Linking Out

For today’s post I thought I’d compile a few interesting poker-related reads (and one listen) from the last few days.

First off, Grange95 wrote an excellent post following last week’s ruling by a federal district court judge that poker was a game “predominated by skill rather than chance” and thus not in the judge’s view to be regarded as gambling as defined by the Illegal Gambling Business Act (IGBA)

Grange95’s post takes the form of outlining various consequences of the ruling, along the way summarizing its more salient points in a manner we non-lawyer types can follow. His conclusion? It is indeed a landmark ruling, and one that will play a role in future chapters of the “luck-vs.-skill” debate. However, its scope is limited and there still exist federal and state laws other than the IGBA with which poker’s proponents will have to contend.

Check out “United States v. Dicristina -- A Win for Poker Players (with an Asterisk)” for more.

The Forbes site provided yet another interesting poker-related piece yesterday, a feature describing the high-dollar home game (of sorts) hosted by the much-heralded, highly influential investor Warren Buffet.

In “Inside Warren Buffet’s Private Poker Game,” Randall Lane describes what is in fact an annual tournament hosted by Buffet in which a select group competes for a prize pool worth half a million dollars. Lane himself played in the tournament this past June along with a few high-profile folks, some of whom were bounties in the tourney.

The article mostly focuses on Lane’s own performance (he went out early), and in fact it sounds like Buffet isn’t really much of a poker aficionado (he’s more into bridge). Still, kind of an interesting look at poker being played by a different cast of characters than the ones we usually follow.

Jesse May (Shut Up and Deal) returns this week with another episode of his podcast, “The Poker Show.” It’s been about six weeks since May’s last show back in early July (near the end of the WSOP), making the appearance of a new one notable.

In episode 39 (dated August 27), May talks to a couple of hot German players, “Mad Marvin” Rettenmaier and Dominik Nitsche. Rettenmaier, of course, just comes off an unprecedented feat on the World Poker Tour, having won the last two main events at the Bellagio (the $25K World Championship that ended Season X) and in Cyprus (the kickoff to Season XI). Nitsche, meanwhile, is also having a good year, including winning a bracelet in Event No. 59 at the WSOP, a $1,000 no-limit hold’em event that I happened to help cover.

Both are interesting characters besides being great players, and of course May is always good with the questions, so if poker podcasts are your thing, the show is worth a listen. (EDIT [added 6/10/14]: Sorry, had to remove the link to the show per a request from bwinparty.)

Finally, I’ve recommended posts before by Phil Galfond on his personal blog, and he’s come up with another very good one that should probably interest anyone reading this blog. This time Galfond has written a thoughtful evaluation of one of his most celebrated opponents in the high-stakes online games, Viktor “Isildur1” Blom.

I had a chance this past summer to watch Blom play for most of Day 2 of the World Series of Poker Main Event, reporting on a number of his hands for PokerNews while gathering some thoughts of what it was like to watch the online superstar play live. I shared those impressions here in a post called “Blogging Blom,” although obviously what I saw and related was very limited, the imperfect impressions of an amateur watching the action from a few feet away.

In “Viktor Blom: The Man, The Myth, The Legend,” Galfond provides a more intimate look at both Blom the player and Blom the person. He assesses Blom’s talent (considerable, though with certain flaws), his character and personality (charming, fun-loving), and his prospects going forward (promising, though uncertain). Check it out.

On the PPA; or, Fight! Fight! Fight!

Was talking yesterday about the official completion of the agreement involving the U.S. Department of Justice, PokerStars, and Full Tilt Poker and some of the early post-agreement machinations that have resulted, one of which is the reemergence of that “FTPDoug” character who has come back into the online poker narrative in a different guise (“FTPMarkus”), apparently this time to be patterned more closely after his real self (Shyam Markus).

Among the other reactions to the completion of the agreement late last week was Poker Players Alliance Executive Director John Pappas writing a guest editorial about it for Forbes, the business magazine (and site) that has been reporting consistently about Black Friday and its aftermath over the last 16 months.

The PPA might be regarded as yet another “character” in this ongoing drama, kind of an eccentric one, really, who generally appears on stage moments after a meaningful plot development involving the story’s central players. Usually the appearance is marked by the repetition of certain slogans (“Poker is not a crime!”) and reaffirmations of the PPA’s commitment to fight for poker players’ “rights” (as the PPA understands them).

In the case of the Forbes op-ed, however, there appeared an extra bit of analysis regarding the agreement and what Pappas and the PPA believe it suggests regarding the DOJ’s stance on the future of online poker in the U.S.

Pappas highlights the fact that the agreement “very clearly left the door open” for PokerStars and FTP to return once the laws change and “the United States decides to license and regulate this great American pastime.” He is alluding to what the DOJ said in their press release accompanying the agreement, namely, that Stars “is prohibited from offering online poker in the U.S. for real money unless and until it is legal to do so under U.S. law.” (As would be a Stars-run FTP or any other site.)

For Pappas, this part of the agreement represents a “hidden gem” indicating the DOJ’s judgment about current laws and the need to license and regulate online poker in the U.S. “This sends an important message to Congress,” writes Pappas. “The Justice Department could have very easily banned PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker from the United States forever. Yet it chose not to. It chose to clearly recognize that online poker can and should be a viable industry in this country. Now the question is, will Congress listen?”

That Pappas is making a hopeful, almost delirious leap here should be obvious. The DOJ doesn’t say a thing about the need to legalize online poker or its prospects as a “viable industry” in the U.S. Rather the DOJ stays well within its charge to enforce current laws while also stating its intention to continue to do so in the future, correctly leaving the business of drawing up those laws to legislators.

A few days ago on the crAAKKer blog, Grange95 pointed out some of the problems with Pappas’ statement about the DOJ and the idea it is sending a “message” to lawmakers with the agreement. His post notes that Pappas misrepresents the DOJ’s position here, calling it “a stupid and unnecessary rhetorical gamble.”

Grange95 is right -- the DOJ isn’t saying what Congress should do going forward with regard to online poker. Even that much-heralded September 2011 memo (made public last December) in which the DOJ clarified its position regarding the Wire Act applying only to sports betting said nothing in particular about online poker. Nor did it address the UIGEA; in fact, it explicitly noted how the UIGEA was outside the scope of that particular opinion.

Now the opinion expressed in the memo certainly implies how the DOJ might choose to enforce the Wire Act vis-à-vis online poker going forward. Such an interpretation seems to be the impetus behind states’ moving ahead with legislation. But even there it wouldn’t be right to characterize the DOJ as somehow calling for the passing of new laws.

As the enforcer of the law, the DOJ does get to have opinions and make judgments about current laws and how to apply them. But it doesn’t get to make the laws. Nor should the choices it makes when enforcing laws be automatically understood as “messages” to legislators about those laws, or about the need for new, different laws. (Rather are such messages about laws more “clearly” delivered in courtrooms when they get challenged and rulings are made regarding them.)

Grange95 talks further about how the DOJ might not appreciate the PPA characterizing it as pro-online poker. Indeed, the title of his post -- “Did Pappas and the PPA Just Shoot Full Tilt Players in the Foot?” -- suggests the DOJ might even be affected somehow by the PPA in a way that could negatively affect U.S. players getting their FTP funds back. But he doesn’t really pursue that point too far in the post. (For a response addressing both that suggestion and another view of the PPA op-ed, see Chris Grove’s rejoinder “No, the PPA Did Not Just Shoot FTP Players in the Foot.”)

The PPA is a lobbying organization, fully immersed in the language of politics and campaigning. It isn’t that surprising, then, to see them spin the agreement in a way that makes it fit more neatly into its usual rallying cries.

Maybe I’m being affected by the fact that as we edge closer to the November elections we’re also being inundated by politicized language and argumentation, with just about every statement about anything getting spun into some sort of “platform” or statement of position or other form of campaigning. It is exhausting, though, constantly to be seeing others make this rhetorical move -- that is, to see everything as part of the “the fight” and thus try at every turn to turn all actions or statements into something positive for “our” side.

Makes me think of that PPA slogan “The Players Will Never Fold.” In poker, hands go by in which nothing particularly good happens for us. We can’t win every hand. We can’t even compete, sometimes. There are hands we have to fold. And then we sit and watch others’ fortunes being affected, with the outcome often having no special significance on our own.

Never folding is a losing strategy. There are times the best “Action Plan” (another favored PPA phrase) is not to act -- not always to “fight” -- but rather observe and assess. Then later we might act in an informed way, with purpose. And with a chance to win.

Not-So-Easy Money (On U.S. Players Withdrawing from Full Tilt Poker)

Yesterday I made a passing reference to my account balance on Full Tilt Poker. I’ve mentioned that balance here before, which even compared to the balances of other “recreational” or part-time players isn’t much (just under three hundy). Of course, even if I didn’t have a cent on FTP I’d still be highly interested in any developments concerning the possible return of players’ funds.

The agreement reached between the U.S. Department of Justice and PokerStars last week for the latter to acquire Full Tilt Poker was greeted with elation by most, primarily because of the fact that the news came with an accompanying indication that players’ FTP balances -- long-thought by many to be gone forever -- will be returned.

For players in countries where Stars will be reopening the FTP site, funds will be available for withdrawal as soon as the site comes back online (probably by early November). There are a few non-U.S. countries in which FTP will not be relaunched (France, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, and Estonia). It sounds like Stars is hoping to work out a method whereby players in those countries can have their FTP balances transferred to their PS accounts and from there be able to withdraw, if desired.

Of course, neither PS or FTP will be reopening in the United States, where the DOJ will be handling the business of cashing out. Stars understandably knows nothing about how that process will go, nor what sort of timetable the DOJ will follow when it comes to returning players’ FTP money.

Recall how the agreement included Stars forfeiting $547 million to the DOJ. As the DOJ explained in its press release last week, “Full Tilt’s U.S. fraud victims will be able to seek compensation for their losses from the Department of Justice from the $547 million forfeited by PokerStars.”

Shortly after last week’s news initially broke, Nathan Vardi of Forbes penned a follow-up suggesting the return of U.S. players’ FTP funds might not go so easily. Indeed, the title of Vardi’s article -- “The Big Question For Full Tilt's U.S. Players: Will They Get Their Poker Winnings Back?” -- even suggests the possibility that U.S. players might not see their funds returned at all.

In pursuing the question posed in his article’s title, Vardi notes how “there are people at the Department of Justice who are uncomfortable with the idea of paying U.S. players money that was won in online poker games played on Full Tilt’s web site.” (This despite the DOJ's own characterization of us as “Full Tilt’s U.S. fraud victims.”) From there Vardi offers some speculation about what those who will be in charge of the remission process at the DOJ might be thinking.

“The Department of Justice has consistently taken the position that online poker violates U.S. law,” Vardi says in support of the notion that the DOJ might not want to repay FTP players their winnings.

Some took issue with that statement as kind of glossing over what exactly the DOJ has considered illegal in the past (i.e., offering real money online poker games to U.S. players? U.S. players playing online poker?). Also, describing the DOJ having “consistently” adopted a single position regarding online poker kind of overlooks all the hubbub surrounding that DOJ memo from Sept. 2011 -- first made public right before Christmas -- in which the DOJ appeared to revise its position regarding the Wire Act.

That letter, penned by Virginia A. Seitz, Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, clarified how the Wire Act only applied to sports betting. Of course, the letter said nothing about online poker, and in fact explicitly “express[es] no view about the proper interpretation or scope of UIGEA.” Even so, some states (most notably Nevada) appear to have taken the revised opinion of the Wire Act as a cue to license and regulate online poker.

But Vardi isn’t just speculating on his own. He’s spoken to “lawyers working for the federal government” who have told him the DOJ isn’t crazy about the idea of “paying out money that was won in online poker games.” He also states that “numerous sources close to the matter” have told him “the decision could go either way and was too difficult to call.”

It’s certainly possible, then, that the DOJ might choose some method of handling FTP payouts for U.S. players that does not simply involve returning whatever balances we had in our accounts as of Black Friday.

Vardi also spoke to John Pappas, Executive Director of the Poker Players Alliance. Pappas voices incredulity at the notion that the DOJ wouldn’t allow U.S. players to recover their entire FTP balances.

Pappas is described referring both to the fact that PokerStars was permitted to allow U.S. players to withdraw their entire balances last year and to the fact that players in other countries will be able to withdraw their FTP balances, too. Pappas believes what we saw with Stars last spring is a kind of precedent here, which does make sense. He also thinks other countries’ players getting to cash out their FTP monies should have something to do with what happens for Americans (it’s only fair!), although in truth it does not.

Today Matt Kaufman of PokerStrategy offers a measured response to the entire situation that includes some conjecture about various possibilities going forward, including addressing the idea that the DOJ could somehow have U.S. players only be refunded money they deposited -- i.e., not their entire balances.

You can see right away how such a method could theoretically result in a situation where the losers get refunded more money than the winners. Such a repayment plan would also cost the DOJ more (as Kaufman explains), since the total amount of money deposited onto the site would necessarily be more than the total amount of current balances.

Kaufman talks about how the DOJ could impose some sort of starting date when considering its options (e.g., only deposits made after a certain date would count). He also mentions how they could take withdrawals into account, too, when calculating what players are due.

Who knows, really? Obviously some methods would appear more fair than others, and some more logistically simple to follow than others. Whatever happens, it’s clear those in charge of the remission process at the DOJ can proceed in pretty much whatever fashion they choose in what is really an unprecedented situation.

In other words, as is true in poker generally speaking, there’s a chance element here for Americans when it comes to the prospect of being reunited with their FTP balances. And as is also true in poker, a lot of patience is probably going to prove needful here, too.

A Complicated Deal: Reporting on the Stars-DOJ-FTP Agreement

Still experiencing a kind of delayed amazement at yesterday’s news. I suppose after years and years of the bad, it’s hard to know how to react to something that appears undeniably good.

The agreement reached between PokerStars and the U.S. Department of Justice involving Stars’ acquisition of Full Tilt Poker’s assets, its intention to reopen FTP to much of the rest of the world, and the plan to refund U.S. players’ FTP balances as well as make those balances available for withdrawal by ROW (rest of world) players is easily the most positive development we’ve seen in online poker since Black Friday. Heck, it’s probably the best news we’ve had since the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 became law.

For many players the recovery of bankrolls long thought to be forever lost is the main reason for excitement. But looking at the larger picture, this turn certainly seems to help pave the way for a brighter future for online poker in the U.S. -- one that could even theoretically include PokerStars once again, although as I noted yesterday much will have to happen first for that possible future to unfold.

This morning I perused a few mainstream reports on the story. As always seems to happen, the imprecision of reporting on anything having to do with online poker -- not to mention outright inaccuracy -- can be remarkable.

The worst example of such comes in today’s New York Times where we find Michael Schmidt reporting “2 Poker Sites Will Forfeit Millions.”

Even the headline of that one is misleading. Whereas PokerStars will indeed forfeit $547 million to the U.S. government over a three-year period, Full Tilt Poker is mostly forfeiting assets, various “property,” rights, records, data, and so forth. Of course, FTP will also forfeit whatever its various companies have left in all of those many bank accounts they had, but I haven’t read any specific numbers stating how many “millions” FTP might be handing over. Furthermore, as the DOJ’s release spells out, PokerStars ultimately will be acquiring those “Forfeited Full Tilt Assets,” which means the headline sloppily simplifies the nature of the transactions.

Worse, though, is the howler that originally appeared in the third paragraph stating “The $547 million will be available to victims of PokerStars activities and another $184 million will be made available from PokerStars to foreign victims of the Full Tilt Poker site.”

For one, not all $547 million is going to the “victims.” And secondly... “PokerStars[’] activities”? (Italics -- and the needed apostrophe -- added.)

A correction was later affixed to the end of the piece awkwardly clarifying that “an earlier version of this article misidentified the company that had taken money from the accounts of bettors and distributed it to its owners, according to court papers. It was Full Tilt Poker, not PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker.” However, the original “victims of PokerStars[’] activities” phrasing remained in the web version of the article until just a short while ago. (It made it into today’s print version of the NYT.)

There’s other evidence in the report that Schmidt probably hasn’t been on the Black Friday beat for more than a day or so, particularly when he leans on the “according to court documents” attributor to share facts that have been known for a year or more. But we’ll just shake our heads and move on.

The story also made the front page of CNN’s Money section late last night. There we read “Full Tilt... resolved allegations that it operated a Ponzi scheme,” which makes it sound as though all charges against the site and individuals associated with it have been dropped (they haven’t).

That story also originally featured the following picture as illustration...























...which this morning was revised to this one:























DUCY?

Meanwhile Australia’s Daily Telegraph is reporting that “Online Poker Sites Full Tilt Poker, Absolute Poker Fined $700 Million.” No less than three errors in that headline -- not (simply) a “fine,” wrong sites, wrong amount. Please.

Mainstream reporting on the story isn’t all bad, though. Nathan Vardi of Forbes -- who has been reporting on Black Friday-related matters (in particular Full Tilt Poker) for quite some time -- does a good job reporting yesterday’s news while providing some historical context. He also looks forward a bit to speculate in an informed way about what the future might hold for online poker in the U.S.

Alexandra Berzon of The Wall Street Journal (who has also been reporting on the story for a while) does well, too, to present the salient facts in her piece from yesterday, although her headline (“Poker Site Pays $731 Million Fine”) also kind of glosses over things. I should note that having written for newspapers before, I realize in many instances the reporters don’t write the headlines for their articles, a practice which can often create unintended problems if those who do aren’t reading the articles carefully enough.

I also appreciate Ryan Faughnder of the Los Angeles Times starting his explanation of the agreement with the qualifying clause “In a complicated deal....” ’Cause it is complicated, and really none of these guys are going to be able to explain it all in the 500-700 words or so most are given with which to try.

It’s interesting to consider how even correctly reported versions of the story may not necessarily translate into “good news” about online poker for a mainstream audience. After all, regardless of how well or poorly the specifics are being related, the story essentially boils down to a similarly-themed narrative that (1) online poker is bad/illegal, (2) criminals were arrested for trying to offer it, and (3) criminals were punished and/or appear to have admitted guilt and settled their cases.

Those of us inside this little online poker bubble know there is a lot more to the story than that, of course. But it’s obviously still going to be a long while before online poker might exist in the larger culture as something other than “criminal.” Especially if the mainstream media isn’t willing to look at it specifically enough to describe what’s happening accurately.

On the (Legislative) Road Again

With the WSOP Main Event finally in the rearview, attentions are slowly turning back to ongoing machinations concerning the shambles that online poker in the U.S. currently is and the possibility for some newly-regulated game to become available to Americans in the future.

Setting aside the whole FTP-Groupe Bernard Tapie thing, as well as that story from a couple of weeks back that Absolute Poker/UB have a plan to liquidate assets in order to pay back its players, there appear to be three main areas on which to focus when it comes to federal-level legislative talk about online poker.

And anyway, like we were talking about yesterday, three is always a cool amount to use for organizing one’s thoughts, right?

One is this so-called “super committee,” a.k.a. the Joint Select Committee for Deficit Reduction, which continues to meet and formulate recommendations for cutting spending and increasing revenue. The bi-partisan group of senators and House members has a report due on November 23, and within a month of that the Congressional houses will be voting “up or down” (with no amendments or filibusters allowed) on what is recommended.

Some have suggested an online poker bill could sneak into the recommendations somehow, although most of the scuttlebutt seems to be suggesting that’s unlikely to happen. In any case, in a couple of weeks we’ll know for sure whether or not to strike this one off the list of items to watch.

The second bit of news to focus on is that next week not one but two different Congressional committees will be meeting to talk about online gaming.

One is the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which will meet on Thursday, November 17 to talk about the native Americans' stake in particular. The other is that same House subcommittee that met last month to talk online gaming (the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade) who will be meeting on Friday, November 18 to pursue the subject further.

Those meetings will most surely create some buzz, and perhaps even some concrete steps toward a vote on an online poker-related bill. Of course, with 2012 being an election year, the window for any such bill making its way up the legislative ladder will be closing soon.

Finally, we learned back in early October how two of the figures targeted in the Black Friday indictment -- John Campos (the vice-chairman and co-owner of that Sun Trust bank in Utah) and Chad Elie (a payment processor) -- were fighting the feds in court, having both filed motions to have the counts against them dismissed. Those motions largely are resting on the argument that the online poker sites with which they dealt were not “illegal gambling businesses” as defined (or not-so-well defined) in the Illegal Gambling Business Act of 1970 or the UIGEA.

Of course, in addition to being accused of violating these laws (the IGBA and UIGEA), these two are also both said to have conspired to commit money laundering, and Elie is looking at a bank and wire fraud charge, too. So how well their arguments about the online poker sites not being “gambling businesses” are carrying them in those contexts, I do not know.

In any event, late last week federal prosecutors responded by filing a 51-page defense of their case responding to the pair’s motions to dismiss the counts. That response makes several points, one being an affirmation of the position that poker is indeed gambling, despite the many arguments that have been made regarding its skill component. The feds also address in great detail other misdeeds by the pair with regard to the non-UIGEA stuff, too.

Additionally, in a kind of superfluous attempt to explain how when the IGBA was passed into law poker had long been considered to be gambling by the culture a large, the feds botch a reference to the poker song “The Gambler”:

Those who spent their time playing poker in saloons were called ‘gamblers’ from the outset, and poker is described almost unfailingly as ‘gambling’ in a variety of contexts in reported cases dating back to the 1800s. This characterization of poker as gambling reflects society’s traditional understanding of poker, particularly at the time of IGBA’s enactment. For example, Willie Nelson’s classic poker song, about knowing when to “hold ’em” and when to “fold ’em” is called -- based on the movie by the same name -- “The Gambler.”

As just about all of the rest of us know, that was Kenny Rogers, not Willie Nelson, who recorded the referenced song. His version first released in late 1978, a few years after the IGBA came about. The TV movie starring Rogers -- the first of several -- came a couple of years later. Don Schlitz first wrote it (and recorded it earlier, actually), a story I wrote about in a “Poker & Pop Culture” piece a while back.

In any event, the feds are pretty adamant in their response about poker falling under the heading of gambling, likening it to other examples of gambling that may incorporate an element of skill -- they even admit sports betting has some of that -- but in which outcomes are ultimately “subject to chance.”

If you want more details on this latter item, Nathan Vardi of Forbes reported on the feds’ reponse a week ago. The guys at PokerFuse wrote up a detailed analysis of the response earlier this week. And Pokerati Dan chimed in last night as well with a quick list of some of the feds’ major points.

Of these three items, then, the “super committee” doesn’t seem too promising, nor does the Campos-Elie case inspire much confidence regarding the UIGEA ever getting taken down. Thus do we look to those Congressional committees, watching and wondering if and when any change for online poker in U.S. is coming any time soon.

Or whether, when it comes to American online poker players, our situation continues to resemble that of the figures Willie Nelson sang about... “like a band of gypsies we go down the highway.”

Some Rambling About the Rumble (Online Poker in the U.S.)

I have a section here on the blog called “The Rumble” wherein I collect items concerning “how poker is discussed and presented in various media.” Under that heading go posts that deal with a number of different topics, including legislative matters and instances of poker popping up in the culture (the arts, business, news, sports, etc.).

In fact, “the rumble” is a good way to refer to what’s been happening over the last several weeks with regard both to legislative machinations related to online poker in the U.S. as well as all to of these new business alliances with (potentially) great relevance to online poker. So far it’s like a distant storm -- a lot of noise, but still close enough that if something were to happen we wouldn’t be totally taken by surprise. (Although there remains the possibility the sucker could pass us over altogether.)

Bills proposing means to license and regulate online poker continue to be debated in several states. The New Jersey legislature approved one, but last month the governor vetoed it. There’s a lot of impetus behind a bill in Nevada currently. The District of Columbia looks like it is about to offer online poker within its borders (via the DC lottery). And there’s a federal bill that has been proposed in the House (H.R. 1147) that revives Barney Frank’s H.R. 2267 from the last Congress.

Meanwhile, over in the business section have appeared a number of stories of “joint ventures” that have potential significance both in terms of lobbying efforts for future legislation and the landscape of online poker should any of these bills actually get passed into law.

One such relationship involves the online gaming group 888.com partnering with Caesars Interactive Entertainment, a union that was allowed to occur after the Nevada Gaming Commission gave its okay late last month. Another involves Fertitta Interactive, the owners of which also own Station Casinos (a Nevada-based gaming company), forging an alliance with Full Tilt Poker that is apparently based on the contingency that some sort of federal legislation regarding online poker in the U.S. be passed.

And perhaps most notably, Wynn Resorts and PokerStars have made a similar agreement, one that marks a notable change in the thinking of Steve Wynn, the chief executive of Wynn Resorts who had once adamantly opposed legislative efforts to license and regulate online poker in the U.S. Again, the partnership at this point is mainly aimed at pooling efforts to help get legislation passed, with tangible consequences of the alliance only being felt if and when that were to occur.

Nathan Vardi has been reporting on the Wynn-Stars story for Forbes. Yesterday Vardi shared an interesting piece on the meeting between PokerStars founder Isai Scheinberg and Wynn that ultimately resulted in the alliance being formed.

The article describes the factors affecting Wynn’s change of heart, a journey that in some ways reflects that which will have to be taken by legislators, too, for any laws to be passed. It’s a good read, and highlights some of the legitimate concerns Wynn previously had about getting involved with online poker while also pointing up the possibility (inevitability?) that something is going to happen, perhaps sooner than later, on the legislative front.

Of course, as of this moment we’re still mainly just hearing a lot of rumbling. Starting to sound closer, though. Might be worth keeping an eye on that forecast.

Who Has the Power?

Saw that “Power 20” list put out by Bluff Magazine recently, a list of “the most influential and powerful people in the poker industry” here at the start of 2010.

The magazine has compiled similar lists in the past, polling media types and other industry insiders to create it, and has usually included not just individuals but companies or organizations, too. The idea for such a list likely comes from other, similar catalogues of important, influential types from various industries. That annual “Forbes 500” springs to mind -- a list of the 500 top U.S. companies that identified the “largest” companies by looking at various factors, including sales, profits, assets, market value, and number of employees. They turned that into the “Fortune Global 2000” a few years ago, following a similar rubric to compare companies around the world.

The Bluff list of powerful poker people doesn’t come accompanied with a particular set of criteria other than to say these are the “movers and shakers” of the poker world, which I take to mean folks whose actions necessarily get noticed and have some substantial effect on everyone else involved in poker, such as players or others whose livelihood is shaped by poker in some fashion (e.g., casino employees, media, etc.).

Of the 20 spots, nine are occupied by professional players, most of whom have numerous ties within the industry that help extend their influence: Howard Lederer (#4), Doyle Brunson (#6), Joe Cada (#7), Tony G (#9), Daniel Negreanu (#10), Phil Ivey (#11), Mike Sexton (#13), Joe Sebok (#17), and Barry Shulman (#18).

The rest of the list is comprised of two folks who represent important poker industry entities, Mitch Garber (Harrah’s) at #3 and Ty Stewart (the WSOP) at #5, two agents (Brian Balsbaugh [#15] and Per Hagen [#20]), the Executive Director of the Poker Players Alliance (John Pappas [#12]), a tournament director (Matt Savage [#19]), a television producer (Mori Eskandani [#14]), a lawmaker (Barney Frank [#8]), and Bluff’s editor, (Lance Bradley [#16]).

I didn’t really want to get into the merits of the list itself, which certainly names a lot of important people but -- as always happens with such things -- seems to omit some obvious ones, too (e.g., no Annie Duke?). For more discussion of who got picked and who got left out, see Wicked Chops’ post on the list as well as the one over on Pokerati. (The latter includes a number of interesting and insightful comments as well.) They also talked about the list some on last week’s episode of The Poker Beat.

I did, however, want to say a word about the top of the list, where one finds not individuals but two online poker sites, Full Tilt Poker (#2) and PokerStars (#1). Their listing is preceded by a disclaimer that “Given the murky legality involved in owning an online poker site, the top two names... both asked to have their names removed from the list” and Bluff did so.

While not entirely surprising, I nevertheless find this to be the most intriguing aspect of the entire list -- the fact that the most important two individuals in poker as voted upon by more than 100 industry folks and members of the poker media are uncertain about being identified at all, never mind being highlighted as especially powerful within poker. Says a couple of important things about the industry as a whole, I think.

For one, the list seems a pretty strong argument for the centrality of the online game and the influence of online poker over just about all other aspects of the industry. Many, many jobs within poker are tied directly to the health of online poker, and in particular to the continued growth and success of a couple of two “U.S.-facing” sites. We knew that already, but the list certainly clarifies that to be the case.

Secondly, the fact that those who own those two sites shun this sort of publicity says something about the highly uncertain status of the online game at this moment in time, most particularly in the U.S.

Regarding that subject -- and speaking of Forbes -- an article appeared on the business magazine’s website today with a headline asking “Are the Feds Cracking Down on Online Poker?”

The article notes how PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker together “account for maybe 70% of the $1.4 billion in revenue the U.S. [online poker] industry brought in last year.” Speaking to the issue of the legality of operating an online poker site that serves U.S. customers, the article reports that “PokerStars, situated on the Isle of Man, claims it has legal opinions from five U.S. law firms saying it is not violating any laws.” Forbes tried also to talk to Full Tilt, though their representatives “did not respond to requests for comment,” likely because Full Tilt “has deep roots in the U.S. and close connections to famous American poker players who can be found in Las Vegas regularly.”

The article goes on to summarize recent history, including the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 and its aftermath, PartyGaming founder Anurag Dikshit’s guilty plea to violating the Wire Act back in 2008, and the seizing of $34 million by federal prosecutors in 2009 from companies processing payments for Stars and Full Tilt. It also mentions Barney Frank’s current efforts to get online gambling licensed and regulated in the U.S., as well as that June 1, 2010 deadline for banks to start implementing the UIGEA.

Thus are we in a world where “Online poker operates in the law's shadows.” And since the entire poker industry is so enormously affected by the status of the online game in the U.S., anyone appearing in poker’s “Power 20” today may well be more vulnerable than their listing might suggest.

In other words, they have the “power” right now, but everyone continues to worry and wonder -- could others come in and pull the plug?