21 replies to this topic

[krayzcootr]

Hi I'm a new member here. I was wanting to discuss this new online poker coalition formed to represent only online poker players and there interests. They seem to be very interested in hiring a lobbying firm for state legislation. Here is the link http://gcopp.org/

[FCP Bob]

It appears to be an organization of one person with a 3 page website asking you to send contact information.

[DJ Vu]

Well since Bob approves, I'll do it!Edit: I didn't see where I'm supposed to put my social security number or credit card info.

[Lrgetrout]

Hmm, a user with one post, asking me to fill in a contact form for a website that has only been up 11 days. But since he's not asking for a credit card or social security number, it's of no use to me.(Bah, spoiler tag works differently than I'm used to here so no way to hide this guy's Whois in a box.Whois for gcopp.org: http://www.networkso...earch/gcopp.org)

[krayzcootr]

Lrgetrout, on Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, 5:10 PM, said:

Hmm, a user with one post, asking me to fill in a contact form for a website that has only been up 11 days. But since he's not asking for a credit card or social security number, it's of no use to me.(Bah, spoiler tag works differently than I'm used to here so no way to hide this guy's Whois in a box.Whois for gcopp.org: http://www.networkso...earch/gcopp.org)

I didn't ask you to fill out any contact info. I have over 600 posts on 2+2 but every time I try to discuss this topic it gets deleted by the ppa mod so I simply wanted to discuss the merits of a new group starting that has different goals than the ppa.

[krayzcootr]

Here is a radio segment about Robert Fellner. Its a good piece if you have time. Starts at 25:44 about his background and talks about GCOOP at 34:00.http://www.fifthstre...mp;Filter=Shows

[Lrgetrout]

krayzcootr, on Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, 3:16 PM, said:

I didn't ask you to fill out any contact info. I have over 600 posts on 2+2 but every time I try to discuss this topic it gets deleted by the ppa mod so I simply wanted to discuss the merits of a new group starting that has different goals than the ppa.

Didn't ask us to fill out any contact info? Then what are the boxes at the bottom of your website for exactly?

[krayzcootr]

Lrgetrout, on Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, 5:23 PM, said:

Didn't ask us to fill out any contact info? Then what are the boxes at the bottom of your website for exactly?

not my website

[Lrgetrout]

krayzcootr, on Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, 3:26 PM, said:

not my website

Sure.[ ] I believe that claim.

[FCP Bob]

Before I made my post I did a little bit of searching and I don't see any signs of a scam happening but I also don't see any signs of any organization. It appears to be a one man operation started by somebody who is trying to promote themselves and has a political career as a goal. There's nothing wrong with that but I don't see this organization as anything more than a vanity project that has a super slim chance of gaining much attention or support.

[krayzcootr]

FCP Bob, on Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, 6:02 PM, said:

It appears to be a one man operation started by somebody who is trying to promote themselves and has a political career as a goal. There's nothing wrong with that but I don't see this organization as anything more than a vanity project that has a super slim chance of gaining much attention or support.

It does seem to be a very small operation. However, I do believe that they are supporting (or wanting to support) state legalization of online poker. This is something that the ppa has been very inefficient in doing. Yes a federal bill would be great however, I don't think that has any chance in the near future. Specifically, the state of new jersey has legislation tabled for a vote on May 31 which if passed would be a milestone for future regulation in my opinion. I don't think the ppa are lobbying very hard for a positive outcome for this state bill, this is concluded from threads on 2+2. I am not sure if you have similar threads on fcp

[Cruz]

I don't know what is in the New Jersey legislation but I would highly recommend that anyone who is going to support state legislation look into the details before simply supporting it because it legalizes poker. In California there is pending legislation that is trying to be passed as an Urgency Bill. In other words the bill would go into effect immediately. Great!!!...Right?...Wrong!What goes into effect immediately would be making it an actual crime for California players to play on offshore sites like Merge. But because the state wants to give the California sites time to create their sites, no California poker site would actually be allowed to go online until January of 2014. So California players would be sitting on their hands while possibly federal legislation is passed. California players wouldn't be able to benefit from the federal legislation because once state legislation is passed California intends to opt out of the federal legislation. California's intent is to separate their player pool from the rest of the world, essentially turning California into the East Berlin of the online poker world.The PPA is right to be skeptical of state legislation. The state legislations haven't been, for the most part, a response to players wishes. They have arisen to meet the fiscal desires of state government and casinos with the players' interests largely being ignored. So before supporting any state legislation players need to ask questions like, when will the sites actually go onine?, will the state legislation cause the state to opt out of federal legislation?, will the state strengthen the UIGEA?, will there be enough competition to insure a beatable rake?, how badly will the state's share of the profits cut into the ability for a player to make a profit?...

[RobertFellner]

Hi guys, I’m Robert Fellner, the founder of GCOPP. I’m not going to waste time going into my bio as that is on the website and in the videos/radio interview found there and linked by my friend, krazycootr, earlier in this thread.I do want to reiterate that I’ve been an online poker player since its creation. As I note both in the interview and directly on the website itself, which I will quote from now, “I am looking to form a coalition of online poker players worldwide so that we have a voice and influence in the legislative process that directly affects our industry and livelihood.”So yes, the website is brand new. This whole effort is brand new. So it is a bit puzzling to me that the reaction is “this thing is new and has no members, therefore we should ignore it.” I’m not sure how any project would ever get off the ground with that attitude. This is something I am volunteering my time for, to help advance the cause of legalizing online poker. If there is no interest in that, that’s fine. But to dismiss it because it is a brand new project, and thus by definition, is in its preliminary stage of development, makes absolutely no sense.This comment: It appears to be a one man operation started by somebody who is trying to promote themselves and has a political career as a goal. There's nothing wrong with that but I don't see this organization as anything more than a vanity project that has a super slim chance of gaining much attention or support.is quite troubling to me. Think of the level of assumptions made here, with absolutely no information to support any of the false claims made. I’ve actually specifically avoided the fame and publicity my poker success would have offered me – if I ever choose to go that route. But that was not something that ever interested me. Now, I find myself in a fortunate position to have some key relationships with skilled lobbyists firms, and a bit of attention from the press I did in regards to Black Friday, that my poker player friends have been urging me on to undertake something like this. I felt I should at least try. The whole sit back and wait and see what state government's come up with, with precisely zero input from poker players, seems like a terrible strategy. So I’ve decided to give it a shot. Cruz made a very substantive and intelligent post which I think is extremely important. Specifically when he writes,”The PPA is right to be skeptical of state legislation. The state legislations haven't been, for the most part, a response to players wishes. They have arisen to meet the fiscal desires of state government and casinos with the players' interests largely being ignored. So before supporting any state legislation players need to ask questions like, when will the sites actually go onine?, will the state legislation cause the state to opt out of federal legislation?, will the state strengthen the UIGEA?, will there be enough competition to insure a beatable rake?, how badly will the state's share of the profits cut into the ability for a player to make a profit?...”This is the entire point of my efforts here. I want us to have a voice in these discussions! The PPA is great, but has mostly been focusing on the federal issue. Which isn’t going to happen. So the importance of being involved and helping to draft the state legislation in a way that is beneficial to us, can not be overstated. I only have had a few dozen members sign up so far in the 10 days we have been up. I would need a few hundred to begin serious talks with the lobbyist firm I’ve identified, Princeton Policy Affairs Group, for their expertise and track record of success in i-gaming legislation.Time is of the essence, and if the reaction on this forum is any indication, I doubt I will have achieved the numbers necessary to capitalize on the progress they are making. And that's a real shame. Much smaller industries than ours have extremely influential lobbying power. Given the high profile names, the sheer number of players, their general level of passion for their game, I would have thought there would be more organization on this front.I think there is a general misunderstanding of how politics and lobbying really works, and that too many people think that because the PPA exists, there is nothing more they can do. That's simply not the case. You want as many organizations lobbying on your behalf as possible. Furthermore, the PPA is for poker generally, GCOPP is for online poker players exclusively. If you are interested in more information, please check out the radio interview I did earlier this week where I cover most of the commonly asked questions. And, of course, if want to sign up please do so at www.gcopp.org. David Benefield (Raptor), Tim Finne (HighlandFox), and Katie Stone (Katie7503 - www.grindettes.com) have all signed up, if that makes you feel more comfortable. The only purpose of the contact form is to gauge interest and see if there are enough people willing to join, so that we can be taken seriously. You can even use an initial for your last name if you are uncomfortable with me having your name and e-mail information. Krazycootr - sorry for asking you to help me spread the word. No good deed goes unpunished, it would seem!Thanks for reading,Robert Fellner

[RobertFellner]

Forgot to mention, queue up the video to the 26:00 minute mark for my segment on GCOPP: http://www.fifthstre..._source=message

[Balloon guy]

Good Luck man.

[slink]

I have saved a lot of money since Black Friday. Yay DOJ?

[tamiller866]

I immediately went to the website and signed up when I saw your post on =4 before it was deleted, but after listening to your interview, I have some questions about your effort.You give your 'best example' for a reason to support you as your understanding of Las Vegas and Sheldon Adelson specifically, then go on to say that Adelson is against online poker because it will hurt his bottom line, implying that if you could just educate him you could change his mind.The problem I have with that is that Adelson is actually against legalizing online poker because he believes it will open Pandora's box and eventually lead to the legalization of all forms of gambling online, which would eventually put him completely out of business.If it were possible to turn Adelson around, it would be taking the exact opposite position from the state-by-state argument, making him aware that if he doesn't put his weight behind Federal poker only UIGEA strengthening legislation then individual States are going to open Pandora's box themselves.But I'm not even sure why you brought Adelson up, let alone used him as a best example, NV already passed their bill and in the =4 post you seemed in agreement with those of us who have been trying to convince the PPA for years that we needed to get some states on the bases before it will even be possible to swing for a Federal grand slam.This issue tilts me more than anything else ever has, the PPA has been blowing the same 'this is the year!' smoke up player's asses for five years, and any post that even questions their head banging routine gets flamed, deleted or hidden.But it's not even the PPA's fault, players will only support an approach that promises instant gratification is right around the corner, so the PPA just supports whichever Federal bill is next in the batting box and tells players it's going to be a grand slam, leaving players shouting 'one time' as if they will be back grinding 24 tables on 'Stars as soon as it passes. I could write a book on my frustrations, but I'll just skip to the summary: Don't waste your time, we aren't worth it. The vocal majority of online players are either selfish, lazy, or scumbags. When you mention fighting for state legalization you will hear comments like 'they might ban HUDs', 'if I get caught colluding/botting/etc at one site I'll be banned on them all', 'they might bar me from Merge where I make 45% rakeback folding 90% of my hands', 'my state might not have enough fish for my MTT's', 'why bother, I moved to Canada'... ad nauseum.One way I could see you garnering support for an online players lobby is offline, by soliciting people who actually play poker rather than the online grinders who only want to get back to working the system they had before BF, but I doubt even the casino poker rooms in favor of the bill would allow soliciting their players.Otherwise, as preposterous as it might sound, you would probably garner more support for regulated real money poker on a play money site like Zynga than you will ever find amongst those who just want their favorite unlicensed sites to magically return.

[RobertFellner]

tamiller866, on Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, 7:57 AM, said:

I immediately went to the website and signed up when I saw your post on =4 before it was deleted, but after listening to your interview, I have some questions about your effort.You give your 'best example' for a reason to support you as your understanding of Las Vegas and Sheldon Adelson specifically, then go on to say that Adelson is against online poker because it will hurt his bottom line, implying that if you could just educate him you could change his mind.The problem I have with that is that Adelson is actually against legalizing online poker because he believes it will open Pandora's box and eventually lead to the legalization of all forms of gambling online, which would eventually put him completely out of business.If it were possible to turn Adelson around, it would be taking the exact opposite position from the state-by-state argument, making him aware that if he doesn't put his weight behind Federal poker only UIGEA strengthening legislation then individual States are going to open Pandora's box themselves.But I'm not even sure why you brought Adelson up, let alone used him as a best example, NV already passed their bill and in the =4 post you seemed in agreement with those of us who have been trying to convince the PPA for years that we needed to get some states on the bases before it will even be possible to swing for a Federal grand slam.This issue tilts me more than anything else ever has, the PPA has been blowing the same 'this is the year!' smoke up player's asses for five years, and any post that even questions their head banging routine gets flamed, deleted or hidden.But it's not even the PPA's fault, players will only support an approach that promises instant gratification is right around the corner, so the PPA just supports whichever Federal bill is next in the batting box and tells players it's going to be a grand slam, leaving players shouting 'one time' as if they will be back grinding 24 tables on 'Stars as soon as it passes. I could write a book on my frustrations, but I'll just skip to the summary: Don't waste your time, we aren't worth it. The vocal majority of online players are either selfish, lazy, or scumbags. When you mention fighting for state legalization you will hear comments like 'they might ban HUDs', 'if I get caught colluding/botting/etc at one site I'll be banned on them all', 'they might bar me from Merge where I make 45% rakeback folding 90% of my hands', 'my state might not have enough fish for my MTT's', 'why bother, I moved to Canada'... ad nauseum.One way I could see you garnering support for an online players lobby is offline, by soliciting people who actually play poker rather than the online grinders who only want to get back to working the system they had before BF, but I doubt even the casino poker rooms in favor of the bill would allow soliciting their players.Otherwise, as preposterous as it might sound, you would probably garner more support for regulated real money poker on a play money site like Zynga than you will ever find amongst those who just want their favorite unlicensed sites to magically return.

Hey bud,Thanks for signing up and for all the great comments posted here. I haven't listened to the audio interview, but if I said Adelson is my best example, I certainly misspoke. The only point I was trying to make was the importance of being involved and advocating for our interests, because as you mention, things/people aren't going to magically fall into place for on their own. Your proposal about Zygna is definitely very interesting...

[DiamondDixie]

tamiller866, on Thursday, May 3rd, 2012, 11:57 AM, said:

I immediately went to the website and signed up when I saw your post on =4 before it was deleted, but after listening to your interview, I have some questions about your effort.You give your 'best example' for a reason to support you as your understanding of Las Vegas and Sheldon Adelson specifically, then go on to say that Adelson is against online poker because it will hurt his bottom line, implying that if you could just educate him you could change his mind.The problem I have with that is that Adelson is actually against legalizing online poker because he believes it will open Pandora's box and eventually lead to the legalization of all forms of gambling online, which would eventually put him completely out of business.If it were possible to turn Adelson around, it would be taking the exact opposite position from the state-by-state argument, making him aware that if he doesn't put his weight behind Federal poker only UIGEA strengthening legislation then individual States are going to open Pandora's box themselves.But I'm not even sure why you brought Adelson up, let alone used him as a best example, NV already passed their bill and in the =4 post you seemed in agreement with those of us who have been trying to convince the PPA for years that we needed to get some states on the bases before it will even be possible to swing for a Federal grand slam.This issue tilts me more than anything else ever has, the PPA has been blowing the same 'this is the year!' smoke up player's asses for five years, and any post that even questions their head banging routine gets flamed, deleted or hidden.But it's not even the PPA's fault, players will only support an approach that promises instant gratification is right around the corner, so the PPA just supports whichever Federal bill is next in the batting box and tells players it's going to be a grand slam, leaving players shouting 'one time' as if they will be back grinding 24 tables on 'Stars as soon as it passes. I could write a book on my frustrations, but I'll just skip to the summary: Don't waste your time, we aren't worth it. The vocal majority of online players are either selfish, lazy, or scumbags. When you mention fighting for state legalization you will hear comments like 'they might ban HUDs', 'if I get caught colluding/botting/etc at one site I'll be banned on them all', 'they might bar me from Merge where I make 45% rakeback folding 90% of my hands', 'my state might not have enough fish for my MTT's', 'why bother, I moved to Canada'... ad nauseum.One way I could see you garnering support for an online players lobby is offline, by soliciting people who actually play poker rather than the online grinders who only want to get back to working the system they had before BF, but I doubt even the casino poker rooms in favor of the bill would allow soliciting their players.Otherwise, as preposterous as it might sound, you would probably garner more support for regulated real money poker on a play money site like Zynga than you will ever find amongst those who just want their favorite unlicensed sites to magically return.

Wow you kind of bang the nail right on the head!

[opie]

RobertFellner, on Tuesday, May 1st, 2012, 10:27 PM, said:

I’ve actually specifically avoided the fame and publicity my poker success would have offered me – if I ever choose to go that route. But that was not something that ever interested me.

Kind of regretting that decision now, aren't you?