The UIGEA: 10 Years Ago Today

Ten years? Ten? Hmm... can we even remember that far back?

A couple of weeks’ worth of dread preceded the president signing the bill into law. There’d been a few months of less specific fretting, too, as I recall, although few seemed genuinely concerned.

In July 2006 this blog was only three months old. A lot of my posts to that point had been about playing poker -- online poker, that is. Not unlike many of the other hundreds of poker blogs at the time. Occasionally I’d write about other things -- hard-boiled novels, for instance -- as well as other poker-related topics emanating from “the rumble.”

I did notice that month the passage of a bill in the U.S. House, something called the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act,” and wrote a post here at the time about it titled “Raising a Glass to the Return of Prohibition.” I can’t honestly say that when writing that post I was all that concerned about my ability to play online poker being curbed at all, though.

One reason why I wasn’t so worried was the fact that the bill the House had passed wasn’t the much harsher seeming “Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,” the one certain legislators had been working over for the previous decade or so. Rather the “UIGEA” -- the acronym some of us would become very familiar with (and others consistently screw up) -- was only focused on credit card companies and financial transaction providers, meaning playing online poker wasn’t a problem. And, well, getting money to and from the sites didn’t seem like it would be a problem, either, or at least all that seemed too abstract at the time to bother us.

Besides, the sucker still had be passed by the Senate, then signed by the president. And pretty much everyone in the poker world who’d actually been following these attempts at legislating online gambling were predicting that wouldn’t happen.

We made it to the end of September 2006, then woke up one Saturday morning to realize the unthinkable had happened. The UIGEA had been snuck onto another piece of legislation and passed through the Senate with hardly any resistance at all. I wrote a post that morning titled “Deals in the Dead of Night” remarking on the event, still naively occupying a position of only moderate concern.

I noted at the time how it was already a given that then-president George W. Bush would sign the bill into law, but could only muster the opinion that “then things should get more interesting” once he did.

I’m remembering the following two weeks. It was that Monday, October 2nd, that PartyPoker (now styled “partypoker”) announced it would be cutting off the Americans. Somewhere mid-week I remember having a phone conversation with Party support and having it confirmed that yes, indeed, I would have to withdraw my funds as I wouldn’t be able to play on the site once the bill became law.

Like everyone else I began to wonder if all the other sites would follow suit, but both PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker were quick to confirm they wouldn’t be pulling out of the U.S. It all seemed a lot more uncertain, then, as we got the news that week that the UIGEA would be signed by Bush the following Friday the 13th, a suitably ominous-seeming day for the event.

We got to October 13, 2006, and while sitting at a desk with a banner reading “Securing the Homeland” Bush indeed signed the “SAFE Port Act” into law. In his comments Bush spoke of how the law “will make this nation more prepared, more prosperous, and more secure.” He went on to thank various legislators, reiterate the importance of protecting Americans from terrorism and making our borders and seaports secure, and winning the “war on terror.”

In his comments Bush didn’t mention the internet at all, nor the UIGEA which had been sneakily appended to the bill before its passage. It seemed almost like he might not even be aware of it.

Some of us were aware of it, though. And gradually more and more of us would become aware of it, especially four-and-a-half years later when Black Friday suddenly occurred as a kind of a belated next step in the UIGEA’s “long game.”

And now, exactly one decade after the UIGEA was signed into law, all of us here in the United States who’d like to play poker online (as they do in much of the rest of the world) are necessarily aware of its consequences -- even if we don’t know the reason why.

Photo: georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov

Technical Difficulties

We did end up making it out for a few hours’ worth of fun at Farm Aid on Saturday. Turned out to be a nice, mild day weather-wise with plenty of cloud cover and a lot of good tunes. Felt a little uncanny to hear “Seven Nation Army” on a Saturday afternoon and not be at a football game, but rather watching Jack White perform it.

Got back to our own farm on Sunday where I spent a lot of it camped in front of the teevee for more football while also following various stories online.

As any football fan well knows, the daily (or weekly) fantasy sites have kind of exploded in popularity of late, with two in particular -- DraftKings and FanDuel -- having emerged as the current Coca-Cola and Pepsi of “DFS.” Commercials for both are dominating sports radio and television these days, meaning even non-participants are becoming more and more aware of their existence.

I couldn’t help but see from my Twitter feed during the hour leading up to the 1 p.m. kickoffs on Sunday that the FanDuel site had crashed, no doubt due to the heavy volume of folks entering contests and changing their line-ups at the last minute following injury announcements and other game-related news. I also noticed DraftKings swooping in to offer bonuses to the FanDuel folks should they want to transfer their balances over.

Later in the day there was a similar theme being sounded in my timeline when partypoker’s New Jersey site froze up during the $200,000 guaranteed Main Event of its Garden State Super Series. I believe there were more than 700 players in the $200 tourney -- meaning there was a decent overlay -- when the problems occurred and all the ongoing tourneys had to be canceled. “Technical difficulties” said the site in their explanation afterwards.

Both FanDuel and partypoker acted swiftly when it came to reimbursing players. I’m not sure exactly how FanDuel handled it, although I did see them tweeting to their followers that affected players could email them for refunds. Meanwhile I believe partypoker instantly paid back its players and then some according to their already established tourney cancellation policy, and from the comments of some who were affected it sounded like all was handled as well as it could have been.

That said, just like FanDuel has DraftKings to worry about, the New Jersey partypoker site is bracing itself for a formidable competitor as well as word is PokerStars is coming to NJ sooner than later via its new owners, Amaya.

Customer service is often more complicated than it looks, with the technical just-make-sure-everything-works side of things being as important (or more so) for a lot of people as being prompt with responses to queries, complaints, and the inevitable hiccups. The “online poker 2.0”-era in the U.S. has been a rocky one to say the least. Those who have tried their hand have been earnest with their efforts, I think, but have run up against many challenges that have worked against them.

It’ll be very interesting to see if that changes soon.

Big Fun with The Big Game

Have been very much enjoying the live stream and commentary of PartyPoker’s Big Game VI from Vienna, Austria over the last couple of days. Looks like they have about four or five more hours left to go in what has become a more-than-48-hour cash game.

I’ve been watching the feed via the PokerNews page, where one can also follow and participate in moderated chat over to the right. The picture and sound have been clear and without any glitches whatsoever. Commentary has been useful and entertaining, with Jesse May among those having contributed. And the chat has even been a nice add, too, thanks in part to the fact that it has been moderated with some of the PokerNews folks serving as hosts along the way.

I watched for a few hours yesterday, and have it on again today as I write. The game has been highly compelling to watch. During the hours I’ve seen, Tony G has been present throughout with lots of table talk and relatively loose play. Dan “Jungleman” Cates has been struggling, down nearly €100K at the moment. And iron man Phil Laak has of course been there, too, the only player to play the entire session.

By the time I picked up the feed yesterday, Laak was already up the most of anyone, nearly €150K ahead. The most amazing hand to watch by far came last night, sometime after midnight Vienna time, one involving Laak and Andy Moseley.

They were playing six-handed at the time. Not sure what the situation was with straddles and so on, but there was €500 in the middle to start the hand. Laak was dealt and opened with a raise to €700. Tony G called from the small blind with , then Andy Moseley reraised to €3,400 from the BB with .

The action back on Laak, he made a loosey-goosey four-bet to €10,200, forcing out Tony G. Moseley then shipped for €31,425 total and after thinking for a while Laak decided to call.

Laak didn’t turn over his hand, following a fairly common practice in cash games. You could hear him explaining to the others that those watching the live feed could already see his hand, and he thus didn’t feel obligated to show his ace-rag to the table. He also sounded a little like he was unhappy with himself about getting into such a spot.

“Look, when a guy’s melting off his money, you don’t have the right to see his hand,” Laak said with a grin. “That’s the way it is in a poker room.”

The flop came , then the turn brought the to pair Laak, who didn’t react at all to the card. When asked, Moseley said “I feel like 6 out of 10 comfortable” regarding his prospects at that point with ace-king -- without, of course, knowing that Laak had just binked his six.

Meanwhile, adding to the fun, it was at that moment Tony G offered to bet €3,000 that Laak had the best hand, with both Alec Torelli and Scott Seiver taking him up on it and taking Moseley’s hand.

The river then brought the , and all waited for Laak to signal whether he’d won or lost. But rather than turn over the winner, Laak just grimaced and mucked his cards!

The dealer pushed the pot to Moseley -- like €64K or thereabouts -- and Torelli, Seiver, and Tony G made lots of noise off to the side as a reaction to their side bets.

“What’s happened?!” asked Jesse May. “A 60,000 Euro mistake! Oh my God!” said Scott Baumstein, his commentating partner at the time. “That means officially he’s been playing the game too long!”

They went on to explain excitedly how usually in such situations if a player made a mistake by mucking a winner, he’d never know. But with the televised presentation of this game, Laak would find out -- a half-hour later, that is, when the delayed feed aired the hand and showed he’d mucked the winner.

Wild stuff, that. Kind of recalls that time Phil Ivey mucked a winning flush when they were down to three tables in the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event. Remember that?

Tuning back in today, it appears Laak recovered well enough from his mistake, having built back up to almost a €180K profit at the moment. We’ll see how well he holds up during this final stretch run. Me, too, although I’m plenty rested. Oh, and I don’t have thousands of Euros at risk.

PartyGaming and Bwin Merge

I had a brief email exchange with a representative of PartyPoker this week. In my message, I signed off saying “Interesting times for PartyPoker, wouldn’t you say?” My correspondent readily agreed.

What’s so interesting about PartyPoker right now?

Well, first of all, whenever there is any legislative news over here in the U.S. regarding online gambling, we are reminded that PartyPoker pulled out of the American market immediately after the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was signed into law (in October 2006), ostensibly to be in a position to return should the UIGEA be overturned or replaced by new online gambling legislation.

So when the House Financial Services Committee last week passed Rep. Barney Frank’s Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2267), one of the various sidebar stories was again the possibility of PartyPoker perhaps one day getting itself a license and returning to the U.S. market.

Of course, one imagines that day -- that is, the day when the feds start handing out licenses to companies wanting to set up online gambling sites in the U.S. -- won’t be coming for a long, long time (if ever). This article over on ABC News about the bill passing through the House Financial Services Committee did a better job than some (I thought) of reporting on the relatively slim likelihood we’ll see online gambling licensed and regulated in the U.S. in the near future: “Internet Gambling Legalization Seen as Long Shot.”

Another reason why these are interesting times for PartyPoker is the recent announcement of PartyGaming having merged with Bwin Interactive Entertainment. When the merger is completed in early 2011, the new company will instantly become the world’s largest online gambling company.

Rumors about the merger -- a deal valued at a whopping $1.76 billion by some estimates -- have been circulating for many months. Indeed, it was last December that articles began appearing in London newspapers about the possibility of PartyGaming and Bwin getting together, although both were officially denying anything was in the works then.

Most industry observers have long suggested the two companies make for a good fit, with PartyGaming having long focused on poker, bingo, and casino games while Bwin is a leader in sports betting. Their respective markets (i.e., their player pools) also apparently don’t have too much overlap either, having respectively concentrated on different parts of Europe.

The new company will apparently have a new name, and I believe its headquarters will be over in Vienna, Austria (although still will be traded on the London Stock Exchange). The merger is still subject to both companies’ shareholders’ approval (75% have to say it’s okay), although both PartyGaming and Bwin saw their stock go up something like 25% in value as soon as the merger was announced last week, so it is thought the shareholders will likely be on board.

As far as poker is concerned, the new company will enjoy a huge player base and be able to compete with PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker over in the European market. One analyst, Gianmarco Bonacina, noted how in terms of poker the merger was “both an offensive and a defensive move.”

“In Europe, Bwin and PartyGaming are losing market share in poker versus Pokerstars and Fulltilt, so the combination will protect them,” said Bonacina. Meanwhile, “in the U.S., the move is offensive. They want to attack that market and are in a better position if they combine.”

As far as plotting some future invasion of the U.S. market goes, I’m still not too sure about how easily any current online poker site -- all of which are necessarily based outside of the U.S. -- is going to get a license here to operate should the legislation ever make its way through both houses, get signed by the president, then have its regulations finalized and implemented.

First of all, there are those two so-called “bad actors” amendments (here and here) which got added to the current version of the bill. Sites like PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, UB, and others may or may not have to worry about those, but who knows?

Then there’s also that other amendment added by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) that insists applicants for licenses have “established a corporate entity or other separate business entity in the United States, a majority of whose officers are United States persons and, if there is a board of directors, that the board is majority-controlled by directors who are United States persons.”

That one makes me wonder about how simple a process it’ll be for, say, PokerStars, Full Tilt, or even the new Party-Bwin combination to come into the U.S. and get a license to operate an online gambling site. I suppose new companies, based in the U.S. and run by U.S. folks, could be created from these existing sites, but then to what extent do those new companies get to take advantage of the market share currently enjoyed by the sites?

In other words, I readily see how the merger of PartyGaming and Bwin works as a “defensive” measure designed to help both companies compete for the online poker market in Europe. But I’m not quite sure how it is going to work as an “offensive” move here in the U.S. Not yet, anyway.

Interesting times, then, both for PartyPoker and for online poker, generally speaking. Although I have to admit when it comes to looking ahead and trying to speculate about what’s to come, it’s hard to be more specific than that.

Watching the Big Game

Looks like PartyPoker’s Big Game IV’s -- that nonstop 48-hour cash game being played at Les Ambassadeurs in London -- will be wrapping up within a few hours.

A couple of players, David “Viffer” Peat and Neil Channing, have been there from the start (although I believe Channing might have gotten voted off the table). Others who have been coming and going include Tony G, Luke “FullFlush” Schwartz, Jennifer Tilly, Dusty “Leatherass” Schmidt, Isaac Haxton, Justin Bonomo, Roland de Wolfe, Andrew Feldman, and a few more.

I believe there were about 20 players altogether scheduled to play. For details on all of the action, including who is up and who is down, you can check out Adam “Snoopy1239” Goulding’s excellent live reports from the event over on the PartyPoker blog: Day 1 and Day 2.

Of course, the big story from the Big Game during the days leading up to it was the announcement that Isidur1 would be playing, thanks to the backing of Tony G. Such was thought to be the case up until the eve of the event when Tony G informed us on his blog that despite various arrangements having been made -- including allowing for the possibility of letting Isildur1 play while wearing a mask (no shinola) -- online poker’s international man of mystery had decided not to play.

Tony G -- who rode into the Big Game on a bike to the accompaniment of Queen’s “Bicycle Race” (natch) -- also notes that Isidur1 will be in Monte Carlo for the EPT Grand Final (scheduled at the end of April). We’ll see if that pans out.

While no official “outing” has happened yet, most seem to agree that Isildur1 is the young Swedish player Viktor Blom. Tony G said as much in late November 2009 (“I can reveal to all it is Viktor”), though later would equivocate and suggest he wasn’t as certain. Blom himself apparently denied being Isildur1 then, though soon it was determined the fellow issuing the denial wasn’t the poker player but another Viktor Blom. Speculation continued, with Luke “FullFlush” Schwartz adding his two cents last month in an interview for PokerPlayer U.K., saying he was indeed Blom.

Last month I wrote a post about Mike Matusow’s interview on the TwoPlusTwo Pokercast in which “The Mouth” offered some thoughts regarding Isildur1 and the high-stakes games in which he’s been participating over on Full Tilt. Had a comment on that one from Jeremiah (Smith, I believe) who’d spoken with Barry Greenstein about Isildur1, and the Bear told Jeremiah that he’d played with him in a tourney. Seems safe to say there are many in the poker community -- esp. among those who play high stakes -- who know who Isildur1 is.

Kara Scott has been there at Les Ambassadeurs hosting the televised coverage of the Big Game that will be airing later this year in the U.K. before being shopped around internationally. Once she’s done with that, I’ll be talking with her for an upcoming Betfair piece. Definitely plan to ask her about the Big Game as well as “High Stakes Poker” and see what she has to say about our fascination with these high-stakes games.

The fact is, while the “Who is Isildur1?” thing is no doubt interesting, even when we know the players’ names and what they look like, they still often tend to captivate a lot of us who aren’t playing for the highest stakes. Indeed, the very fact that they are playing for such high stakes necessarily makes them mysterious to us (in a way), adding a layer of intrigue that they may or may not deserve, but which nevertheless often grabs our attention.

As Al Alvarez puts it in The Biggest Game in Town, when it comes to high-stakes players, “It is a question not just of a different level of skill but of a different ordering of reality.” In other words, they are not like us. They see the world in a different way. They do things we wouldn’t do.

You know, like ride a bicycle indoors.

The North American Poker Tour Debuts (The Return of PokerStars-vs.-PartyPoker?)

Am following with interest the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure play out down in Nassau. Checking in on PokerNews’ live reporting as well as the PokerStars blog for all the latest.

Sounds like over 1,500 runners sat down for the two Day Ones, a new record for the PCA. Of course, yesterday the big news coming out of the Bahamas was how the PCA is in fact the first event of the new North American Poker Tour (NAPT). The tour’s next stop will be in Las Vegas in February at the Venetian, then over to the Mohegan Sun in Connecticut in April. Oh, and it sounds like ESPN might be shooting these NAPT final tables for broadcast, a not-insignificant part of the story.

Our buddy B.J. Nemeth has written some about the new NAPT and its challenge to the World Poker Tour (for which Nemeth does live reporting). Check out Nemeth’s post “NAPT vs. WPT: The Battle for North America” for some of his thoughts on the subject. As Nemeth notes, that next NAPT event at the Venetian will compete with the WPT’s L.A. Poker Classic in February, so we’ll see right away how the first round of this here fight will go.

Nemeth also alludes in his post to the purchase of World Poker Tour Enterprises by PartyGaming from last year, which reminds me that I had wanted to write a little something on that story again here.

I wrote a couple of those “top ten” lists at the end of 2009 -- one compiling the top stories of the year and another listing the top moments of the decade. Such lists are more difficult to pull together than they appear, especially if one is trying to rank the items against one another in some fashion. They’re certainly fun, though, as debate starters. Hell, I immediately felt like challenging my own choices as soon as I made them.

There were at least a couple of stories from 2009 I had considered including in my “Top Poker Stories of 2009” list but ended up leaving out. One was Daniel Negreanu having passed Jamie Gold as the all-time tournament money winner, thanks to the Canadian’s runner-up finish at the 2009 WSOPE Main Event. (Phil Ivey would pass Gold as well following his seventh-place finish at the WSOP.)

Another story I had in the list for a while but then ultimately dropped was the one regarding the purchase of World Poker Tour Enterprises by PartyGaming back in late August 2009. I know several others kept this one in their top ten stories lists for 2009, but I ended up deciding that for the average poker player or fan it hadn’t really registered all that much. I could certainly see, though, how some might view this “insider”-type story as having real some importance down the road.

The news of Party’s purchase of WPTE came not long after we’d heard a story that WPTE had been sold to a group called Gamynia Limited (for $9.075 million). Then Peerless Media Ltd., a division of PartyGaming, came along with a better offer and was able to buy the WPTE for $12.3 million. Steve Lipscomb, WPTE’s President and CEO, noted at the time how he looked forward to PartyGaming being able “to provide a strong vehicle for the WPT brand to continue its global expansion and return to online gaming.”

I did write a little something about the purchase here at the time, noting both the relatively small price tag and how it seemed kind of interesting how the fate of poker no longer seemed all that closely tied to the livelihood of the WPT. Such wouldn’t have been the case just a couple of years before, but in 2009, with the European Poker Tour and a host of other tours thriving all over the globe, the fortunes of the fading WPT just didn’t seem as crucial, big picture-wise.

The reason why the purchase -- which includes Party getting the WPT branding rights -- is viewed by some as a potentially big story is tied to the possibility that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 could get either overturned or pushed out by new legislation to license and regulate online gambling in the United States. It is thought that by purchasing the WPT brand, PartyPoker will have themselves a handy “vehicle” with which to reenter the U.S. market.

Seems like a lot has to happen, though, for that sequence ever to play out in quite that way. Someone who knows a lot more about these things than I do, Bill Rini, offered some thoughts on the story as well back in August. Rini outlines some of the difficulties Party might face when it comes to returning to the U.S., with or without the WPT brand as a kind of protective shield. Not at all a sure thing, it seems, but perhaps we’ll see.

Going back to Nemeth’s post, the new NAPT -- sponsored by PokerStars -- now means we have kind of a “PartyPoker-vs.-PokerStars” thing happening again here in the U.S. in the form of these competing tours. Kind of recalls what our little world of online poker was like when I first started this blog in the spring of 2006, back when Party & Stars were the big dogs in the U.S. (with Full Tilt just starting to yap at their heels). Will be very interesting to watch how it all plays out, and, of course, what effect the UIGEA getting overturned and/or bumped by new legislation could have on the competition.

If you’re interested in more on this “insider”-type stuff, I’d suggest listening to some of our fave industry insiders over on The Poker Beat, who return this afternoon (I believe) with a new episode.

Can Someone Explain Dikshit To Me?

We online poker players all read the news yesterday about PartyGaming co-founder Anurag Dikshit having agreed to some sort of plea bargain with the U.S. Department of Justice to the tune of $300 million.

As we all usually do when reading about Mr. Dikshit, we paused briefly over his last name, mentally mispronouncing it. (I believe it is pronounced “dix-it.”)

Then, if we were American, we probably moved on with our lives rather quickly, as none of us have played a hand on PartyPoker since October 2006. So what if Dikshit is pleading guilty to something or another? What does it have to do with us?

To be honest, I’m not sure. But perhaps quite a lot.

The plea bargain concerns PartyGaming’s having violated 1961 Interstate Wire Act, also sometimes referred to as the Federal Wire Act. That’s the law that makes it illegal for businesses to use “a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers.” The law specifically mentions sports betting, and indeed, when it was first passed, its prime purpose was to stop folks living outside of Nevada from calling in their bets to the Vegas sportsbooks.

Over the years, there have been a couple of hotly-contested debates over the reach of the Federal Wire Act. One debate concerns whether or not it covers non-sports betting types of gambling. The other debate concerns the internet and whether or not the Wire Act also applies to “bets or wagers” made online.

Neither of these debates has been resolved. Not really. There was a case earlier this decade in which the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Federal Wire Act only covered gambling on sports. But that only applies to the part of the country covered by the 5th Circuit (just one of the 11 numbered circuits, plus the D.C. Circuit and the Federal one). There has been no federal or nationwide ruling to settle the matter.

In any event, whenever the issue has arisen, the U.S. Department of Justice has consistently maintained that it believes (a) the Wire Act includes all forms of gambling (not just sports betting), and (b) the Wire Act also applies to online gambling, i.e., the internet can be regarded as a “wire communication facility” (even if there ain’t no wires).

Whether or not poker is to be considered “gambling” is yet another issue -- also unresolved -- although I think it is safe to say the DOJ believes poker is covered here, too.

All of which brings us back to Mr. Dikshit, who pleaded guilty to having violated the Federal Wire Act and as a result is now paying that $300 million fine (in three installments). He also apparently still faces the possibility of prison time, although his sentencing date has been deferred. Meanwhile, as Haley Hintze reports over on PokerNews, Dikshit has “pledged to help U.S. authorities with other, ongoing investigations.” It appears that such cooperation will help Dikshit avoid any jail time.

Russ Fox, a tax expert and poker author, has opined that the news about Dikshit’s plea is perhaps quite grim, not just for PartyGaming, but for online poker, generally speaking.

On Monday, Fox wrote on his blog that “If he [Dikshit] says that offering poker is illegal under the Wire Act then this is horrible news.” Why? Because “The DOJ will then have a founder of an online poker site saying that he knew that offering online poker was illegal. It’s important to note that whether or not it really is illegal under the Wire Act is irrelevant -- it’s the perception that counts.”

Details of Dikshit’s plea bargain were released this morning, and it appears that yes, indeed, Dikshit specifically mentioned poker as part of his admission of guilt. According to an article over on the eGaming Review website this morning, Dikshit “pleaded guilty in New York yesterday to charges under the Wire Act and to operating an ‘internet gambling business which offered casino and poker games, among other games of chance, to customers’ in the US from around 1997 to October 2006 and to using communications ‘wires to transmit bets and wagering information in interstate commerce.’”

Could this plea bargain be part of a ploy on the Party’s part to drive other online poker sites out of the U.S. market (a development that would be quite positive, of course, for PartyGaming)? Might this story indeed be a prelude to PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and other sites being found in violation of the Federal Wire Act? In other words, are our favorite sites now the target of those “other, ongoing investigations”? Could it be that while we were all fretting over the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, it was that decades-old Wire Act that reared up and caught us unawares?

You tell me.

Looking Up

The week has certainly ended more agreeably than it began. Full Tilt Poker sent us all a message reassuring us (1) the Internet Gambling Enforcement Act does not criminalize playing poker online (knew that) and (2) that FTP plans to remain up and running regardless of when or whether the Act is finally signed by President Bush (didn't know that). As the folks at FTP “firmly believe that online poker is not encompassed by this new legislation,” they plan to continue to provide us American players (and everyone else) a place to play our favorite game.

I promptly pumped a small amount back over into FTP in order to continue playing on the site. Meanwhile, I continue to build my (now short) stack over in Stars as well. (Not gonna go back to Party, as they’ve made clear their plans for us Yanks once the shoe drops.) As long as sites are not shutting us out, I’ll keep playing. Every day, if I can.

The rollercoaster of a week got me thinking about how we all reacted to the news over the past few days. For me, Party Poker’s announcement was the most grievous to hear. Given their status as the most popular site, I mistakenly assumed most if not all other sites would follow their lead. Now I’ve become slightly less ignorant about the difference between publicly- and privately-owned companies (and the distinct pressures each face). Party, as a publicly-traded entity (its shares are exchanged on the LSE), has worries that privately-run sites (e.g., Full Tilt) does not. Not fretting over weak-kneed shareholders who might pull their moneys at a moment’s notice can embolden one, I imagine.

How we each individually responded probably says at least something about how each of us plays the game, actually. I imagine tighter players who disdain risk were more apt to respond with pessimism, whereas the looser, gambling types were more willing to shrug off the news as an easily-negotiable bump in the road.

Now I can get aggressive in a 6-max low limit game, but as I’ve established here before, I tend to avoid the big risks if I can. Thus when I heard the news about the sneaky dealings in the Senate on Friday, my instinct was to envision a worst case scenario. The various site announcements on Monday did nothing but fuel my feelings of gloom. A bit like limping into a family pot with , then seeing a flop of . Horrendous. Can’t wait for the action to get to me so I can let it go.

It got checked around, though. And now the turn is a . And suddenly I’m interested again . . . .

But like the pessimist who looks both ways before crossing the one-way street, I’m proceeding with caution.

May I Ask Why You Are Calling?

Used to be an everyday annoyance -- those unwanted solicitors interrupting your dinner with subscription offers, charity petitions, or questionnaires. Then came voice mail, the “National Do Not Call Registry,” and cell phones with caller ID. Not so many telemarketers on the other end of the line anymore, it seems. Not so many occasions to be asking that question “why are you calling?”

Nonetheless, I found myself repeatedly asking that question aloud to myself during a curious session of limit hold ’em yesterday ($0.50/$1.00, 6-max). I’d been running fairly badly over on Party (losing over 40 BB in just a couple hundred hands). This was partly due to a run of so-so cards, but really mostly thanks to my having run up against some aggressive, fairly crafty players. (Yes, they do turn up now and then, even at these levels.) So I moved over to Stars and multitabled a bit. I actually ran three tables, something I don’t normally do. I might have been partly inspired by my friend derbywhite’s recent four-table experiments, but mostly I was looking to get back even a little more quickly (not always a good strategy for me, as I’ve written about before). Things worked out, however, as I got it all back and then some. I won modest amounts on two of the tables (about 5 BB) and absolutely killed on the third (taking over 50 BB). That third table was the one where I found myself wondering why exactly some of my opponents were calling (rather than raising or folding) so often. Here are a couple of examples.

Had a hand where I was dealt in the small blind. Two players called, I raised, and the big blind and both limpers called. The four of us then saw a flop of . Now I was already up about 20 BB at this table by simply playing it straight. (Indeed, I don’t think I’d lost a single showdown to this point.) I bet out, planning to let it go should any undesirable action ensue. The big blind folded, as did the first limper. The fellow in late position called, making me think diamond draw, gutshot straight draw, middle pair, or (most likely) King-lousy kicker. The turn was the , now giving me a gutshot. I felt sure I was behind, but bet out anyway, again considering the possibility of letting it go in the face of a raise. Once again, my opponent called. The river was the , completing my straight. I bet, he called. I showed my straight. He showed .

I can almost understand the slow play following the flop, particularly if he has me on big slick, AQ, or KQ (a justifiable assumption, given that the table had only see me preraise premium hands to that point). The call on the turn I don’t really get, however. I suppose I could have KT, QJ, or tens, but still . . . when you call a preflop raise with a dog hand like K9 and hit a flop like that, you can’t just keep on calling. Stop barking and take a bite!

A few hands later I limped in from the cutoff with . The button called, as did the BB. The flop came and the BB checked. I bet, the button folded, and the BB called. The turn brought the , and again I bet and the BB called. The river was the and the BB checked once again. I bet my boat, and he called to show .

It’s easy to feel like a hero against a table like this. I knew better, though, having taken my lumps earlier over on Party. Indeed, thanks to pursuing some busted draws then having to fold on the river more than once, I’m sure some of my earlier opponents thought me a passive, unimaginative calling station as well. They didn’t ask me why I was calling, though. Nor did I ask those fellas over on Stars. As they say, ask not good fortune . . . .

More from the Tourney Journey

Tried a couple more SNGs yesterday and faltered a bit, bringing down that gaudy ROI I’d established after cashing in the first two. Both were on Party (same as before -- $5.00+$1.00, limit hold ’em, ten-handed, 2,000 starting chips, top three places paid). In the first I needlessly bled some chips early trying to push people off pots and found myself down to 1,190 within a half-hour or so. Then I had an unlucky hand where I flopped top pair-top kicker, then got called down by a fellow who made a runner-runner flush. That crippled me (I was left with just 280 chips), and I ended up all-in a couple of hands later with crummy . I was called by an ace, didn’t improve, and scampered out of there with my tail between my legs in eighth.

Suitably chastened, I tried again and played much better the second time around. Started off more patiently, then took a nice pot (1,230) in level 2 when I turned a straight. Took another (2,440) in level 4 when I pushed with and was called all the way by a short stack as the board came . Didn’t pick up much for the next level or two and by the time we got down to four players I had 3,300 chips, placing me just ahead of the other short stack who had 3,120. The blinds were 400/800, so I didn’t have a lot of room to manuever. Still, I felt confident if I could get heads-up with the chip leader I could take him. He’d made several passive (though luckily-timed) plays that made his big stack less threatening to me.

Then came hand no. 58. Not sure what to think of my play here. (Anyone with ideas, please chime in.)

I was the BB (with 3,300). The chip leader (7,220) was UTG and the other short stack (3,120) was on the button. The SB had 6,360. I was dealt and was a little surprised to see the entire table call it around to me. (I don’t believe we’d had a single family pot since we’d gotten to four-handed.) I checked my option. Looking back, I can say that at the time I didn’t even consider raising here from early position. Perhaps I should have. The flop came and the SB bet.

The SB -- I’ll call him WilyWilly -- was actually the only player left about whom I had much concern. For about ten hands Willy had been showing a lot of aggression, successfully building his stack thanks to others’ growing tentativeness in the face of the bubble. My read here was he’d hit the flop in some way, but not as well as I had, so I raised. It folded around and Willy reraised. Here’s where I had to decide whether to commit fully to this hand or give it up. There was 4,000 in the pot. I had 2,100 left in my stack and it was 400 more to call. If I do call, it is very unlikely I’m giving up the hand unless the turn and river are particularly scary. And, of course, calling down the rest of the way (at 800 chips a pop) would mean exhausting my entire stack. What to do, what to do . . . ?

"We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop seeing it." So says Pascal, anyway. I capped it. The turn was the , pairing the board. I actually liked the look of that card. Didn't seem like WilyWilly would have reraised me before with just bottom pair. So we got it all in. The river was a blank, and Willy turned over for a boat. I was out in 4th, which pays the same as 10th. Zip.

Given how WilyWilly had been pushing us around, I felt I couldn’t have gotten away there. If I had not raised and then capped the flop, I might have escaped with at least a few chips left. Whether I’d have survived for long with the blinds where they were is another story. We only had a hand or so to go in level 5, and the blinds would’ve risen to 600/1,200 the next time around. Indeed, I was pretty far past what Harrington calls an “inflection point.” Not a good place to be.

Live and (hopefully) learn. I know better than to think I’m going to cash every time out in these, especially being so out-of-practice. I’ll probably keep at it, though, even if the SNG’s aren’t ultimately as lucrative for me as the ring games tend to be. Meanwhile, the jury’s still out on whether I’m trying an FPP satellite to the WCOOP. The satellites are set up as Turbo-style crapshoots, so I ain't got much in the way of expectations if I were to try one. Other than to flop sets every other hand, that is . . . .

Photo: Tom Neal from the 1945 film Detour (adapted), public domain.