12 replies to this topic

[ddudley]

If you agree that this is in the best interest of poker, you may want to help out.http://www.cardplaye...4515&m_id=65555http://www.cardplaye...4346&m_id=65549 http://www.cardplaye...4376&m_id=65550http://cardplayer.co...4573&m_id=65557I'm not sure these are in the best order. Let me know if you think they should be switched around to make more sense or be more interesting.

[JaysonWeber]

I think this will be up before the big event at the end of this year, I can't wait to see it happen, It's going to Cement pokers legitimacy, I'm actually using a snippet from this article in a speech im giving on Friday.

[chuckf410]

Overall, a players association is a nice idea, but in practice it leads to a slippery slope that will crush independant games.What happens when the assoc says you can only play in approved games? Imagine when you must join the assoc just to participate in a tournament. That's one more additional cost for you. What happens when you have fundamental differences with the assoc and that blocks you from competing in thier games? Lets say that two major assocs come into play. One is aligned with the WPT and the other the WSOP. And you can only belong to one or the other. Which do you join? What happens when your "exclusive money game home" is a member of Assoc A and your tounaments are played with Assoc B? What happens when the big sponsor is (for the sake of argument) Coke and you have a deal with Pepsi? You get into trouble with the Assoc if you wipe out the coke displays when you win, or drink your pepsi on the coke winners stage, and you get into trouble with your personal sponsors if you're seen with the coke products in the major media.

[Radix]

chuckf410 said:

Overall, a players association is a nice idea, but in practice it leads to a slippery slope that will crush independant games.What happens when the assoc says you can only play in approved games?

This is a really good point. Way back in the day where I grew up there was a musician's association, where members could only play in certain venues. I can see the same happening in a poker players association. If they are not careful, it may hurt the poker community more than it would help.

[ddudley]

Umm, ya... and the PGA has been horrible for golf? :roll: Come on guys! Aren't you being a little short sighted here? Did you even read Roy Cooke's article? Look further down the road to the day when most tournaments are run like the PPT and the PGA. If you qualify it's a freeroll.Look at what has worked for other similar organizations like golf and tennis. What we have now doesn't work nearly as well as it could.

[chuckf410]

ddudley said:

Umm, ya... and the PGA has been horrible for golf? :roll: Come on guys! Aren't you being a little short sighted here? Did you even read Roy Cooke's article? Look further down the road to the day when most tournaments are run like the PPT and the PGA. If you qualify it's a freeroll.Look at what has worked for other similar organizations like golf and tennis. What we have now doesn't work nearly as well as it could.

Okay, name two major golf tournaments that are not organized under the PGA. A baseball team that's not a member of MLB. A stock car race not run by NASCAR. A hockey team not controled by the NHL.So let's say that poker gets a player's association. The PPT brings it to the forefront. They say that the definitive game of the year is the (now fictional) "PPT Grand Poker Player Playoff", and thier members are banned from playing in the (let's assume) assoc independent WSOP because it is not backed by the PPT assoc and will not pay to get licensed.Well right now, the winner of the WSOP is considered the defacto best in the world. Would the members of the PPT be less than the best because they didn't even compete in the WSOP? And let's say that the PPT has a membership fee of $500/year and you must be a member to compete in any of thier tournaments. Is that fair even if you only want to compete in the big one? What if each tourny has an additional fee to enter?Right now, the house has the advatange of setting the rules. We hear DN (his site so he's the example here) complain about tournament setups regularly that they don't fall into his liking or style. Well the simple fact is with all the choices out there he can find the tournies that have rules he likes and not play the others. With an assoc governing things, the rules will be set accross the board and if he doesn't like them he'll suffer as a result. Don't get me wrong, I'm not set against a players association. But if someone doesn't post the possible negatives to a situation all you see are the 'benefits' that can easily corrupt a system that is otherwise not funamentally broken.

[ddudley]

chuckf410 said:

Okay, name two major golf tournaments that are not organized under the PGA. A baseball team that's not a member of MLB. A stock car race not run by NASCAR. A hockey team not controled by the NHL.So let's say that poker gets a player's association. The PPT brings it to the forefront. They say that the definitive game of the year is the (now fictional) "PPT Grand Poker Player Playoff", and thier members are banned from playing in the (let's assume) assoc independent WSOP because it is not backed by the PPT assoc and will not pay to get licensed.Well right now, the winner of the WSOP is considered the defacto best in the world. Would the members of the PPT be less than the best because they didn't even compete in the WSOP? And let's say that the PPT has a membership fee of $500/year and you must be a member to compete in any of thier tournaments. Is that fair even if you only want to compete in the big one? What if each tourny has an additional fee to enter?Right now, the house has the advatange of setting the rules. We hear DN (his site so he's the example here) complain about tournament setups regularly that they don't fall into his liking or style. Well the simple fact is with all the choices out there he can find the tournies that have rules he likes and not play the others. With an assoc governing things, the rules will be set accross the board and if he doesn't like them he'll suffer as a result. Don't get me wrong, I'm not set against a players association. But if someone doesn't post the possible negatives to a situation all you see are the 'benefits' that can easily corrupt a system that is otherwise not funamentally broken.

I think you totally misunderstand what a poker players association would do. The goal here is to start an organization that looks out for the best interests of the players and poker in general. A poker players association would be working against precisely what you cite in your PPT example. Limiting what tournaments a player can play, is extremely bad for players. FYI, the WPT/PPT have already tried to prevent players from playing in WSOP Circuit. But, the players got together and basically said that if you makes us do that then we are all not going to play in your tournaments. I'm not sure if you know this but, the WPT is a for-profit public company that is looking out for the best interest of it's shareholders not the best interest of players.As far as rules go, a poker players association would be trying to work for a uniform, fair set of rules to be adopted by all major tournaments. These rules would have the best interest of all players in mind.Maybe it would help if you read a couple more of Roy Cooke's articles...http://www.cardplaye...4346&m_id=65549http://www.cardplaye...4376&m_id=65550

[chuckf410]

ddudley said:

I think you totally misunderstand what a poker players association would do. The goal here is to start an organization that looks out for the best interests of the players and poker in general. A poker players association would be working against precisely what you cite in your PPT example. Limiting what tournaments a player can play, is extremely bad for players. FYI, the WPT/PPT have already tried to prevent players from playing in WSOP Circuit. But, the players got together and basically said that if you makes us do that then we are all not going to play in your tournaments. I'm not sure if you know this but, the WPT is a for-profit public company that is looking out for the best interest of it's shareholders not the best interest of players.As far as rules go, a poker players association would be trying to work for a uniform, fair set of rules to be adopted by all major tournaments. These rules would have the best interest of all players in mind.Maybe it would help if you read a couple more of Roy Cooke's articles...http://www.cardplaye...4346&m_id=65549http://www.cardplaye...a...&m_id=65550

Like I said in my original posting, I'm not against a players association in theory. I think it would be a good thing overall. It's in the details where things will need to be addressed. You say that a players association would work against the things that I cite in my example. What happens when the major backer of the assoc is a group like the PPT. They're dropping alot of money into the assoc and want to get something out of it. So the only way for the assoc to stay 'pure' is to be totally independant. WPT, Harrah's, etc cannot be a monitary contributor. As far as setting standard rules, that's not a good thing either. Let's say that the assoc comes to the conclusion that a 90 sec time limit on decisions is in the best interest to keep TV ratings up. After all, having two people stare and play with chips for longer than that you lose the average home viewer. Personally I tend to make my choices in under 60 seconds so I don't talk myself in circles on a choice. But as we know from his blog, DN was forced to fold because he couldn't make a choice in 90 seconds. (That's his thing and I'm not faulting him for it) But you can see how that would be unfair for many players. If I don't like a blind structure, I don't play in a tourney. But if they're all the same I have no choice, because one group of people said that this structure was 'best' for poker. And as for the sponsors of the assoc, what about that? If, for instance, FullTilt becomes the 'officical online poker site of the Players Assoc' are they the only ones allowed camera time in any Assoc tourney? Am I allowed to wear my Pstars hat when Pstars is my sponsor? Sponsorship is a growing deal in poker, and if you want to see all the good, bad, and indifferent things that can happen with sponsorship deals and when they clash, look at Nascar.

[ddudley]

Have you read all of the 3 articles I linked to?All of your examples assume that the association is going to make very bad decisions in every instance. I guess I don't understand why you would assume that. I guess if I thought they'd make a poor decision at every opportunity I wouldn't support it either.

[chuckf410]

ddudley said:

Have you read all of the 3 articles I linked to?All of your examples assume that the association is going to make very bad decisions in every instance.  I guess I don't understand why you would assume that.  I guess if I thought they'd make a poor decision at every opportunity I wouldn't support it either.

Well let me start this post as I have my others. I am not against a players asscociation. But there are things that need to be looked at.I have read those articles, and he says alot of good things. I don't disagree with the majority of what he's saying. But in this case you (and he) are promoting this thing. I'm merely pointing out the bad things that can happen. I'm not saying that all of my arguments will come to fruition, but some might if they are not looked at early on. One big thing that I see wrong in his theories is he wants this assoc to be top heavy with business people rather than players. out of a nine member board of directors he only suggests two players be on there. For a PLAYERS association. The TOP PLAYER OF THE YEAR previous to be a NON voting advisor. They want to maintain a blacklist of players who don't measure up to thier ethics of a proper player. Lets say Ammarilo Slim wants to join up. Do you allow him to? He's arguably one of the best and most reconizable players. But he's got this one flaw that he's a confessed child molestor.

[ddudley]

chuckf410 said:

Well let me start this post as I have my others. I am not against a players asscociation. But there are things that need to be looked at.

OK. It was just hard to believe when you kept arguing against it.

chuckf410 said:

One big thing that I see wrong in his theories is he wants this assoc to be top heavy with business people rather than players. out of a nine member board of directors he only suggests two players be on there. For a PLAYERS association. The TOP PLAYER OF THE YEAR previous to be a NON voting advisor.

I agree. I think there should be more players. I would say at least 40-50% of the voting board should be players.

chuckf410 said:

They want to maintain a blacklist of players who don't measure up to thier ethics of a proper player. Lets say Ammarilo Slim wants to join up. Do you allow him to? He's arguably one of the best and most reconizable players. But he's got this one flaw that he's a confessed child molestor.

Good question. If that's true. I can't say I would disagree with banning him or keeping him. It's a tough call. Mostly, I think, the black list should involve suspensions for first and second violations then, maybe a lifetime ban for the 3rd violation. I think the violations should be poker related although I guess overall conduct would have to be factored in, too.

[chuckf410]

ddudley said:

OK. It was just hard to believe when you kept arguing against it.

Well so far the posts of substance has been only you and I here. So since you're strongly in support of the idea, I feel someone must mention the downside. However, if everyone just goes along with things to get a players assoc is that a good thing? If there is no one to argue against it who will keep it honest?

chuckf410 said:

One big thing that I see wrong in his theories is he wants this assoc to be top heavy with business people rather than players. out of a nine member board of directors he only suggests two players be on there. For a PLAYERS association. The TOP PLAYER OF THE YEAR previous to be a NON voting advisor.

ddudley said:

I agree. I think there should be more players. I would say at least 40-50% of the voting board should be players.

Iwould say for a players association, at least 51% should be players. This is not a cardroom or casino association. I realize that any good assoc would need thier input, but it should never be dominated by thier input. Otherwise, the assoc is a fraud if you ask me due to thier business interests over the player interest.

chuckf410 said:

They want to maintain a blacklist of players who don't measure up to thier ethics of a proper player. Lets say Ammarilo Slim wants to join up. Do you allow him to? He's arguably one of the best and most reconizable players. But he's got this one flaw that he's a confessed child molestor.

ddudley said:

Good question. If that's true. I can't say I would disagree with banning him or keeping him. It's a tough call. Mostly, I think, the black list should involve suspensions for first and second violations then, maybe a lifetime ban for the 3rd violation. I think the violations should be poker related although I guess overall conduct would have to be factored in, too.

A quick Google search will provide you with the articles on Slim and his child molestatation issues. However, just due to the fact he is a legend in the poker world for his skill, there is no way I would support an organization who would allow him in knowing he is a child molestor. There is no 'tough call' as you put it as far as I am concerned.

[cantoncj]

chuckf410 said:

Okay, name two major golf tournaments that are not organized under the PGA.

I know this may not be on topic, or helpful, but to answer your question: The US Open, and the Open Championship (British Open) are not organized by the PGA.