An interesting read about how bad information can get out and influence people's perception about poker.

I'm not sure that this writer Mark Kreidler, has much of an audience, but he obviously has some. I say everyone write to this guy and let him know how BULLSHIT his article was. I'm going to write now...but the way, here is the SOB's e-mail address:

mkreidler@sacbee.com

I'd say don't bash him (I know I'm not going to), but tell him how he should get educated and pass out relevant information. He could actually do some good with his position ...

While even though he is talking Poker (which millions of people don't do, care to do, don't like, etc...) the bottom line is it should be our own fricken choice if we want to play. Not our government saying we can't.

Thanks All...

gulfer

read it now.. id be interested to see Kreidler's article itself rather than just Negreanu's (who is biased) viewpoint on it

KREIDLER IS A FUCKING DOUCHENOZZLE...

as a Sacramentite, i hate all of his writing. it goes way back to the early years of my childhood so i dont want to talk about specific articles, but this guy is seriously a shitbrick.

For those of you too lazy :) to go, here it is:

Updated: March 6, 2007, 3:19 PM ET
<H1>Kreidler: D'Amato shows poker face</H1>

By Mark Kreidler
Special to ESPN.com
Archive

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>I like this Al D'Amato fellow already. Tell you why: He understands the value of a poker face.

Take the announcement this week that D'Amato is taking a "leadership position" with the Poker Players Alliance, a group you've never heard of that nevertheless is committed to doing God's work by protecting the rights of card players everywhere to lose money online. At one point while talking about his new challenge in life with a reporter for the New York Times, D'Amato, the former Republican senator from New York, railed against the law passed last year that makes it extremely difficult to play poker on the Internet, saying Congress ought to be more concerned with terrorism and drug trafficking (assuming it isn't) and hailing poker as perhaps America's favorite sport. He added: "You don't have 70 million people participating in baseball."


AP Photo/Ron Edmonds
Former U.S. Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York (speaking at the opening of the Republican National Convention in 1996) is a poker advocate working with the Poker Players Alliance.

In fact, the PPA's news release estimates that only about 23 million people played Internet poker last year, meaning Al has a bunch of Friday night garages to fill if he's going to get his sport up to 70 million nationally. But why let all that cigar smoke get in the way of a good story?

Every hold 'em junkie now has a former U.S. senator to call his own. D'Amato isn't just the lobbyist hired for big bucks to represent online gaming; he's a customer. D'Amato is one of the more famous poker players in congressional history, assuming such a list might exist, and that takes in a whole lot of territory normally reserved for calculated liars, convicted cheats and general obfuscators -- and we still haven't gotten to the poker table yet. He's the man.

Of course, D'Amato is working for money. The PPA, which puts its membership at 160,000 (again, take it or leave it as an estimate) is taking aim at a bill passed last year that banned using credit cards or online payment systems as part of online poker and other gaming activities on the Internet. D'Amato is a longtime player, mostly with a regular group of friends and colleagues rather than online. Still, put such theological synergy together with the ability to pay up, and you've got yourself a lobbyist.

<TABLE cellSpacing=12 width=127 align=right></TABLE>

What D'Amato and the PPA seem to hate the most is the fact that Congress casually lumped in poker with other online games of chance. As they see it, poker is a game of skill and chance, which therefore entitles Al to call it a sport, which blah blah blah -- you can see where this is going. D'Amato rallies to the defense of those brave and heroic online gamers, who evidently need protecting in the form of Congressional legal re-interpretation. (Translation: Exempt poker from the no-credit-card law, and we're good to go.)

D'Amato also raises a point with which American history is likely to agree, even if it's comically misguided here. "Prohibitions don't work," he said in the PPA's news release. "They only create unintended consequences."

Just like liquor, in other words. Well, drinking, gambling  you get the idea. Try to ban card games online, and they'll only start playing poker in somebody's living room late at night, buying their own chips or using makeshift materials like pretzels and M&Ms as token "money." Where will the madness end?

<TABLE id=inlinetable cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width=225 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TH>More Coverage</TH><TR vAlign=top><TD width=209>• Q & A with PPA President Michael Bolcerek

• PPA President Michael Bolcerek joins Phil Gordon on the Poker Edge. Listen Now | Download
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Actually, D'Amato and the PPA might get to where they want to go. One of their expressed aims is to get online poker regulated and taxed in the United States, and considering that most poker sites are essentially offshore ATMs right now, you can see the appeal to Congress of squeezing some tax money where none currently exists.

Still, it could be a while. The Democrat-controlled houses seem to have some other things on their collective minds just now. Just don't count out the man suddenly dubbed "The First Senator of Poker." Al D'Amato hasn't yet begun to show his cards.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I have no problem with anything he wrote. He actually makes a few good points. You guys are just to biased to notice.

I think it's very clear that Mr. Kreidler is not objective in his analysis. I sent him an email yesterday telling him how I feel.

The sad part is he's actually the only writer that's worth glancing at the title that the sacbee has.

calling this guy out is exactly what he was looking to do, so he could prove that his crappy articles get read. In Search Engine Optimization its called link baiting. In real life its just the value of being a douche.

you and daniel need to relize you are adding alot of poker players twice.. or more...

people like me and my friends play LIVE and ONLINE.. are we getting counted twice as 2 people? as part of the whatever million that play online and the whatever million that play Live.. also, alot of people like prob 85% play on multi sites...

im sure this guy is more right than daniel on the # of people playing poker.

Excellent point beanie. Took forever for someone to say it. Let me reiterate: " <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>there aren't many people that have never sat down at a poker table. At least guys.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>"

Soooooo true, I bet at least 50% of American males have played poker at some point in their lives....probably much higher number really.......

I'm sorry, but what was the point of that article?

I know he mocked us and our game but what was his point and or purpose?

My response to the letter with no point:

Dear Mark,

I don't really see a theme or inherent point in your rambling, incoherant article concerning poker recently and Senator D'amato. Perhaps if you talked to someone like Allyn J. Shulman (attorney and expert on this topic), at Card Player magazine, before you write an article that makes no sense about the true points behind the recent legislation.

You seemed to be misinformed and ranting for some reason. I kept digging for the point of the article. You do understand that Horse betting, fantasy football and the lottery were exempted within the legislation you tout. I don't see any skill within any of these betting franchises, only tax money. Coincidence? Also this was thrown in at the last second during an election year for a moral high horse chest thumping. Some of the supporters of this legislation lost their respective races. Coincidence?

Your lack of wit comparing gambling ( in CA poker has been ruled by the courts as a game of skill) and liquor goes nowhere near a metaphor with impact.

So please do your research properly before you jump up on a shaky pedestal next time.

Sincerely
Craig Tapscott
FOXSports.com