Archives: News

As the new leader of the online poker industry, Alfonse D’Amato has taken command in forming the battle plans to free poker from the constraints of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

As Chairman of the Poker Players Alliance, and its chief lobbyist, he is charging forward on behalf of the largest single poker association, representing the particular interests of the online poker community. Senator D’Amato comes to his new role on behalf of the PPA as an experienced politician, savvy in the ways of Washington, though he is a New Yorker through and through.

Born in Brooklyn in 1937, and raised on Long Island, he earned his college and law school degrees from Syracuse University. He worked his way up through the ranks of Republican politics of Nassau County, and then made his play for the Senate against an ailing Senator Jacob Javits in the 1980 Republican primary. He went on to serve three terms in the United States Senate where he held the prestigious posts of chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and as a member of the Finance Committee.

D’Amato switches gears easily

These days, when not in Washington whooping it up with cronies from his eighteen years in the Senate or carrying messages to legislators high on the Hill, Alfonse D’A’mato travels far and wide in search of strategies for his clients and is seen all around town in New York. He moves easily from power breakfasts to dinners with compatriots. A few months back he met with Hillary Clinton and former Mayor Koch; he reportedly stirred the pot with mumblings of a McCain/Rudy presidential ticket. At night he shows up in places where it is important to be seen. (think Rao’s). And he is loyal to his friends like heavyweight Republican fundraiser Charlie Gargano and political consultant Arthur Finkelstein.

The peripatetic former senator has a full plate as the managing director of Park Strategies, LLC. He founded the company, a lobbying and business consultancy, with partner Wayne Berman, shortly after he was delivered his electoral comeuppance by the more intellectually polished Charles Schumer.

The “Pothole “Senator turned politically incorrect in 1998, for the use of an offensive slang Jewish term. According to close friends, Senator D’Amato realized the errors of his ways – even before the election returns were in. Mr. D’Amato is still better known in many Jewish communities for his rambunctious support of Holocaust survivors in claims against Swiss banks. His verbal misstep and resulting ouster from office was seen in many quarters as a worse penalty for Jewish interests than it was for the former senator.

Mr. D’Amato proved almost instantly resilient after his fall from elective office. In addition to his new role as an entrepreneur, he held down a short-term stint as a practicing lawyer with a well established New York firm. His only problem with the bifurcated new career was that the company’s bulging rolodex of contacts and the law firm’s significant client base collided into too many potential conflicts. Senator D’Amato stuck with his new born baby, Park Strategies.

Beyond the world of legislators in Washington, Mr. D’Amato has become a fixture on cable news with a weekly show on New York 1 and regular contributions on Fox News. And his longstanding sphere of political influence continues in New York, virtually unabated from his days as Senator and supporter-in-chief of George Pataki’s first gubernatorial election campaign.

D’Amato for Governor

In 1994, Mr. D’Amato went head to head with Rudy Giuliani over the Republican former mayor’s decision to endorse and campaign for the Democratic incumbent, Mario Cuomo in the Governor’s race. In the end it was Alfonse D’ Amato who prevailed (as much as Mr. Pataki). Attacks by Cuomo supporters that suggested a vote for Mr. Pataki was a vote for a mere puppet of the Senator, fell on deaf ears.

The evening of the primary election, weeks before Rudy Giuliani announced publicly that he would throw his support to Cuomo, Senator D’Amato expressed his unhappiness with my friend, Rudy, in no uncertain terms.

The Senator and I were part of a small group of friends that sat with Governor Pataki in a hotel suite, early in the evening on primary night. We congratulated the next governor in advance of his nailing down the Republican nomination. But Mr. D’Amato wasted no time with niceties toward me. He demanded that I call Rudy and persuade him to leave another political gathering in Brooklyn to revel in George Pataki’s suite instead.

The unrelenting senator insisted that my failure to deliver the Mayor (for whom I was a special advisor at the time), would be proof positive of Mr. Giuliani’s plans to betray the Republican Party. Mr. D’Amato’s nose proved right, as to the Mayor’s decision to back Mr. Pataki’s opponent. His presumption that my advice or friendship (or anyone else’s for that matter) might have persuaded the independent Mayor to change his mind was totally nuts,as anyone who knew Rudy Giuliani then or now could attest! I demurred that evening. Mr. D’Amato and I have never chatted up a storm since.

On election night, Governor Pataki took to the podium of a jam-packed ballroom for a victory speech to the crowd. With uncharacteristic flair, almost immediately, he tipped his hat to D’Amato. In a not so veiled reference to the Mayor’s claims that he would be a puppet of D’Amato, the new Governor smiled wryly at the Senator and told the crowd, “You can call me, Al.”

D’Amato is Assembling Ammunition for Battle

Nearly a decade since he left elective office, Senator D’Amato walks the streets of New York more recognized than when he served in the Senate. His commentating positions serve as perfect bully pulpits for his pet projects and pet peeves. And this past week he chose to begin his march for the rights of online poker in the media,scoring a profile in the New York Times.

In addition, he has already crossed the pond to meet with government regulators on the Isle of Man together with online operators, including a few select members and associates of the Poker Players Alliance and a poker magazine publisher. The American-based contingent,especially including Mr. D’Amato,is trying to get a handle on management principles of legal online poker operations in Europe. This education is critical to making the case back in Washington for a possible poker carve-out from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Senator D’Amato has bought into the PPA’s high stakes poker game with a good -sized bankroll in hand, but he’ll be pounding the pavement for the support of more than a million online poker players. He is not likely to take “no” as an answer from anyone, if he can help it.

The anti gambling activists will have their hands full with the Pothole Senator from New York. Alfonse D’Amato is more street wise than wise guy. And lately, he has become positively statesman-like as he opines in interviews about the virtues of online poker for Americans with disabilities. Mr. D’Amato talks of the plight of the handicapped poker aficionados who would be deprived of the joy of a little cyberspace poker to brighten their day, if the Big Brother effort of UIGEA were to take hold. Mr. D’Amato is gearing up to fight for the right of adults to play poker in pajamas, if they please, from the comfort of their homes.

Companion pieces by two-time Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Gilbert M. Gaul appeared in the Washington Post on November 30th and December 1st. Gaul fleshed out the 60 Minutes presentation and laid out the case for and against legalized online gaming operations in the United States.

A day after 60 Minutes aired its investigations of the scandals, I journeyed to Washington, D.C. for client meetings, never anticipating that practically every lawyer, and just about everyone else with whom I was about to cross paths, had either seen the program or had read Gaul’s companion pieces in the Washington Post.

Mr. Kroft, the experienced 60 Minutes correspondent who two weeks earlier was seen in a spiffy business suit chatting up President elect Barack Obama, hunkered down for his presentation of the online poker scandals in more casual attire. He moved quickly into what he described as “the shadowy and murky world” of lucrative, off-shore online poker businesses.

Strolling through the World Series of Poker’s Amazon Room, he explained that the cavernous tournament arena that houses the biggest and most prestigious poker tournament in the world pales in size to the virtual real estate that is consumed by players in the online poker world.

The 60 Minutes producers had negotiated use of the WSOP arena as the backdrop for a series of interviews with several poker luminaries, including longtime ambassadors of the poker industry, as well as with several hip and highly educated online players who had starred in the investigation that uncovered the cheating scams at Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet. By the time the 60 Minutes program aired, Kroft focused on the young online poker players but left the interviews conducted with the older industry leaders on the cutting room floor.

While toiling in Washington for the better part of the week, I was unable to resist occasional respites from my legal consulting duties. I periodically segued into probing discussions regarding the investigation undertaken by Kroft and his team.

Law firm partners, lobbyists, Congressional staffers, a division chief from the Department of Justice and three members of the Obama transition team were in the eclectic mix of lawyers who talked to me about their take on the 60 Minutes program. They offered informal but penetrating insights. Most were at least vaguely familiar with the enactment of the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act which attempts to ban bets on Internet sites by United States players. All of them were aware of various midnight regulations that have been put into place by President Bush’s staff, but none of them realized that UIGEA regulations were among them. Judging from the effusive feedback, the program had plenty of impact on viewers.

An associate from one big firm who plays poker in a home game and occasionally dabbles in online tournaments said he was “freaked out” when he learned the amount of money pocketed by the cheaters, and “more astonished by the methodical and unyielding investigation of the online poker players.” He later commented, “The online players with law degrees are more invested in the game than I want to be.”

The managing partner at another firm whose son drives to Atlantic City for an occasional poker fix said he had always been wary of online poker games.” He added “It was a shock and awe moment to learn that the players busted the cheats.”

A division chief from a federal agency proved the least knowledgeable about online gaming, quite certain that the Justice Department had a right to ban American players from signing up at any Internet gambling site. Upon further reflection, he modified his position, saying, “I’m sure 60 Minutes checked on the legality issue before explaining that the online poker industry is illegal here.”

A lawyer with Covington Burling, who is also a colleague of Attorney General Nominee Eric Holder, summed up the predominant view expressed among the lawyers I queried, following the twin efforts of 60 Minutes and the Washington Post: “The instant scams might be isolated abuses, but the investigation offered broad, fact-based warnings that cannot be ignored.” He continued, “Effective regulation of online gaming is a lot more complicated than the protective oversight that has been largely achieved in brick and mortar casinos.”

Members of the Obama transition team abound in Washington these days. Most are pretty tight-lipped about substantive matters on the table, but as long as no identifying information is provided, they’re not shy about describing the landscape. According to one Obama intimate, “It will be an uphill battle, but not necessarily impossible, to convince the next Congress to repeal or modify the present Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.”

Another Obama confidante, a Chicago-based lawyer who occasionally competes in tournaments, ticked off the points he gleaned from the 60 Minutes broadcast and the Washington Post articles:

(1) Respect for the smarts and perseverance of the online poker sleuths,

(2) General suspicion toward online poker operators,

(3) Distrust of the off shore regulatory body that oversees Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet,

(4) A high level of concern for the prospects of integrity in online gaming, and

(5) A major concern for the personal rights that are abridged by banning online poker.

These five points, in various combinations, resonated far and wide.

Several lawyers who claim to have ties of one sort or another to the President–elect tell me not to get my hopes up to high or too soon on repealing or modifying UIGEA. One Senate staffer put it to me bluntly: “The President-elect and the Congress have a full plate of emergencies to deal with and this is not one of them.”

The high-powered Covington lawyer with whom Holder has worked gives a glimmer of hope: “When Holder talks, Obama listens.” The informative attorney whispers, “Holder likes poker. He used to play with cronies from his old office—the U.S. Attorney Office in Washington, D.C.”

President-elect Obama has talked about his fondness for poker with many friends and publicly, too. As I was leaving a roomful of folks who were still yakking about the 60 Minutes program, one of the President-elect’s old time poker buddies let me in on a secret: The new president’s past poker games amounted to wins and losses that rarely reached $50 either way. Rumor has it that Mr. Obama considered winning sessions a function of skill and losses a function of temporary bad luck!

Back in New York, I scoured the internet for comments about the program by avid online players. Most agreed that former computer scientist-turned poker pro Todd Witelles had provided 60 Minutes with a magic moment for the producers and a headache for the industry. Witelles was a victim of the Absolute Poker/UltimateBet cheating scandal and was involved in uncovering the scam.

People will remember his powerful warning that cheating such as had occurred at Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet could happen anywhere, emphasizing that it could be happening right now on other sites. But he never shared on air a shred of such evidence in any game known to him currently.

Only time will tell if the sensational 60 Minutes presentation has tainted the entire industry or whether it will motivate serious efforts to license, tax and regulate online gaming. The industry leaders who were summarily cut from the program were expected to recommend that course.

Will WSOP or 60 Minutes Play Second Fiddle?

The WSOP finale will air “nearly live.” The final nine players will duel November 9th until they are down to two players. The last two players will return November 10th to determine the winner and runner up, and the event will be broadcast by ESPN November 11th.

Meanwhile, insiders in the poker world are holding their collective breath wondering if the WSOP festivities may be upstaged by Mr. Kroft’s highly anticipated piece, which may be slated for November 9th, the same night the final table players (“November 9”) reconvene for their final duels. Rumors of the November 9th airing date are hot and heavy—not only in poker circles but also in at least one CBS corridor.

Writer’s Disclosure:

In the interest of full disclosure, CBS has been a client of a company in which I have an interest. Friends at CBS have provided various off the record information and comments that have been helpful to my presentation of this article. Both investigations to which I refer are instructive in understanding the mindset of news organizations and the trickiness in participating in a story over which you have no control.

Online Cheating is Publicly Exposed.

Last summer, Mr. Kroft was openly on the prowl, with an apparent plan to nail down a compelling story about the multi-billion dollar online poker industry, and more particularly about various claims of large-scale cheating scams in online poker rooms. CBS asked WSOP officials for access to its fabled Amazon Room to shoot interviews for the proposed piece. Harrah’s obliged. One Harrah’s executive has said, “It was not a comfortable situation, but what else could we do?”

The Kroft team set up shop, welcoming several well known poker personalities to the interviewing table. Over several months—before and after Kroft’s WSOP visit—60 Minutes investigators reportedly talked with a wide range of sources. Most of them were anxious to remain off-camera and out of the limelight.

The Makings for a Show.

Among those interviewed by 60 Minutes was Nat Arem, an internet player and key re-searcher in both the Absolute and Ultimate Bet scams. He is generally credited with having unearthed the smoking guns that brought public admissions by Tokwiro Enterprises of its own discovery of cheating at both sites. Tokwiro Enterprises, a tribal gaming company domiciled near Montreal, is licensed by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. Tokwiro also conceded that it had delayed telling its customers of these findings, and has since been severely fined by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission.

Even with proof positive of crucial information, approval for production of a 60 Minutes segment apparently does not proceed on automatic pilot or at the whims of a correspondent. It is reportedly a laborious process in which vetting the extensive information obtained in an investigation is one part of it and analyzing potential interest by the mainstream public is an important second part.

Cheating Claims Pre-Date Online Sites.

This is not the first time that 60 Minutes has been intrigued by alleged cheat-ing in poker games. Several years ago, two renowned cheaters—calling themselves the Gambling Cheaters Analysts (GCA)—contacted the program, offering to reveal the unseemly underbelly of the poker world and rampant cheating schemes, particularly in California mega-card rooms.

In the case of 60 Minutes’ GCA investigation, their researchers poured through thousands of internet poker Usenet group postings, not only from the cheaters, but also by other protagonists, including a highly respected player turned investigatory sleuth. A 60 Minutes team hopped planes to California and Washington State to interview the cheaters and other players for a bruising exposé. They returned home poised to go forward, but higher-ups slowed down the process. The program’s bosses were intent on scoring top names, in a high stakes game, at a ritzy casino in Las Vegas for on-camera interviews. The proposed segment was summarily dropped—without ever completing investigation of the cheaters’ allegations, once it became clear the desired glitz wasn’t going to fall into place.

60 Minutes Gets Lucky.

In contrast to the obstacles that the 60 Minutes reporting team faced last time around, this year’s investigation of poker cheating has been a walk in the park for Kroft and his crew. CBS not only secured the glamorous WSOP venue as a backdrop for filming, but also a parade of high profile poker personalities who were champing at the bit to speak their piece on national television. They also lucked out with a bevy of brilliant researchers for free—internet poker players who were wizards in analyzing statistics and motivated to do the work and publicize it.

The poker celebrities that have agreed to participate in filmed interviews all have had historical business connections with online poker sites—Linda Johnson and Mike Sexton with their associations with Party Poker, WSOP Champion Greg Raymer, a current member of Team Poker Stars, and Mark Seif a long time time sponsored player at Absolute Poker. Seif was apparently unfazed by the unpleasant scrutiny he has faced on online poker forums questioning his ties with Absolute Poker. Instead, Seif took the lead, long before Kroft showed up in town, to opine publicly on the “wonderful opportunity” that the 60 Minutes segment would provide—a chance for online poker industry representatives to make the case for taxing and regulating online gaming.

Poker Players Alliance Has a Plan.

Most of the poker participants, including many of the internet players who helped to bring pressure on Tokwiro to insure a full, credible internal investigation, actively support the goals of the Poker Players Alliance. The PPA seeks “to establish favorable laws that provide poker players with a secure, safe and regulated place to play.” Johnson and Raymer are members of the PPA’s Board of Directors.
It is not yet known whether Kroft’s on-camera interviewees outplayed their host so as to turn potential bad press into a golden opportunity for advocacy of congressional legislation that will allow online gaming in an appropriately taxed and regulated environment.

Harrah’s Gambles Too.

At the time that Harrah’s welcomed the 60 Minutes crew to the WSOP there was not yet any hint of searing evidence of cheating by a former World Series of Poker Main Event Champion. Earlier this month, however, Tokwiro Enterprises publicly fingered 1994 WSOP winner Russ Hamilton as the chief perpetrator and beneficiary of a multi-million dollar cheating scam at the Ultimate Bet site.

This is the kind of material for which 60 Minutes salivates—a glamorous venue, a powerful link between the venue and the story line, a group of high profile participants and a top name in the thick of the intrigue. The story has powerful legs and is better than a good bet to air—sooner rather than later.

Hopefully the collective cooperation of responsible members of the poker community with the 60 Minutes investigation will prove beneficial, by promoting the very sensible mission of the Poker Players Alliance.

Pollack Hunkers Down to Upgrading Customer Experience

In January 2006, WSOP Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack launched the Players Advisory Council (PAC). He promised, “No topics are off limits.” The group met frequently before the 2006 WSOP to discuss such basic issues as — food quality, offensive smoke in hallways, and much more about the potential for the new collaborative relationship. The WSOP team quickly saw a goldmine of advice and expertise in the initial group.

Nevertheless, during the summer of 2006, the WSOP team lost ground in player satisfaction with Harrah’s/Rio Management. Pollack saw the bright side while focusing on improvements; the tournament itself drew unprecedented player participation, “positive vibes” flowed among thousands of mesmerized customers, and the WSOP also earned staggering income for Harrah’s.

The Commissioner walked the halls regularly, expanding his outreach with WSOP executives and staff and also with players. Behind the scenes the WSOP team was brainstorming ways to extend the brand and “enhance the customer experience” with broader help from the Players Advisory Council.

A visit from Pollack while he was in New York after the WSOP, led to my joining PAC and helping to organize a sister Council for European players (IPAC) in the spring. PAC added several additional representatives and advanced dramatically in 2007, with players offering input on structures, payout changes and rules.

WPA Becomes Organized

Although Jesse Jones successfully recruited hundreds of members during the 2006 WSOP, it was not until spring of 2007 that a WPA Board of Directors was elected. Upon learning I was one of the nine elected directors, I decided to review the organization’s website. Some of the content gave me pause. Jones was speaking only for himself, but presenting material as if the board had fully ratified every aspect of his personal vision. I called Jeffrey Pollack who had also run for the board and had just been elected. I suggested that he review the website. He withdrew the next day — prior to the first Board meeting. I decided to proceed after receiving assurances from Jones that he would work collaboratively in policy making and decisions.

The first meeting of Directors took place in April. Jones was elected Chair. Yours truly was elected Vice Chair. The devoted group labored for more than seven hours trying to get a full understanding of Jones’ personal vision which was as unfamiliar to most of the Board as it had previously been to me—until I toured the website.

It turned out that Jones had a grand plan for tournament poker players (and only tournament poker players)—to empower them like never before through a governance system that would put tournament poker, worldwide, under WPA’s ruling umbrella.

Strife

Within a few months it was clear that Jones was not only a fervent supporter of his personal vision but also reluctant to participate in modifications recommended by other board members.

The WPA Board was increasingly hampered by conflict arising from Jones’ desire to pursue his ideas strictly on his own terms and fast track his proposals into done deals, regardless of other opinions.

In December 2007, Jones resigned from the Executive Committee. He remained as a Board member and critic. In February 2008, Jones gave up his position as an officer. He was accorded the title of Chairman Emeritus. Yours truly stepped into the Chair.

Once in the hot seat, I moved quickly with two initiatives for the remaining three-month term: 1) WPA’s first annual conference with a membership meeting and elections of officers and additional board members and 2) development of a highly capable board to meet the challenges of membership retention and growth and the expertise to create a viable long term business plan.

The 2007-2008 Board sent to the membership a sterling slate of Board candidates for the 2008-2009 year; expanding the Board’s number, diversity and collective poker prowess and business skills. The new Board was elected May 28. I was reelected as Chair. I looked forward to a collegial group building on the mission of promoting poker as a sport with improved playing conditions and concrete membership benefits. However, shortly after the elections, Jones was in the halls of the 2008 WSOP, promoting his personal vision mostly through criticism of the leadership—especially the Chair.

WPA Board Unravels

Among the estimated 1400 members listed in the WPA membership directory, an estimated 1100 voting members were asked to make renewal dues payments in 2008, but only 135 (estimated) elected to do so as of mid-June for the June 2008-2009 membership year.

At the June 10 Board meeting I resigned, after concluding that Jones’ views on how to handle critical membership issues, coupled with his pervasive negativity would be a recipe for probable failure of the association. For the record, I should say here that I tendered my notice of resignation before I considered the consulting assignment I am doing in connection with the upcoming presidential election. Jones “warmly accepted” my decision to resign, and immediately announced his desire to be reinstated as Chair asking the others to remain— with a passionate plea for their continued loyalty.

Return to “Jesse’s Organization”

My last act as Chair was to nominate Jones to retake the reins of the association. I urged the full support of his nomination after the Board voted (unanimously except for Jones’ abstention) to return membership dues payments made for the 2008-2009 year. Nine of the 11 voting board members walked en masse, returning the WPA to its roots as Jesse’s Organization.

After his month-long membership drive at the 2008 WSOP, Jones took in only nominal dues revenues. In July, he declared that all unpaid renewals would be converted to lifetime memberships, effective immediately. It is yet to be seen how and whether he can attract voting Board members to assist him in a bid to empower poker players based on his personal formula. At this time, the WPA is an inconsequential organization.

PAC’s Winning Formula

In contrast, PAC has matured productively. Issues of personality are checked at the door. Intellectual differences are bridged by a commitment to progress. Pollack and his team rarely exercise management prerogatives summarily, ever-mindful of retaining respect for the collaborative effort.

By all accounts the 2008 WSOP was the best-run tournament in its history. WSOP Management opened the access door. PAC Participants have been encouraged to provide input. And WSOP’s PAC has gained visible influence in charting the future course of the WSOP. The comparative analysis of WPA and the PAC provides a history lesson for future poker player advocacy.

Two years later, I serve on the WSOP’s constructive PAC and am Immediate Past Chair of the World Poker Association, having resigned my post as Chair and member of the board this past June. History is instructive in what can work and what is destined to fizzle, as poker players, tournament organizers and card room executives continue to plow the course of player-management relations.

WSOP Commissioner Forms PAC

In 2006, Harrah’s Vice President and World Series of Poker Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack established a Players Advisory Council, consisting primarily of marquee players; most had ties to online poker sites. According to Pollack, it was Daniel Negreanu who approached him about the idea of a PAC in the fall of 2005.

The commissioner seemed to have a soft spot for high profile players, chatting them up since his arrival on the scene in August of 2005, but at the opening bell of the 2006 World Series of Poker, players found little evidence yet of Pollack’s grand plan to improve the customer experience. Poker pros and loyalists who had made the annual pilgrimage for years, railed at the hikes in tournament costs and bristled at the lack of attention to customer service. Players were ripe for an organized effort to change the rules of engagement.

Jesse Jones Pushes to Organize Poker Players

Directly outside the WSOP arena, Jesse Jones was holding court at his premiere positioned exhibit booth, stirring disgruntled players into battle. It was here that Jesse’s Organization came to life as the World Poker Association.

A successful poker pro and three-time cancer survivor, Jones had previously shown interest in organizing poker players. A couple of years earlier, he was an officer of the fast-failed WPPA (which was publicized as a unionizing effort). Jones resigned from the WPPA amid friction immediately following the first tournament.

Soon after, he helped develop plans for another poker player association, the IPPPA. He was reportedly eased off the steering committee of the IPPPA because colleagues perceived his philosophy as too rigid, too extreme, and too close to a union organization plan. The IPPPA never got off the ground.

“Jesse’s Organization”

Jones had recently sunk thousands of dollars from his own pocket to return to the business of uniting poker players and related poker entities. Pointing to increased tournament fees, higher-priced rooms, and unprecedented food costs, Jones promised to promote professionalism in poker competition, improve playing conditions, fight against corporate greed and balance the power between tournament organizers and players. He studiously avoided any references to building a poker player’s union.

His pitch attracted supporters like flies. Approximately 80 players anted up $1,000 apiece as founding members, including the likes of Phil Gordon and Daniel Negreanu who were part of the WSOP’s new PAC. Several hundred additional poker enthusiasts raised their hands with smaller bills.

Shortly after the WSOP, Jones contacted me, soliciting support for his cause. We discussed his needs for legal counsel and then moved to his plans: establish a Board of Directors, appoint committee chairs devoted to upgrading professionalism in poker competition and advocate for improved playing conditions. I was hooked.

Poker Player Groups Are Hot Commodities

The promotion of poker industry advisory boards and poker player associations had been fierce and frenzied for the better part of the past two years. In 2004, the World Poker Tour’s CEO, Steve Lipscomb, established a Player Advisory Board though the Committee was criticized as subjectively biased in selecting and excluding various participants for the Inaugural Professional Poker Tour.

During the same period, Louis Asmo, an experienced poker player and businessman formed the WPPA with visions of a poker player’s union and a “play for pay” policy. Jesse Jones served as his treasurer. The WPPA inked a deal with GSN for televised tournaments, but according to players involved there was little appetite for Asmo who promoted strife and mistrust in the burgeoning organization. Jones resigned after the WPPA’s first and only tournament. Both the WPT Player Committee and Asmo’s WPPA went down the tubes.

Other entrepreneurs came crawling out of the woodwork, too, attempting to unify poker players. The chant was becoming familiar: “The time hath come for the poker player to have a voice.”

Among the wannabees were Dallas–based entrepreneur Tommy Eubanks and a long established Denver-based speaker bureau, Brooks International, headed by Maureen Brooks.

Eubanks connected with Texan poker queen Clonie Gowan who in turn helped attract a potential Board that was to include Matt Savage, Tom McEvoy, Robert Williamson, Mike O’Malley, and Eric Morris. The poker personalities were impressive but ultimately players backed away as they came to believe that USPA’s founder would chew up membership dues in salaries for a few.

Brooks first reeled in David Chiu and then the likes of Johnny Chan, Jennifer Harmon, Marcel Luske, Daniel Negreanu, Annie Duke, Amir Vahedi, Alan Cunningham, Mark Seif, Phil Gordon, Phil Hellmuth, T. J. Cloutier, and Chris Ferguson and Chiu for a meeting.

A smaller steering committee included Jesse Jones. One Brooks executive recalls with admiration Jones’ passion to empower players but considered his views too extreme to work effectively in the group. A key meeting to lock in a management team was scheduled. Jones was not invited to attend the meeting. Later the business plan faded away.

In November 2005, Jones incorporated the WPA but it wasn’t until the 2006 that it gathered steam. Throughout the halls of that year’s WSOP players referred potential recruits to “Jesse’s Booth” and talked animatedly about Jesse’s Organization.

WSOP Starts “the List”

At the same time that the WPA was taking shape under Harrah’s nose, WSOP officials were actively responding to players’ biggest complaint: customer service had evaporated into thin air. Pollack and his team convened for a post-tournament debriefing with plenty of notes in hand.

In the next issue, Eolis traces the rise and subsequent unraveling of the WPA, and the PAC’s successful formula.

She was still very new to poker in 1986 when she heeded her interests and the urging of New York friends, traveled west to her first World Series and grabbed one of those records that will never be broken, becoming the first woman to cash in the main event at the World Series of Poker.

She’s back this year with other leaders of the WPA who are collectively enthusiastic about making the poker world a better place for beginners and veterans alike.

Eolis is a relative late comer to the world of big time poker. Didn’t start playing until she was 40. She has been a regular at the World Series of Poker for a number of years, twice finishing in the money in the WSOP’s main event, and has traveled to other big tournaments as business schedules permit. She’s the only woman to ever win the European nolimit hold’em tournament and has been seen on television in invitation-only poker action.

Poker has come a long way since her first World Series. So has Eolis. Nearly 1,400 WPA members from 28 countries have some business before them as they arrive in Las Vegas. The group will be holding its inaugural membership meeting and voting on a proposed code of ethics for poker events that already has the support of World Series officials.

Eolis, who heads an international consulting firm from her New York office that deals with the needs of lawyers, business leaders, and elected officials, became the WPA’s chairman when the board of directors was created earlier this year. The membership will be asked to approve them for the next year.

As the WPA’s website quotes Eolis, “We have moved down the path of unifying and standardizing tournament poker.”

The group’s presence at the 2008 edition of poker’s biggest annual will also include its role as a partner in the presentation of a mega-satellite that will qualify winners for a seat at the $10,000 buy-in no limit hold’em main event.

Since the formation of the board, the Association has completed its mission statement and set up operating rules that build on the work of the Tournament Directors Association.

The mission statement: “To promote poker as a sport by advocating professionalism and uniform rules and standards of conduct, and by helping to create increased economic opportunities for players.”

The rules proposals have been submitted to World Series officials for consideration and possible use at the time of the May 29 megasatellite. The rules address restrictions about the use of unacceptable language or other behavior that detracts from the game.

The World Series has already agreed with the Association proposal that says tournament action will use nine-handed tables. It’s a rule that will be in effect during the mega-satellite. “Nine at a table makes for a more comfortable environment than playing 10-handed,” Eolis said.

Another of the Association’s proposals will prohibit players from “splashing” the pot, an action that makes it difficult for players to calculate what has been bet on any given hand.

She continued, “While splashing the pot has been generally recognized as a no-no, it has never been in the rules. We have put it into our rules … No more splashing the pot.”

It’s just another of the approaches to tournament management that should benefit all players. “The World Series of Poker agreed that they will enforce this provision for us. That is important because it does take professionalism up a notch.”

Eolis also said the World Series accepted the essence of the Association’s thinking that while the WSOP has its own approach to the issues of unacceptable behavior, an approach that permits a certain amount of latitude in enforcing rules against unsportsmanlike conduct and abuse, its officials understand that the Association wants to see a conservative approach to such matters. In other words, according to Eolis, there should be no more than minimal latitude before punishment of one kind or another is handed out.

“Again,” Eolis stressed, “the idea is to encourage professionalism at the tables … All of these things are critically important to promote poker as a mainstream spectator sport.”

The results of the Association’s work, she believes, should make it apparent to the membership that “we want to promote poker as a sport with the highest ethical standards.”

Eolis said she has seen enough to convince her that what the membership expects is that the Association will be the “public voice representing poker around the world … listening to the players and representing them on significant issues.”

She’s eager to play a role, as she puts it, to “improve the listening ability” of those whose professional responsibilities give them control of the moneymaking opportunities available to players everywhere, particularly in tournament poker.

Eolis notes that the Association took issue with the World Series, or rather, the lifestyle show presented at the Rio at the same time as the World Series.

She contends some of the stripper-related or adult exhibits presented at the show detracted from efforts to present poker in the most professional of lights.

Eolis complimented World Series Commissioner Jeffrey Pollack for responding as promptly as he did.

Pollack explained that he had conferred with various World Series team members within Harrah’s and at the Rio.

Bottom line: Exhibits that detract from efforts to present poker in the best of lights will not be returning. “Tournament organizers,” she said, “are beginning to sit up and take notice” of the Association’s viewpoints.

One thing the Association does not do as an organization, she said, is get involved in political issues such as the arguments fueled by Internet poker.

But she quickly concedes, “I can’t imagine there is a poker enthusiast anywhere who wants to make it difficult to play the game.”

She has spent a lot of personal time trying to “talk some sense” into the heads of those who oppose Internet poker, but say this has nothing to do with the work of the Association.