*** OFFICIAL *** Druff & Drexel Show Thread for 2/19/2013 - $60 Freeroll - Rich Muny/PPA Debate!

Shut it down Druff the guy had a reasonable answer for damn near everything you asked, and didn't come off the least bit insincere. You badgered him repeatedly as he gave very rational answers, and you sounded like a kid who was throwing a tantrum trying to tilt him near the end. He would have none of it, and just kept putting you in check time after time, very politely I might add.

The things you were complaining about were so trivial it was ridiculous, and in the first hour you emptied the clip and still couldn't hit him from point blank range. Seems like you met your match, and literally every single person except you sees that. You tried to play "gotcha" but it didn't work. There wasn't anything to be got.

Just finished listening to all this in the archives, wanted ot post here before i listen to the rest of the show while my mind is still fresh. Druff I think your problem last night was you let the guy talk and talk and talk and we forgot what the fuck you asked in the first place. Like you would ask something and the guy would go on forever and Id be thinking, fuck Druff just interrupt this cat and tell him to stfu and answer your damn question. But you didnt, or at least you didnt until too long a time passed and you ended up looking like you got owned.

Tbh the guy frustrated me with his droning answers that rarely addressed what you were criticising. Like the ub part as you said, i think anyone with a fucntioning brain knows they fucked up and he was just covering. I think u won that. I do wish u came prepared with a little more info to prove your points about the ppa not having an effect on things. To me it seemed like you just kept saying that was true but wouldnt give us any info to back your side. In that part I felt he won. When he was dodging you I would say u won those parts because just talking for 90% of the time doesnt make him the winner if he wont answer what u keep asking him!!

When I read this shit was 3 hrs i was like fuck, no chance I sit and listen to this whole thing but somehow it kept my attention. Good job, I liked it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaturalBornHustler

Shut it down Druff the guy had a reasonable answer for damn near everything you asked, and didn't come off the least bit insincere. You badgered him repeatedly as he gave very rational answers, and you sounded like a kid who was throwing a tantrum trying to tilt him near the end. He would have none of it, and just kept putting you in check time after time, very politely I might add.

The things you were complaining about were so trivial it was ridiculous, and in the first hour you emptied the clip and still couldn't hit him from point blank range. Seems like you met your match, and literally every single person except you sees that. You tried to play "gotcha" but it didn't work. There wasn't anything to be got.

---

The UB thing wasn't trivial, right?

Do you believe that the PPA effectively contacted its million member base and properly communicated the dangers of playing there?

If so, why can't anyone on 2+2 or anywhere else recall that happening? Why do all of the anti-UB activists feel that the PPA dropped the ball with their response?

I saw your repeated criticism of me in the chat during the show, but I am perplexed how you could have listened to that UB segment and came away with any opinion other than that he was full of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cokehead

Just finished listening to all this in the archives, wanted ot post here before i listen to the rest of the show while my mind is still fresh. Druff I think your problem last night was you let the guy talk and talk and talk and we forgot what the fuck you asked in the first place. Like you would ask something and the guy would go on forever and Id be thinking, fuck Druff just interrupt this cat and tell him to stfu and answer your damn question. But you didnt, or at least you didnt until too long a time passed and you ended up looking like you got owned.

Tbh the guy frustrated me with his droning answers that rarely addressed what you were criticising. Like the ub part as you said, i think anyone with a fucntioning brain knows they fucked up and he was just covering. I think u won that. I do wish u came prepared with a little more info to prove your points about the ppa not having an effect on things. To me it seemed like you just kept saying that was true but wouldnt give us any info to back your side. In that part I felt he won. When he was dodging you I would say u won those parts because just talking for 90% of the time doesnt make him the winner if he wont answer what u keep asking him!!

When I read this shit was 3 hrs i was like fuck, no chance I sit and listen to this whole thing but somehow it kept my attention. Good job, I liked it.

---

Tough but fair.

I wanted to interrupt him a lot more than I did, but was afraid that it would come off that I was trying to interrupt constantly in order to prevent the other side from getting good points across. In hindsight, I probably should have shut him down when his answers veered away from the question for any length of time.

I probably should have done more research on the "What did the PPA really accomplish" part, but it's a lot harder to research what a group HASN'T done rather than what they have. Rich can say, "The PPA was involved in such-and-such", and I have no way to prove how much or little their involvement really was. If they were 1% of the entire process, I have no way of showing that.

Glad to see you at least agree with me on the UB part and the tactics he used in the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaturalBornHustler

Shut it down Druff the guy had a reasonable answer for damn near everything you asked, and didn't come off the least bit insincere. You badgered him repeatedly as he gave very rational answers, and you sounded like a kid who was throwing a tantrum trying to tilt him near the end. He would have none of it, and just kept putting you in check time after time, very politely I might add.

The things you were complaining about were so trivial it was ridiculous, and in the first hour you emptied the clip and still couldn't hit him from point blank range. Seems like you met your match, and literally every single person except you sees that. You tried to play "gotcha" but it didn't work. There wasn't anything to be got.

---

Hmm seems like we heard 2 diff interviews cuz this isnt how it came off to me at all. What I kept hearing was Druff saying, Hey Rich what about this, and then Rich gave like a 15 min dissertation about how great the PPA is and Druff just sat there like a log waiting for him to stop talking. Then Druff finally gets the balls to say hey dude you didnt answer the quest, and then Rich goes on for another 15 min and then Druff is like ok let's move on. Felt like I was watching Druff play poker against a maniac and kept check calling to all the raises and finally check folding the river instead of just shoving all in on the flop. Ok maybe bad analogy but you get my point. If u didnt hear Rich be totally full of it during parts of that thing then u arent a very good listener.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cokehead

Just finished listening to all this in the archives, wanted ot post here before i listen to the rest of the show while my mind is still fresh. Druff I think your problem last night was you let the guy talk and talk and talk and we forgot what the fuck you asked in the first place. Like you would ask something and the guy would go on forever and Id be thinking, fuck Druff just interrupt this cat and tell him to stfu and answer your damn question. But you didnt, or at least you didnt until too long a time passed and you ended up looking like you got owned.

Tbh the guy frustrated me with his droning answers that rarely addressed what you were criticising. Like the ub part as you said, i think anyone with a fucntioning brain knows they fucked up and he was just covering. I think u won that. I do wish u came prepared with a little more info to prove your points about the ppa not having an effect on things. To me it seemed like you just kept saying that was true but wouldnt give us any info to back your side. In that part I felt he won. When he was dodging you I would say u won those parts because just talking for 90% of the time doesnt make him the winner if he wont answer what u keep asking him!!

When I read this shit was 3 hrs i was like fuck, no chance I sit and listen to this whole thing but somehow it kept my attention. Good job, I liked it.

---

Tough but fair.

I wanted to interrupt him a lot more than I did, but was afraid that it would come off that I was trying to interrupt constantly in order to prevent the other side from getting good points across. In hindsight, I probably should have shut him down when his answers veered away from the question for any length of time.

I probably should have done more research on the "What did the PPA really accomplish" part, but it's a lot harder to research what a group HASN'T done rather than what they have. Rich can say, "The PPA was involved in such-and-such", and I have no way to prove how much or little their involvement really was. If they were 1% of the entire process, I have no way of showing that.

Glad to see you at least agree with me on the UB part and the tactics he used in the debate.

---

Druff, I do like you as a forum owner, radio host, poker player,etc....but the one thing I can not stand is your stubbornness plus never admitting when you're wrong.

Look at the situation from other people's POV sometimes and realize that their arguments are indeed rational even if they do not agree with you.

If the PPA picked to not comment on the situation due to political reasons, why is that not valid? Especially in politics you can easily find faults with both sides. Similarly there were reasons you didn't come out with info on previous scams on the board (jasep, peterdc, etc). We all listened to your points and at this point I agree as to why you didn't come out with info.

Druff, the PPA was formed to work on legalization issues. It's nice that they do some other shit but really, the UB/AP thing was more apt to be an argument for making online poker illegal versus make it legal. So them not making a big deal about it probably helped the overall cause more than it hurt it. I say that because the majority will use an issue like that to support their existing opinion versus change it and the political environment was clearly closing in on making online poker harder to access for Americans.

I know the issue was HUGE for you but for many others it was a small thing. Sort of how all the previous fail sites just get honorable mention on shit lists, just as Lock will get as soon as their fail is completed. Should the PPA get involved in warning people about Lock? I think it would be a waste of their limited resources.

btw, full disclosure I had 5 figures locked on UB on black friday. I still just see it as a single mark on the timeline towards legalization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simpdog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Tough but fair.

I wanted to interrupt him a lot more than I did, but was afraid that it would come off that I was trying to interrupt constantly in order to prevent the other side from getting good points across. In hindsight, I probably should have shut him down when his answers veered away from the question for any length of time.

I probably should have done more research on the "What did the PPA really accomplish" part, but it's a lot harder to research what a group HASN'T done rather than what they have. Rich can say, "The PPA was involved in such-and-such", and I have no way to prove how much or little their involvement really was. If they were 1% of the entire process, I have no way of showing that.

Glad to see you at least agree with me on the UB part and the tactics he used in the debate.

---

Druff, I do like you as a forum owner, radio host, poker player,etc....but the one thing I can not stand is your stubbornness plus never admitting when you're wrong.

Look at the situation from other people's POV sometimes and realize that their arguments are indeed rational even if they do not agree with you.

If the PPA picked to not comment on the situation due to political reasons, why is that not valid? Especially in politics you can easily find faults with both sides. Similarly there were reasons you didn't come out with info on previous scams on the board (jasep, peterdc, etc). We all listened to your points and at this point I agree as to why you didn't come out with info.

---

That's my whole point.

He didn't say that the PPA chose not to warn people about UB for political reasons. I still disagree with that, but would have at least respected his honesty in admitting what they did and didn't do, and in fact we could have moved on to debate whether it was right for them to get involved.

Instead, the entire UB debate consisted of him insisting that the PPA did all they could to warn their membership base, which simply isn't true. It was so tilting to hear him insisting that they actively and sufficiently warned their member base and joined the anti-UB fight, when in reality they tried so hard to ignore it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

Druff, the PPA was formed to work on legalization issues. It's nice that they do some other shit but really, the UB/AP thing was more apt to be an argument for making online poker illegal versus make it legal. So them not making a big deal about it probably helped the overall cause more than it hurt it. I say that because the majority will use an issue like that to support their existing opinion versus change it and the political environment was clearly closing in on making online poker harder to access for Americans.

I know the issue was HUGE for you but for many others it was a small thing. Sort of how all the previous fail sites just get honorable mention on shit lists, just as Lock will get as soon as their fail is completed. Should the PPA get involved in warning people about Lock? I think it would be a waste of their limited resources.

btw, full disclosure I had 5 figures locked on UB on black friday. I still just see it as a single mark on the timeline towards legalization.

---

Read what I just wrote to Simpdog.

You are arguing why the PPA should have ignored UB because it was out of their scope.

I have an answer to that, but I'm not going to even bother getting into it because Rich did not say that! Instead he insisted that they did plenty to warn people about UB.

That's why it does bother me when certain people in this thread clearly heard him dodging questions like this and responding with BS, yet somehow are still giving him credit for being detailed and straightforward with everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cokehead

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaturalBornHustler

Shut it down Druff the guy had a reasonable answer for damn near everything you asked, and didn't come off the least bit insincere. You badgered him repeatedly as he gave very rational answers, and you sounded like a kid who was throwing a tantrum trying to tilt him near the end. He would have none of it, and just kept putting you in check time after time, very politely I might add.

The things you were complaining about were so trivial it was ridiculous, and in the first hour you emptied the clip and still couldn't hit him from point blank range. Seems like you met your match, and literally every single person except you sees that. You tried to play "gotcha" but it didn't work. There wasn't anything to be got.

---

Hmm seems like we heard 2 diff interviews cuz this isnt how it came off to me at all. What I kept hearing was Druff saying, Hey Rich what about this, and then Rich gave like a 15 min dissertation about how great the PPA is and Druff just sat there like a log waiting for him to stop talking. Then Druff finally gets the balls to say hey dude you didnt answer the quest, and then Rich goes on for another 15 min and then Druff is like ok let's move on. Felt like I was watching Druff play poker against a maniac and kept check calling to all the raises and finally check folding the river instead of just shoving all in on the flop. Ok maybe bad analogy but you get my point. If u didnt hear Rich be totally full of it during parts of that thing then u arent a very good listener.

---

There were 50 people in chat who agreed with me, and there is one guy who agrees with you.

YOU must have been hearing it differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaturalBornHustler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cokehead

Hmm seems like we heard 2 diff interviews cuz this isnt how it came off to me at all. What I kept hearing was Druff saying, Hey Rich what about this, and then Rich gave like a 15 min dissertation about how great the PPA is and Druff just sat there like a log waiting for him to stop talking. Then Druff finally gets the balls to say hey dude you didnt answer the quest, and then Rich goes on for another 15 min and then Druff is like ok let's move on. Felt like I was watching Druff play poker against a maniac and kept check calling to all the raises and finally check folding the river instead of just shoving all in on the flop. Ok maybe bad analogy but you get my point. If u didnt hear Rich be totally full of it during parts of that thing then u arent a very good listener.

---

There were 50 people in chat who agreed with me, and there is one guy who agrees with you.

YOU must have been hearing it differently.

---

So I'm taking it you believed his story about UB, that they did everything they could to warn their member base, and I just had no clue of it?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...4bTCBOtDOnQ9KA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

] Instead he insisted that they did plenty to warn people about UB.

---

Yes he did, and he even outlined what it was they did! and what they did was plenty enough for the scale of an event that it was. It just wasn't enough for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaturalBornHustler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cokehead

Hmm seems like we heard 2 diff interviews cuz this isnt how it came off to me at all. What I kept hearing was Druff saying, Hey Rich what about this, and then Rich gave like a 15 min dissertation about how great the PPA is and Druff just sat there like a log waiting for him to stop talking. Then Druff finally gets the balls to say hey dude you didnt answer the quest, and then Rich goes on for another 15 min and then Druff is like ok let's move on. Felt like I was watching Druff play poker against a maniac and kept check calling to all the raises and finally check folding the river instead of just shoving all in on the flop. Ok maybe bad analogy but you get my point. If u didnt hear Rich be totally full of it during parts of that thing then u arent a very good listener.

---

There were 50 people in chat who agreed with me, and there is one guy who agrees with you.

YOU must have been hearing it differently.

---

I wasnt in the chat. I just listened today. But come on man, you cant really be saying that what I wrote above is wrong?? Rich flapped his gums like he was getting paid 5 bucks for every word. If we timed how much Druff talked and how much Rich talked during those 3 hrs, who do u think would end up with more minutes? Now thers nothing wrong with talking more if u have a lot of real points but what I heard was a lot of wordiness to get out of tackling the shit Druff brought up head on. If Druff stopped his ass and said, whoa dude stfu and answer the question, i bet u and others would be seeing it diffrenetly right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

] Instead he insisted that they did plenty to warn people about UB.

---

Yes he did, and he even outlined what it was they did! and what they did was plenty enough for the scale of an event that it was. It just wasn't enough for you.

---

They didn't "do plenty". He claimed they e-mailed all million members about it, but could not explain why nobody discussed the e-mail on 2+2, or why it had such little impact. At the time, such an e-mail would have had a HUGE impact if it were what he portrayed it to have been.

A simple WARNING e-mail to the entire base, outlining the main points of the UB scandal (and a strong recommendation to stay away) would have been sufficient, and would have cost them zero dollars and very little time. They chose not to do this. As a result, many of their million members had no clue that there was ever a scandal, or that it hadn't really been resolved. This was a huge bedshit on their part.

Again, he never argued once that they admittedly didn't do much but shouldn't have been expected to. He insisted that there "was an e-mail" warning people, and that they sufficiently communicated the danger to their membership.

They did not!

Even if there was an e-mail, I am guessing that it was either something of little use (such as, "We are aware of the UB cheating scandal and are keeping informed about the situation"), or a milquetoast blurb as part of a general newsletter.

I highly doubt there was any sufficient warning that would have clearly grabbed the attention of their membership base. It's impossible for such a thing to have happened at the time (when UB was the biggest story in poker) without discussion on 2+2.

First off, it was a banger of an interviewer, not many people could let that go for 3 hours and still be listenable. It was very good and you shouldn't feel like anyone saying you lost is slighting you; it was just apparent that Rich had a far deeper understanding of the issues and more data to pull from.

The real problem was that when he rebutted or refuted something you said you didn't have a response or a follow-up. Normally you would set a trap and be like "A-HA!" but in the debate you were just like, "well I don't feel you did enough." Like the UB thing; he outlined what they did point for point and you couldn't prove or disprove your side of the arguement, so it came off as if you were debating an expert after reading cliff notes. The thing is, I think a lot of people agree with you on certain points, but you want everyone to agree with 100% of your points.

The whole thing about terrorists and national Security was a perfect example of where you just didn't have the facts. I remember a year or so ago when Tom Ridge and Louis Freel from FairPlay brought this to congress, and I remember even farther back this was one of the opponents of online poker's talking points, so the PPA had to address it, and addressed it as "legalizing and regulating the industry will negate this".

***EDIT: If you feel there was a question he sidestepped let me know and I'll ask him in our weekly interview, and link to the site and podcast***

It was a painful three hour debate because of the length, interruptions, dodging questions, and some of the political rhetoric answers Rich Muny kept giving. I'm not saying he isn't smart and man can he talk but some of his responses could of easily been told in twenty words instead of going on and on where we as listeners have to determine the answer the best we can from it because not every question is actually answered clearly or at all.

We get it Rich Muny is high up in the PPA but their are things he might actually not know. Hell, if anyone believes anything from the whole Lederer files their was a lot of times Howard said "I don't know" which he clearly knew some and a few things he might not of maybe because he didn't care as long his money kept coming to him.

Rich Muny wouldn't ever really say "I don't know" or way "We messed that up" when we are all human and unless your name is Curt Hennig then your not perfect.

I could see points on both sides but the problem I had with it is I felt the interview went nowhere in a sense of either Druff or Muny saying "You make a good point I never thought of it like that, or that makes me consider changing my stance on that issue",etc...

New video on a Federal Internet Poker Bill Proposal coming up posted here:

http://gambling911.com/gambling-news...eo-022013.html

Listened to the interview last night at work, and almost turned it off a few times. I've been a loyal listener of every podcast you've done, and while I've not always agreed with your opinions, you always seem to speak up for what you think is right and I respect someone who doesn't clammer to opposition. But to call this a debate, is a little misleading. This was you asking him questions. Him answering in a political/"toeing the company line" fashion (which isn't always the most direct, or the easiest to stomach), and you trying to interject with your own personal feelings about what was/is important, and whether or not they did "enough".

Now I only made it to 3:06, and you said the interview ended around 3:20, but was a single question or part of the interview (not debate) about what the PPA is going to do moving forward? Or were you focused on bringing up past dealings that you didn't agree with?

That all being said, do I think the PPA should take the credit for the steps being taken to get online poker legalized in the US? Some. Not all, but they definitely have a voice, and do use it effectively at times. Do I believe that their intentions are pure, and have always had the "fast track to the right law of legalization" at heart? Hardly. Do I agree with the way they have handled criticism or suggestions from forum members or opinions on 2+2? Rich isn't the epitome of professionalism, or the gold standard for "voice of the organization". But he made some solid points, kept his cool and I would have liked to have heard more about what the PPA have on their agenda, as this was an "interview", not a debate. There was no winner last night, not even the listener. I wish I felt differently, and had more info on how they plan to move forward. '

Washington is trying to take a mighty big step to get that stupid law off the books, and move forward to decrim/legalization and the revenue from i-poker. I hope they have our best interests at heart. The PPA is the biggest voice there is for us, and their support and push could go a long way for all of us in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaturalBornHustler

Shut it down Druff the guy had a reasonable answer for damn near everything you asked, and didn't come off the least bit insincere. You badgered him repeatedly as he gave very rational answers, and you sounded like a kid who was throwing a tantrum trying to tilt him near the end. He would have none of it, and just kept putting you in check time after time, very politely I might add.

The things you were complaining about were so trivial it was ridiculous, and in the first hour you emptied the clip and still couldn't hit him from point blank range. Seems like you met your match, and literally every single person except you sees that. You tried to play "gotcha" but it didn't work. There wasn't anything to be got.

---

You beat me to what I wanted to write. Druff came off as a jilted lover last night because he was obviously hurt by the PPA not responding to any of his opinions in the past. Make no mistake, when Druff said the PPA didn't listen to any criticism he was talking about himself. Everytime he criticized him in the past then basically took a dump in his face. Also, bringing up the UB shit from 2007 is lol. The guy answered the question and Druff beat it like a dead horse for 20 minutes. Druff, the PPA isn't the poker players mommy. They put out their statement, if nobody read it then fuck em.

Isn't their purpose to try and legalize online poker? It isn't getting money back for players stolen from and it isn't holding their hands telling them where they should and shouldn't gamble.

Shut it down. You lost. 100% of us agree on that. Except you.

 

http://i.imgur.com/9InpLOr.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/oxG8QFE.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/6SGmQ4F.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/5nVuDcZ.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/jNSbld2.jpg

ok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaturalBornHustler

Shut it down Druff the guy had a reasonable answer for damn near everything you asked, and didn't come off the least bit insincere. You badgered him repeatedly as he gave very rational answers, and you sounded like a kid who was throwing a tantrum trying to tilt him near the end. He would have none of it, and just kept putting you in check time after time, very politely I might add.

The things you were complaining about were so trivial it was ridiculous, and in the first hour you emptied the clip and still couldn't hit him from point blank range. Seems like you met your match, and literally every single person except you sees that. You tried to play "gotcha" but it didn't work. There wasn't anything to be got.

---

The UB thing wasn't trivial, right?

Do you believe that the PPA effectively contacted its million member base and properly communicated the dangers of playing there?

If so, why can't anyone on 2+2 or anywhere else recall that happening? Why do all of the anti-UB activists feel that the PPA dropped the ball with their response?

I saw your repeated criticism of me in the chat during the show, but I am perplexed how you could have listened to that UB segment and came away with any opinion other than that he was full of it.

---

I'm a long standing PPA member and I never got an email about UB
The problem with debating tactics is they are just good for debates but not winning hearts and minds

Steve-O ask Rich if any new members joined the PPA after last nights debate

my perception wither true or not is that the PPA is in the tank for the Site and Casino owners and nothing changed after last nights debate

Druff it would be a good idea to use a two minute clock if you ever decide to do one of these again, Muny seems to have a severe case of blufferitis