His Side on the Edge Sorting: Ivey To Appear on 60 Minutes Sports

Saw that Phil Ivey is going to be on 60 Minutes Sports a week from today on Tuesday, October 7 (on Showtime). Here is a little teaser for the segment you can watch the CBS site (as they make it impossible to embed their slow-loading vids) -- a compelling, even fun three minutes of viewing.

Ivey is going to be on the show talking about his two “edge sorting” lawsuits which I’ve mentioned here before -- the one in which he’s suing Crockford’s Casino in London and the other in which the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa is suing him.

Interesting that Ivey is talking at all about the lawsuits, never mind doing so in such a mainstream public forum. Of course, I’m certain his prime motive is to clear suspicions among the non-poker playing public (and perhaps among some poker folks, too) that he’s not a cheater.

I wrote a post here back in May sharing a story of meeting someone who upon finding out what I did for a living said to me without prompting “I can’t believe Phil Ivey cheated!” That anecdote perhaps suggests a need for Ivey to want to acquit himself in the court of public opinion.

That was about a month after the news of the Borgata lawsuit had hit, their complaint having to do with Ivey employing edge sorting at their high-stakes baccarat tables. The Crockford’s lawsuit has Ivey suing the casino for his winnings at Punto Banco which they’ve withheld because of the edge sorting.

Speaking of Ivey, I did finally watch the first WSOP Main Event shows (as I was talking about last week). While they weren’t terribly exciting, it was interesting to see Ivey being almost gregarious at the feature table with his table talk. He was also almost jovial-seeming in his short interview with Kara Scott, which was fun to see.

Ivey is similarly engaging in the 60 Minutes clip. Go ahead -- see if you can watch it without grinning ear-to-ear.

Sort of an interesting hand Ivey has chosen to play. Will be interesting to see how he fares from it. Something tells me that just by playing it Ivey knows he has an edge going in.

Silver Lining?

Yesterday I passed along some of the smarter responses to Sunday night’s 60 Minutes story on the Absolute Poker and UltimateBet insider cheating scandals. Heard one other response yesterday. Not really recommending this one, as such, but it was so strange I thought I’d share it with those who might’ve missed it.

The response came on this week’s Two Plus Two Pokercast (the 12/1/08 episode), the first half-hour of which was devoted to discussing the 60 Minutes story. As show hosts Mike Johnson and Adam Schwartz point out, Two Plus Two was given a bit of exposure there in the segment. The site is never specifically mentioned by name in the report, but there are references to “internet poker forums” and their participants having been largely responsible for uncovering the scandals. (I think there was a fleeting shot of the site up on a computer monitor at one point as well.)

Since Two Plus Two was part of the story (says Johnson), they decided to have Two Plus Two owner Mason Malmuth on at the start of this week’s show to offer his thoughts on the 60 Minutes piece.

“I want to talk about this from a little different point of view,” Malmuth characteristically begins. I say “characteristically” because as we all know, just about everything from Malmuth comes from “a little different point of view.”

After noting that “obviously” the report “was not good for internet poker or our industry,” Malmuth says that “sometimes events happen which on the surface don’t seem like they are very good but they create opportunities to get things accomplished which can be long term good.”

That little preface is kind of a false tell, actually. Most of us probably are thinking Malmuth is about to point out how the negative report might lead to legislative action that would clarify the murky legal status of online poker, and perhaps also ensure certain regulatory standards that would further prevent other, similar cheating scandals from occurring.

But no. Malmuth isn’t going there.

He then explains that when it comes to “our industry,” there are “certain groups who are important” who oppose online poker and who routinely associate internet poker with all forms of of “gambling, pornography, racism, [and] anti-religious themes.” Put ’em “all in the same basket” and “call it vice,” says Malmuth. It is therefore important for those of us who are invested in online poker to be wary of this prejudice.

A little out there, but okay. I’m not so sure that many people or “groups who are important” are arguing that playing online poker is somehow equivalent (or even comparable to) being racist, but I understand the point that there are those who see it as a “vice” and who have a very hard time thinking of it any other way.

Malmuth then focuses on the 60 Minutes piece, saying how it “began with a person and ended with a person” -- he won’t even say Todd Witteles’ name -- whom Malmuth clearly doesn’t like seeing on CBS speaking for “our industry.” (Malmuth isn’t alone in having this opinion, of course.) What most grieves Malmuth, though, is that Witteles’ “name is now out there, and what’s going to happen is people are going to Google his name, and they are going to come to the website that he’s associated with.”

That is, NeverWin Poker. Malmuth refuses to say the name of the site, too.

Says Malmuth, NeverWin Poker is a “cancer in our industry” which as far as he is concerned is “all these things wrapped up together” -- that is, the list of “vices” he’d previously presented.

Then Malmuth calls on Poker Players Alliance Chairman Alphonse D’Amato to issue “standards” according to which poker websites be recommended to follow in order to help disassociate poker from other “vice” or deplorable intercourse or behavior. “Those websites or members of our industry who don’t follow these standards should be treated as outcasts,” Malmuth concludes.

So that’s the silver lining or “long term good” Malmuth sees in the 60 Minutes piece? Not that it might affect in a positive way the legal status of online poker in the United States, but it might lead to the poker community making “outcasts” of NeverWin Poker, once and for all?

I’m not looking to defend some of what one finds on the uncensored NeverWin Poker forum and website. But what kind of a response to the 60 Minutes story is this? Is Malmuth right? Will some of those members of “certain groups who are important” now look up Witteles, find NeverWin Poker, and decide poker is a breeding ground for all other “vice” and/or socially unacceptable activities?

Host Mike Johnson compliments Malmuth for “taking the high road” here by not mentioning Witteles or NWP by name. But really, this sort of griping doesn’t seem much like the “high road” at all. Maybe there’s a point in there somewhere, but it all just sounds way too petty and personal to me.

More On 60 Minutes’ “The Cheaters”

Spent some time yesterday dropping in on others’ responses to the 60 Minutes segment on the Absolute Poker/UltimateBet insider cheating scandals. Watching the ripples, as it were.

Lots of folks on the forums criticizing various aspects of the report, with some sharing anecdotes about neighbors or co-workers now apparently asking them about their engaging in the so-called “illegal” activity of playing online poker. A few cool heads in there, too, though, pointing out (rightly) that the report wasn’t as bad as it could’ve been.

I keep thinking about how the 60 Minutes story, coming many months after the news actually broke (for most of us) and therefore containing zero surprises other than the manner of its telling, was weirdly analogous to the delayed World Series of Poker Main Event final table shown on ESPN earlier in the month.

I made that point yesterday, saying how the report was too brief, too cursory, and thus only somewhat representative of the reality. Like a quick highlight reel, actually. A damn weird relationship poker has with the rest of the world, if you think about it. It’s like there’s no way for poker to be presented to those outside of our modest little community without its story being hopelessly compromised via editorial repackaging, embellishment, exaggeration, abridgement, what have you.

Anyhow, I have already shared my take. Let me point you to a few more smart responses to the 60 Minutes report, if you haven’t read them.

Haley Hintze offered a sharp, detailed overview of both the 60 Minutes segment and the accompanying Washington Post articles over on PokerNews, pointing out how the two outfits -- though ostensibly working together on the story -- took highly different approaches to the reporting. While the Post articles were detailed and (especially the second one) closely examined legal questions, Haley explains how 60 Minutes told the story in a “sensational manner, skimming many of the facts in the scandals themselves while becoming a superficial, politically themed fingerpointing, yet without connecting the dots or exploring the regulatory issues involved.” Haley goes on to summarize other aspects of both reports (as well as note an omission or two), highlighting in particular how both shed unflattering light on the Kahnawake Gaming Commission.

Otis (on Up for Poker) also gave us a thoughtful take on the segment in a post yesterday titled “60 Minutes does its job, not ours.” Speaking from the point of view of someone who has some journalistic experience, Otis points out that “there was nothing patently unfair about the telling of the story,” then proceeds to do a nice job explaining what exactly a show like 60 Minutes hopes to achieve by airing such a segment. He also distinguishes what he believes “our job” (i.e., that of the bloggers and other non-mainstream types who report and comment on poker) is here. An insightful discussion all around.

Finally, Andrew “Foucault” Brokos (the Poker Philosopher) offered a level-headed view of what we saw Sunday night, hitting all the more important points about what the report actually said and signifies. Foucault is a professional player who (in my opinion) has consistently offered an intelligent view of the scandals and their signficance, and he provides more worthwhile commentary here. And I completely agree with his conclusion, in which he says he “continue[s] to be of the opinion that if we want greater legitimacy, we in the poker community must be willing to air our dirty laundry.”

There were other good takes in the blogosphere as well, but those three stood out for me. As Pokerati Dan pointed out yesterday, the airing of the 60 Minutes story concludes an especially busy month of poker news. Check out Dan’s summary of the November headlines.

Would like to think December and the subsequent months will be less tumultuous, although the various legal battles regarding online poker probably mean it ain’t gonna get any quieter around here.

I guess that’s okay. Most of us like the action, anyway.

On 60 Minutes’ “The Cheaters”

Was in a mighty funk just about all day yesterday. First off, it wasn’t until mid-morning that I realized I’d missed the friggin’ Run Good Challenge tournament on Saturday. As I mentioned yesterday, I had somehow had decided the tourney was on Sunday, and thus missed the sucker altogether. I think the holiday messed up my mind grapes. (Yes, Vera and I have just finished working through the first season of 30 Rock.)

Did manage to remember to watch 60 Minutes last night, though, and so saw the just-under-13-minute long segment we’d been hearing about since March. The report on the insider cheating scandals at Absolute Poker and UltimateBet is available online at the 60 minutes website here. One can also read a transcript of the entire segment here.

Also over on The Washington Post website one can read a pair of articles (published yesterday and today) that provide much greater detail regarding the scandals, as well as some added speculation about legal questions and/or the need to regulate online poker. The first article, “Players Gamble on Honesty, Security of Internet Betting,” appeared on the site yesterday, and was featured above the fold on the front page of the print version of the paper. The second article, with the headline “Prohibition vs. Regulation Debated As U.S. Bettors Use Foreign Sites,” went online last night and appears in today’s paper.

For those who have yet to watch the 60 Minutes piece or read the Washington Post articles, let me especially recommend the articles as worth your while. In fact, I would venture to suggest these articles will ultimately have more influence on the future of online poker than will the 60 Minutes segment, although the symbolic value of the piece airing on CBS’ most highly regarded news show certainly has considerable valence, too.

The first Post article does a decent job of summarizing both the Absolute Poker and UltimateBet scandals (with just a couple of small errors along the way). The second is a reasonable analysis of the legislative history and the issue as it stands at present. The second article also has a couple of small, misleading elements, such as the implication that Neteller was done in by the UIGEA (it wasn’t). Still, an interesting article that was clearly written with the hopes of informing members of Congress a little better on the various issues in play here.

One also finds on the Post’s website other useful items, including a timeline chroncling “Internet Poker and the Law,” another timeline on the AP/UB sleuthing called “Catching Poker Cheats,” as well as an article trying to pin down “The Mohawk Connection.”

I may come back here later in the week to opine a bit about the articles -- in particular the second one that deals with legislative issues. Today, though, I am just going to share a few brief impressions of the 60 Minutes segment.

My initial, general impression of the report was that it didn’t really contain any overwhelming howlers or represent a hopelessly biased position vis-à-vis the “morality” of poker and/or gambling. Much like ESPN’s coverage of the World Series of Poker Main Event final table, it was too brief, too cursory, and thus only somewhat representative of the reality. But like the ESPN show, the report at least covered the gist of it.

I did cringe at the teaser for the story that opened the program -- the little lead-in they show to try to keep those who had been watching NFL football from changing the channel. “The World Series of Poker is the richest sporting competition in the world,” says Steve Kroft, “and yet it pales in comparison to the half a million people who are gambling on the internet right now, even though it is illegal and unregulated in the U.S.”

Later it is clarified that, in fact, it is the industry that is illegal -- i.e., one cannot set up and operate an online gambling site in the U.S. -- but no matter. I do think that for the general viewer, someone previously unacquainted with online poker or any of the specifics regarding its legality, it is likely that person will come away from this report thinking it is against the law to play online poker, period.

Not good. But not that big of a deal. Such was pretty much the case before last night, wasn’t it?

In the piece, Absolute Poker and UltimateBet come off horribly, as they should. I cannot imagine anyone in his or her right mind could watch the segment and then think it reasonable to trust either site. I was also struck by the fact that no other online poker sites are identified by name in the piece. One catches a fleeting glimpse of Full Tilt Poker on one of Serge Ravitch’s monitors, I believe, but none are mentioned at all.

A couple of thoughts regarding the lack of reference to other sites: It is likely the other sites are happy not to have been mentioned, as the association would not have been positive here. However, by not mentioning how other sites (like Stars and Full Tilt) have operated in a trustworthy manner, one does tend to come away believing that all sites are equally suspect.

Todd “Dan Druff” Witteles’ last comment helps confirm such paranoia when he says “there may be other accounts out there like this, maybe even on other sites that are not being done with the same sort of recklessness. And maybe this has been going on, on more than just Absolute Poker and UltimateBet. Maybe it’s going on in several other places. And maybe it’s even still going on in these sites.”

By the way, Witteles went on Two Plus Two last night to apologize to the online poker community about that last comment (despite being banned from 2+2 -- he created a new account). I actually don’t think he needs to apologize, and in fact what he is saying, while a bit inflammatory, seems a reasonable observation, all things considered. Still, the statement does serve here to reaffirm the general impression that anyone who plays online poker and believes it to be a reasonable activity (or occupation) must be hopelessly naïve and/or reckless themselves.

Finally, I was surprised at how the segment fails to talk at all about possible future legislation -- or even discuss with any specifity what the current legal status is for online poker. In fact, the piece fails to mention the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 a single time! That seems to me a pretty serious omission, especially given the editorial angle taken that the lack of legislative clarity directly paved the way for “The Cheaters” to do their thing and get away with it.

There will be a lot of hand-wringing and hair-pulling on the forums over the next few days, I am sure, but as I say I don’t necessarily think the 60 Minutes segment will have that much of an impact on the subsequent legislative debate, and perhaps only a slight (negative) influence on public opinion about online poker. Meanwhile, I do think legislators will read those articles in The Washington Post, though, and that may open some eyes regarding the UIGEA and/or other online gambling bills.

A Provocative Pair

Interesting juxtaposition of poker stories here at the start of the week.

First Absolute Poker and UltimateBet announced in a press release issued Monday they’ve finally joined their player pools and launched that Cereus poker “network.” You remember. Bigger, badder, better.

Hard to read the presser without smiling here and there at the many unintended ironies. For example, the first line states “It’s being hailed as a totally new online poker platform, but for players at UltimateBet and Absolute Poker, there will be a lot of old familiar faces at the tables.” Of course, there are at least a few “old familiar faces” players most certainly do not want to see at the tables. Potripper, NioNio, Russ Hamilton, et al. (Rim shot.)

There’s more in the release about how the whole project took over 12 months to develop and how the combined player pools means Cereus “has instantly become the industry’s third largest online poker network.” Will certainly be interesting to see what sort of numbers Cereus attracts. I’m seeing a report over on PokerScout about the launch. They are saying that players began filling tables within an hour of the new software going online last night, and now traffic “appears to be headed toward a peak of some 4000 real money ring game players, close to the expected sum of traffic from the two sites when they operated independently.”

PokerScout also notes how some are already complaining about the new software on the forums, in particular the UltimateBet crowd, since it looks like the big change was to make UB look more like Absolute. I personally never liked the UB software much, but some were devoted, it seems, and thus the complaints.

Now my buddy Mark over at Plan3tGong makes a good point about the Cereus launch giving the hyperbolic “haters” a chance to relaunch their own network of negativity directed toward AP, UB, and those who choose to promote ’em. He’s right to say there isn’t much constructive in further demonizing those responsible for the cheating and attempted cover-ups, not to mention those not responsible (i.e., affiliates) who have suffered a kind of collateral damage here.

Still, I’m not seeing how anyone faced with a choice between playing at, say, PokerStars, or the new AP/UB hybrid could possibly be all that encouraged to play at the terrible twins’ site given the huge differences in the sites’ relative safety and service.

The Cereus launch story reads a bit differently, perhaps, thanks to that other story from yesterday, namely, the news that 60 Minutes plans to air (finally) that segment on the Absolute Poker and UltimateBet insider cheating scandals this Sunday, November 30th. Had a reader email me this screen shot of the 60 Minutes’ “Up Next” page yesterday (thanks, Adam):



That summary is intriguing, suggesting as it does that a focus of the piece will be the “mostly-unregulated” nature of online poker, thus implying regulation is warranted. One gets the sense from the summary -- and a clip from the segment currently being shown over on the CBS site -- that an idea will be to present the online poker world as a veritable (if virtual) “Wild West” sorely in need of some sort of oversight.

The clip begins with segment host Steve Kroft’s voice intoning “We should tell you that this $18 billion industry is illegal in the U.S., but the ban is almost impossible to enforce, since the internet sites and the computers that randomly deal the cards and keep track of the bets are located offshore, beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. law enforcement.”

But that doesn’t stop “thousands of mostly young men” from playing (Kroft continues). I said way back in March (has it been that long?!) when we first heard rumors about a 60 Minutes exposé that those of us who play online poker should welcome such scrutiny, not fear it. And I still feel the same way, although I suppose I share the trepidation of some regarding how the mainstream might misinterpret statements like “this $18 billion industry is illegal in the U.S.” Yes, it is illegal to operate a site, but, as we all know, it ain’t illegal for us to play. (Most of us, anyway.) But how will most viewers hear that line on Sunday?

More specifically, will the 60 Minutes story negatively affect traffic over on the new Cereus network? Probably depends partly on exactly how the story is told, although my hunch is the report won’t have that much of an impact on AP & UB’s numbers, mainly because we Americans are still (realistically speaking) somewhat limited when it comes to our choices for online poker.

I’m guessing the story won’t be affecting most of you reading this blog. You’ve made your decision already about AP/UB, one way or the other.

As have I.

Catching Up (Various & Sundries)

Spent some time yesterday updating my list of subscribed-to blogs over in Bloglines. There had been a few blogs in the blogroll (see lower right-hand column) that I had yet to add. Although there are a couple of folks listed down there who’ve gone a few months without posting, most all of those listed are active. And worth yr while!

I generally check in on Bloglines a few times a day, and that’s where I get most of my poker-related news. I’ll stop by a few additional sites, and will peruse a couple of the forums to see what else is going on, but the blogs are generally my primary source of pokery info.

There have been a few items in the news since the World Series of Poker Main Event finally wrapped up a week ago, dominated, of course, by that little bit of unpleasantness regarding the finalization of the regulations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. I continue to see the actual significance of that being debated in various places on the web. Another bit of news stemming from that was that the Poker Players Alliance is presently contemplating a lawsuit against the federal government over the UIGEA. PPA Chairman Alfonse D’Amato emailed members regarding the suit, and yesterday the organization began contacting those who had expressed interest in perhaps participating in such a suit.

You probably noticed that the much-anticipated 60 Minutes segment reporting the Absolute Poker-UltimateBet insider cheating scandals (and whatever else might come up in the context of that report) did not air on November 9th as it had been reported that it would. Nor did it air last Sunday.

The segment was originally set to air on October 26th, but got bumped in favor of a segment on the economic crisis. It was then rescheduled to Nov. 9th, but this time producers decided instead to show a post-election segment reporting on and analyzing the successful Obama campaign strategy. I don’t think it was on the schedule this past Sunday (Nov. 16), but the show ended up taking two segments to interview the president-elect. So no poker.

Within the online poker community, this story shifts in emphasis constantly as new details emerge and/or further reaction gets shared. For instance, UB apparently did manage to begin paying back cheated customers by the due date prescribed to them by Tokwiro Enterprises last month. And I guess Annie Duke and Paul Leggett have starred in a series of infomercials designed to bolster UB’s image once again, though I have to admit I haven’t bothered to look at those. Nor do I think I will.

I haven’t run across any inside dope saying when (or if) the segment will finally air. Seems like the segment should come sooner than later, but obviously the 60 Minutes producers (understandably) believe there are more important issues to cover these days. Here’s the page where the show lists what is “Up Next,” in case you’re curious.

Another item that popped up at the end of last week concerned that domain-seizure case in a Kentucky Circuit Court. You remember how that Franklin Circuit Court preposterously ruled back in October that those 141 domains hosting gambling websites had to block Kentucky residents from accessing those sites within 30 days (or by November 15th or thereabouts) or the domains would be permanently forfeited to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. That “forfeiture hearing” was delayed until December 3rd, and then the case ended up in appeals court, where a further stay was granted until December 12th. So we get to wait a few more weeks to find out if Kentucky in fact rules the intertubes.

There’s been some hubbub over Clonie Gowen’s lawsuit against Full Tilt Poker. Have only been mildly following that one. Seems like the most interesting part of that story concerns the possible negative side effects of the lawsuit making public all of the company’s machinations (and ownership structure). I’ll let you head over to Pokerati for the latest on that one.

You’ll also find over there on Pokerati they are running a poll to discover who is the “best true poker pro blogger,” a contest in which our buddy (and underdog) the PokerGrump is presently crushing the competition. We’re all wondering what exactly he’s gonna do once elected.

Finally, let me pass along the news of the return of PokerListings’ Run Good Challege, a.k.a. RCG 2 Electric Boogaloo. The same crew of bloggers from the first RGC are back again for this one -- including me, yr humble gumshoe -- with a few others having been added, including pros Liz Lieu, Christina Lindley, and WSOP bracelet holder Jason Young.

Here’s the full line-up: David G. Schwartz, Change100, Liz Lieu, Dr. Pauly, Christina Lindley, Amy Calistri, the Spaceman, the Poker Shrink, Craig Cunningham, Michele Lewis, LuckBox (from Up for Poker), California Jen, Kid Dynamite, Benjo, Pokerati Dan, the Wicked Chops entities, Jason Young, and Matt Showell and Dan Skolovy from PokerListings. And me.

Hope I got all them links right. At least I know I have them correct over in my Bloglines.

Poker in the Mainstream: 60 Minutes Segment Set for Nov. 9

I suspect most readers of this blog are aware of the latest regarding that impending 60 Minutes segment on the Absolute Poker/UltimateBet cheating scandals. Was at one time set to air last Sunday, then apparently was rescheduled for Sunday, November 9th -- the day the final table of this year’s World Series of Poker Main Event will finally recommence.

Interesting timing, eh? When they are playing the final table (which begins at 10 a.m. Vegas time on Sunday the 9th), do you think they’ll stop and watch the stopwatch? Hehe, probably not. Of course, I’ll be following the FT coverage on PokerNews that day (no way am I waiting to see it on ESPN), and yeah, I probably will take a break when 60 Minutes comes on that night.

Sounds as though there will be a substantial write-up in the Washington Post appearing on that day that will also cover the scandals. Serge “Adanthar” Ravitch, one of those who along with Nat Arem and others was involved in much of the detective work uncovering the scandals, will be participating in an online Q&A session for the Washington Post on that day, too.

All of which means when the segment finally does air on CBS that Sunday night, there will be a bit of follow-up nationally as other papers and outlets report on the report. Might be substantial, might not. In any case, those follow-up stories will no doubt also make reference to the fact that the WSOP ME winner is being determined on Monday the 10th, and ESPN will air its hastily-produced final table show on Tuesday the 11th.

Some are suggesting the 60 Minutes story and its immediate aftermath may in a kind of odd twist gain the ESPN final table show even more viewers. As Pokerati Dan suggested this week, the 60 Minutes show “will be great promotion to non-poker people of ESPN’s final table broadcast.” I don’t know if the indirect promotion of the ME final table will be “great” or not, but Dan is right to say that the show will draw the attention of many non-poker people to what is going on at the Rio and on ESPN around that time.

Dan also refers us to an interesting article by Wendeen H. Eolis over on the Poker Player Newspaper website regarding the upcoming 60 Minutes piece. Kind of difficult to get to the full article just clicking around the Poker Player Newspaper website, but if you click here you can see it in full.

Eolis discloses early on that she has a business relationship with CBS, and thus has some contacts within the network who “have provided various off the record information and comments” that helped her write her article.

She then describes the presence of the 60 Minutes crew and Steve Kroft (the lead reporter for the segment) at the WSOP last summer. Eolis perhaps exaggerates (a little) the anxiety felt at the Rio as 60 Minutes sought out possible interviewees. (I remember when they were there, and I also remember it was mostly business as usual.) Nevertheless, at least one Harrah’s executive told her “It was not a comfortable situation” during those couple of days when they were there.

She goes on to discuss an earlier example of 60 Minutes investigating cheating in poker, with the focus having been live games in California and Washington state. A team had been sent to investigate, and many hours were devoted to compiling information for a story, but “higher-ups slowed down the process” and ultimately the segment was nixed. Such an example proves Eolis’ point that the entire sequence of coming up with a segment idea, investigating it, producing it, and (ultimately) convincing the “higher-ups” to go with is “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.”

I find that last observation quite intriguing, insofar as the decision this time around to go forward with a segment about the online poker scandals clearly represents a different status for poker and its relationship to “the mainstream public.” Today there are quite a few famous poker players with whom even non-poker fans/players are familiar thanks to advertisements (mostly for online poker sites). Eolis notes how many such “poker celebrities” were interviewed for the segment.

She concludes by characterizing the scene at this summer’s WSOP as a kind of poker game, with the poker players and others trying to “play” 60 Minutes in such a way as to benefit poker in general and/or the online sites they represent. Writes Eolis, “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.”

As I say, an interesting take. I still think the segment represents an overall good -- insofar as it succeeds in exposing the utter unfairness of the cheating scandals (and their handling) at both AP and UB, giving those scandals coverage that goes well beyond what relatively little attention they’ve gotten thus far. The bottom line is, people -- especially those thinking about opening their first online poker accounts -- need to know there is a huge difference between AP and UB and other, better-managed, more respectable (and safe) sites.

I’m less sure about further effects of the 60 Minutes segment, such as its possible impact on future legislation or even its gathering that many extra viewers for ESPN’s final table show. Those effects are certainly worth looking out for, though.

Tick, Tick, Tick: 60 Minutes Looking at Absolute Poker

Well, whaddya know. Apparently that there Absolute Poker insider cheating scandal isn’t going to vanish away after all.

Yesterday Nat Arem reported he had been contacted by 60 Minutes and the Washington Post for quotes regarding the AP scandal, and that 60 Minutes co-anchor Steve Croft was interested in interviewing him and Serge “Adanthar” Ravitch on camera. No word on when (or if, even) the piece may ultimately reach air, although something tells me a certain, celebrated poker event scheduled for early summer might provide a nifty segue for the person introducing the segment that Sunday night on CBS.

I think this is terrific news. The scandal and Absolute Poker’s handling of it were not just disgraceful, but criminal. Any negative repercussions a 60 Minutes exposé might bring to the site are entirely deserved. That seems plain enough.

Of course, there are some who are currently fretting about what angle 60 Minutes might choose to take with the story. Will they focus primarily on the wrongdoings down in Costa Rica, exposing (finally) the guilty as they deserve? Will they play up the admittedly fascinating super-sleuthing of Arem, Ravitch, and others who helped crack the case? Will they touch at all on how all this fits into the current legal imbroglio fostered by the UIGEA and those soon-to-be-finalized regulations . . . ?

Or will the story present the Absolute Poker scandal as evidence supporting some sort of comprehensive thesis damning the entire online poker industry? In other words, while the story is surely a positive insofar as it will shed light on Absolute Poker’s sorry behavior and treatment of its customer base, will there be collateral damage here? Will the online poker industry somehow suffer as a result of such negative press about AP?

Nolan Dalla fears as much. In a PokerListings article yesterday, Dalla says he worries that “the target” of the story will not be “the creep” (i.e., A.J. Green) “or Absolute Poker (which deserves scrutiny) -- but rather the entire online poker industry.”

Dalla goes on to point out that while, in his opinion, there is “no chance” the UIGEA will be revoked nor will any of the other proposed bills (e.g., Barney Frank’s IGREA) be passed by the current Congress, it bothers him that “public perceptions will be shaped for a long time by what is shown and seen by 20 million viewers on 60 Minutes.”

“I fear the portrait will be ugly -- a slimy, unregulated, corrupt band of outlaws operating way outside the boundaries of the law or justice,” writes Dalla. “Never mind that many online sites are publicly traded companies with top-flight managers and personnel, and are strictly regulated within their host countries. Perception and reality are two completely different things.”

Is Dalla right? Should those of us who play online poker be worried? Will a 60 Minutes segment showing the world what happened at Absolute Poker last summer and fall bring undue harm to the industry in general, and a lot of extra headaches for those of us who like to play?

A couple of thoughts come to mind here.

For one, I don’t quite understand these fears about what might happen should the “entire online poker industry” start receiving “scrutiny.” Indeed, it is the lack of scrutiny that helps create an environment where scandals such as the one that happened at Absolute Poker are more likely to occur. Dalla himself points out that many online sites are, in fact, well-managed and regulated. If so, it would seem to follow that most of the industry could, in fact, withstand whatever close inspection Steve Kroft and his merry crew might bring.

Secondly, for those who truly worry about the effect the 60 Minutes story might have on “public perception,” tell me which you would prefer:

(1) The public to believe (wrongly) that the online poker industry is run by “a slimy, unregulated, corrupt band of outlaws operating way outside the boundaries of the law or justice”; or,

(2) That really to be the case.

‘Cause if you are against stories like the Absolute Poker scandal being told, well, you’re just making it easier for us all to get to the second option.

* * * * *
Damned if this doesn’t make 400 posts. Had thought I might engage in a bit of navel-gazing today, but as you can see, something else came up.

Just as well. I’m sure there are more than enough of them self-reflexive, whazzit-all-about type posts among the first 399, for those who want to go searching for such applesauce. (You can try out that fancy new search feature I added a couple of weeks ago.)

Big thanks again to everyone for reading & all them good vibes.