blonde poker forum

Yes. I know this conversation has been on before, and it has now come up again in a different thread. To recap on the conversation so far check out

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=409.msg9539#msg9539

and also

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=887.0

the second of which is a thread that got off topic.
 
However as Ironside originally said and I copied word for word from memory, this is something that needs setting up.

As an ever expanding community blondepoker could reach out to help set this up. I'm sure Tikay will help out, and there is a small band of Card room personnel out there willing to try to sort this out. We don't want to do it ourselves and force them onto you, the players. Speaking for the people I have spoken to already we are happy to meet up together with you all and try to thrash this out.

Maybe it will take the setting up of a players group to push this towards reluctant casinos. I'm sure if they didn't get players because they werent using a countrywide standard they would soon change to it.
 
Things could be spread along through the forum, then fine tuned at a meeting. Distributed to players and feed back given, then implemented.

I know it has been discussed but now is the time for serious discussion on this matter. Everyone wants it but noone seems to want to do anything about it. Hopefully a few of you Blondites out there will be up for this.

Yogi

This is all very well in principle, but I don't see how you will ensure that reluctant casino groups will adopt the new set of rules. I, like yourself (or was it ifm?) am well aware of how defensive some people can be about their rules (see Gollum in LOTR for reference material).

The only way I can think of (and it is early in the morning, so the brain has yet to reach optimum operational temperature - needs more coffee), is to get the rules to be included in the Rules and Practices document issued by the British Casino Association (BCA)... this would have the advantage of being a body that already represents the vast majority of casinos in the country.

This still leaves the problem of who comes up with the rules in the first place...

getting the casinos to adopt the rules is easy as 123
1 you invite the casino to send a rep to the meeting
2 you invite the gaming commision to the said meeting
3 you make sure the gaming commision push the rules thru and the casino have to follow

I love the simplicity of it Ironside.

1 2 3.

Just need something to give them now.

Yogi

blonde would be happy to help.

Everyone has views on the issue, but we can't all be on the committee.

I have more than enough on my plate, but I'd be willing to help if need be.

I think Yogi's point is "we talk about it a lot, but nothing happens". Fair point.

I don't have the standing, or expereince, in poker, to put my name forward as any sort of "driver", but I'm happy to help if need be.

So, where, when, & who?

Let me have a think about how we get this wagon rolling. It really is badly needed. I am just off a plane from Vegas, so give me a day or two to get my head in gear.

My biggest fear is that some commercial animal with a financial angle will try & hijack this. We need to be careful.

I will come up with some sort of proposal within the next few days, if nobody else does. I have campigned for this relentlessly, so I'd really like it to get off the ground.

The task isn't that difficult as we really just need to identify the inconsistencies and omissions, debate these and amend an existing set.  My top 3 are:

Betting out of turn

Showing cards when action is still to take place (there must be some discretion to allow the referee to consider intent)

The bizarre moody rule

you hit the anil on head after talking to yogi earlier its clear most rules wont change its only the contensious rules that neeed tweaking and i'm sure you guys could iron them out even if its only between the major cardrooms to begin with, as i'm sur ethey are all represented on here in soem form

i'd be glad to help aswell

I think those would come in most peoples top 3.

I think they are mine.

Where? Somewhere Central

When? Sometime soon

Who? Very good question that one. Both operators and players, a good cross section of the people who take part, from both sides. Maybe even a compliance man or 2. Unless we wanna break the law. They could even help maybe changing the law. The Gaming Board or Comission. They would help give the rules credibility, for any operators who declined their invitation to the meeting.

It does need a driving force behind it. Who?? Someone with the get up and go to get it done.

Yogi

The one thing I would love to see changed is the top heavy play structure which leads to so many chopped deals. If the game is ever to get any real creditabilty then tournaments should be played out (especially the ranking events) but this is never going to happen whilst the % differences are so big.

Would it be possible to appoint a player's liason officer who could then approach the Gaming Board directly ?

If we could all agree on what changes we need, the liaison officer would be our representative.

I reckon page 2 got lost in the move !

So do I.

Oh well not too worry. At least the thread is still here.

Not only did the posts go but the amount of posts i have made has diminished too.

Yogi

Yes, I am really sorry about that Guys, I have explained & apologised on another thread about what happened, why, & why I have decided not to try & restore the missing stuff. A real shame, but I just don't wanna risk the site going down again.

Of the missing posts, I clearly recall posting that Karabiner's "Liasion Officer" was EXACTLY the right approach.

The idea is that the players elect a "liaison officer" who is the player's representative.

The players make a list of changes that they would like to see introduced.

The Liaison Officer is then empowered to discuss/negotiate with cardrooms and the Gaming Board on the player's behalf.

I believe that a player's organisation would need to be put in place first,
And then they would have to elect the Liaison Officer.

Those are my embryonic thoughts anyhow.

Sounds Grand.

And very do-able.

Now is as good a time as any.

Lets go 4 it guys and gals.

You have lots of cardrooms to support it, lots of players to support it.


Yogi

Ready whenever you are :)

Well we are all saying lets do it, but we need to go a little further before we get to that stage.

First, we gotta be clearer about the job description.

But before that, a group of players needs to be formed, loosely speaking, what Ralph describes as a players organisation. (THAT can be any number of players - dozens, or hundeds, the more the better If it is successful, of course, thousands may join eventually. But if ALL players benefit from the action of a few, well the majority won't feel the need to join. But then they won't have a voice, so providing the PO & their empowered LO has made SOME progress with the other parties, the rest of the players will become isolated from the decision making process. THEN they will join the PO, so that they have a voice). Ideally, the PO needs to reflect reality - so the vast majority of members will be "regular folks", but it would be necessary, important, & beneficial, to get some "names" on board too. Too many from EITHER end of the spectrum will kill it, because it will leave one end without representation. Imagine, for example, if it were all "names" - they'd tackle, for example, TV rights - but what use is that to the guy who only plays 10 & 20 comps at his local? And vice-versa. Next, the PO vote in their chosen Liasion Officer. So, he/she is NOT the decision maker, they are the message carrier.

The PO, of course, will come from players all over the UK. And they'd have to appoint a committee (oh how I hate that word), who in turn would give the mandate to the LO.

Then the LO meets the interested parties - Casino Groups, GC (if they'll agree to a meet), Major Sponsors, etc.
He takes a mandate with him, if he/she gets agreement to any of the items, job done, if not, it's back to the PO.

Money. Attending these meets costs time and money. It's not practical to seek funding from any of the interested parties, for obvious reasons, so that means it's down to the players, unless a benefactor can be found.

WARNINGS.

The task is thankless. Plenty of stones will be thrown at the LO - from ALL parties, including non-aligned players. Anyone who thinks agreement could be reached quickly is living in cloud cuckoo land - the task is PERMANENT, it will NEVER END. Progress will be painfully slow - best to move forward taking bite size problems one at a time, trying to solve everything in one go will be a no-no.

There you go - something to chew on. Chuck it around, tear it about, and if the bare bones of a players organisation comes out of it, well, you can take it from there, & contrive a way for players to "sign-up". This would be a cross-bench exercise, so posts would have to be made on all the major poker fora, to ensure representation from across the board.

But - and this is the tricky bit - DON'T run away with the horses, wait until some open debate has taken place, & some concensus has been formed. Remember the farce of the blonde crypto tourney & all those polls, & folks rushing round organising things before a decision was made? So give it a bit of time. It's waited - in poker terms - a lifetime - so a few days & weeks ruminating on the way forward wil do no harm at all.

Well I have no idea about how to set up a Players Organisation.

But I would definitely be willing to subscribe to one if somebody were to organise some basic acceptable guidelines.

There are enough of us that a small fee of 5 or so would give us some working capital.

Well that's good to hear Ralph, but we are a very long way from that stage yet. But the mere fact that folks might not mind spending a quid or two - & that's all it would take - would be heartening, and a good start.

The thing (for me) is, and you mentioned it, what if the gaming board ain't interested?
From what i see they are the true gods here, they say jump the casinos jump, if they say f*** off what can you do?
At least as a workforce you can withdraw labour but poker?
Ian

Softly softly Ian. They are publicly funded from Central Giovernment, so they could not possibly refuse to have some sort of dialogue with interested parties.

They can hardly turn down an offer of liaison imo.

Correct. They don't have to agree, or concur, but they HAVE to listen.

A dripping tap soon fills a bath. It COULD be achieved. Eventually.

surely a dripping tap would take ages to fill a bath.  ;)

A dripping butty fills me quite quickly, but Im hungry again in half an hour