PPA Letter to Lock Poker Demanding Player Repayment

[TheEngineer]

I made two contributions to PPA years ago. I was motivated and upset as many were over UIGEA and Black Friday.

I am a pretty average online guy. I started like every other Joe. Played on Party Poker, watched WSOP, played live at my local casino. I've read a lot of poker literature, Bluff, Card Player & most every poker hard cover released. I actually find the business and legal history fascinating. Just finished "Alligator Blood" - meh at best.

I still muck around the US facing sites. I don't feel PPA's presence.

That I am a member of PFA demonstrates that I have at least a casual interest in Poker & Food Porn.

PPA is not exactly hitting my radar.

PPA is all over the fight. I can't make the organization hit your radar. For those seeking to take action, PPA is very much on their radar.

So when I saw your reference to Lock, for instance, my reaction is that PPA has been MIA. I have played on Lock. My understanding of the situation and what it represents was the result of PFA. I NEVER saw ANY input anywhere from PPA on the matter.

"This year" was too late. This was a miss. Nobody's perfect, I guess. I would let this drop. PPA can't fight every fight.

PPA organized around political advocacy. I wish we could do it all, and perhaps we could with more donations and volunteers. I know I'm on this 24/7. PPA repeatedly warned the community of Lock once the situation was clear.

However, I haven't really seen any publicity on nearly any topic from PPA.

I do not see PPA as a vocal advocate. I can't hear you!

You can't hear us if you're not listening.

Which is it Engineer? I am not a lobbyist - PPA has been doing strong lobbying. Perhaps YOU are not a lobbyist. Perhaps you hire lobbyists. I have no idea. There is no shame in being a lobbyist. Cheri Jacobus is a lobbyist. She may be a very effective one too.

I'm not a lobbyist. I'm a mechanical engineer. I was with GE, designing jet engines, when UIGEA passed. I was upset and started trying to rally the poker community to aciton on poker forums. I was not even a PPA member then. As it was effective, I was invited to the PPA Board of Directors as an unpaid volunteer, while still working at GE (though I made as much playing poker online). I left GE in 2009 to play full time and to focus on my poker advocacy efforts. I didn't move up into my current paid role until after Black Friday, where I'm no lobbyist. Yes, PPA has lobbyists for sure, and that's a good thing. I'm just not one of them.

If my failed awareness regarding who PPA is and what PPA is doing is the simple result of my not being an active member privy to some private mailing list then that is your failure.

Your voice is not being heard by me. But maybe that is not PPA's charter.

No, not really. If you don't wish to seek ways to fight for the game, I don't feel it's on me. Just sayin'. In fact, I recently recovered from surgery to remove a pituitary tumor that wreaked some havoc and, after not taking any significant time off, am feeling even more strongly there. The people who wish to stand up for the game and advocate for it will do so. They are the core and are my friends. Those who sit around complaining that PPA isn't doing enough for them just aren't.

[Dan Druff]

The PPA was definitely invisible during the UB fiasco, which was one of my biggest issues with them.

Sometime around the Full Tilt remissions debate, it appeared the PPA had an "a-ha" moment and realized they should do more to throw their considerable weight around in poker consumer advocacy. That's why they suddenly inserted themselves into the Full Tilt remissions issue, and why they later popped into the Lock Poker situation (albeit way too late).

I believe that if another Lock Poker or UB type situation hits, the PPA will probably act faster and actually have some effect.

That's why I haven't been as harsh about their late entry into the Lock situation as many here have been. I will admit that the PPA entered that one way too late and their effect was likely minimal, but at the same time it signaled a change in direction of the PPA regarding matters like this, and I have to at least give them credit for making an effort once they realized it (even if it was too late in this particular instance).

My criticism of the PPA in the past wasn't to get on my high horse and bash people, but rather was an attempt to get them to change course in some areas where I felt they were not operating in the players' best interests.

So now they've changed course in their willingness to get involved in matters like this, and provided they act quicker the next time something like this happens, I am just happy to see that things are different now.

Besides, had they said NOTHING about Lock, it would have been worse than saying something too late, so I hate to give them negative reinforcement in their first foray into this sort of thing.

[Dan Druff]

BTW, if I had to guess, I would say that the PPA's silence about UB probably had to do with fear of Full Tilt and Pokerstars.

Tilt and Stars were giving them 99%+ of their funding, and I think the PPA was scared that if they went into consumer advocacy mode regarding UB, Tilt and Stars might fear that they could possibly be next if they were to be found doing something wrong. (And indeed... Full Tilt WAS doing plenty wrong, it just hadn't come out yet.)

So the PPA probably worried that if they took on a role of warning its players to stay away from certain sites -- even if the direct competition of those funding them -- it might scare Tilt and Stars from continuing to fund them, fearing they might be creating a monster that will become too powerful and turn on them. Tilt and Stars clearly felt more comfortable having PPA stick to lobbying, which could only help them.

This is only my theory, and I have no evidence to support it, but it makes the most sense to me.

In any case, I'm glad things have changed.