that dried up as a direct result of the UIGEA. Yes, most individual players just moved from PartyPoker or PacificPoker to PokerStars or Full Tilt, and they can still play just like they used to. But the industry as a whole has changed dramatically.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
***Another negative impact has been the U.S. employees of these sites having to make life-changing decisions (moving to Dublin or Canada) due to the UIGEA for fear of the law.***
Mine changed dramatically as a guy suckling on the PartyPoker teat pre-UIGEA. So many of us had a selfish, financial interest in seeing the law go down differently
Those financial interests are what drive all politics when they happen to fit within the framework of a principle you (and others) believe in.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Sorry for the delay in responding today… I have been busy with a ton of stuff.. including getting ready for my Orlando trip.
I need this vacation!
Anyway… I have to say I am about done with the back and forth because it really is pointless. It is going nowhere and I don’t want to continue to waste each other’s time. Nothing you say BJ is going to get me to see your side and it appears the same for you. Plus Ed is right… we are some book writers.
I would still like to hear some other points of view but I think people are going to be too intimidated by the sheer volume of shit to sift through.
I replied to your post over on Pokerati and I think it answers some of your questions… but I already said it a million times why I think the PPA is harmful to poker. I am not sure how I can explain it again.
and I am starting to get sore finger tips from typing. I have said my peace. It is up to everyone who reads it to decide on their own.
I will say that I just heard about the 1000 WSOP entries Poker Stars is offering. What do you guys think of that? I am sure this year will be a lot different than last. Companies are realizing they really don’t have anything to worry about in regards to the UIEGA. I would think once Party Poker drops other forms of gaming from their program they will be back too. Wasn’t there already talk of that?
I have to mention that I really love the fact that you all seem to care as much about the game as I do. BJ you do one helluva job and I enjoy your work. Dan - you are the man too. I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of you. Even Pappas. I have no doubt he is a good man and in his mind believes he doing the right thing. Pappas has always seemed at least genuine. It says alot about the man for taking the time out to talk to a little site like ours. I really admire his willingness to reach out to us little guys.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
BTW… I almost forgot… part of this will be the subject of my blog tomorrow.
Some of the PPA state directors need to act like they are worthy of representing millions of people. I don’t blame them for riding their new horses as high as they can but some of them just seem like jerks. One of called me a troll and a shill for a land based casino. HAH. Then the guy goes and brags about how he still plays on UB because he thinks its an isolated incident. Since ALL the facts are not yet out… I am not sure how he thinks that. And considering the same company owns Absolute AND UB… I hardly call it isolated.
They jumped on me for wanting to boycott Absolute and give people more of a reason to say online poker should be banned…. and yet Rich Muny starts a thread and is ready to boycott Coke. Rich is one of the most vocal in his oposition to the issues I raised.
Rich…. How is my wanting to boycott Absolute for creating software to cheat the player wrong, but boycotting Coke for an advertisement making fun of politicians is the right thing? It is so right that you thought worthy enough to dedicate a thread to it AND write an email in disgust. Time well spent I hope….
Anyone else see how moronic that is? In my eyes.. I worry about the average person who heard about that and said wow… poker players really are degenerate idiots. Boycott coke? Bill Frist was being made fun of in that video….
Some of these guys are great examples of what I find generally wrong with the online poker community. Here you have a PPA leader who doesn’t respect the game enough to move his money elsewhere. The people who continue to play on Absolute and UB are no different that those who cross a picket line.
Online players in general are missing that honor, respect, pride, loyalty, and true love of the game. If they had any concept of those things at all… AP and UB would be struggling to stay online. Instead there was no noticeable effect to their bottom lines….. THATS SICK.
Barry Greenstein had a great blog about Internet players and monkeys. He made some great points. I suggest anyone who hasn’t already, listen to it.
alright that’s it for me…. no more really long comments for a while. I will try to keep my blog post tomorrow to a minimum too..
April 26th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
[...] The introduction and the interview are well worth the read, as Frank poses some serious questions to the online poker community about organization, legislation, re…. [...]
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm
[...] And even though I was taken to task and insulted by some PPA state reps. And even though their public position then was to not have one, they certainly get some credibility points from [...]
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Position confirmed. Not sure they are “bad” for poker, but at least they are getting their priorities straight and taking a stand.