On Jon Stewart and Online Poker; or, For Every Action There Is an Indignant and Opposite Overreaction

Seeing references the last couple of days from poker people responding to something Jon Stewart said on The Daily Show earlier this week regarding online gambling in New Jersey.

The Poker Players Alliance and others are mildly up in arms about what they’re saying was an unfair characterization of online poker by Stewart. However, looking back at the clip and statement, that itself sounds like an unfair characterization of what Stewart actually said.

It came up as a short postscript to a segment not about online gambling or online poker, but rather about the issue of legalizing marijuana (on the April 20 show, natch) -- one you can watch on the Comedy Central site here. Amid that discussion, reference was made to New Jersey Governor and potential presidential candidate Chris Christie saying he is opposed to pot being legal, noting also how states allowing its sale are in conflict with federal law.

“Marijuana is a gateway drug,” Christie says in a clip played on The Daily Show from a recent appearance by Christie on The Hugh Hewitt Show, a syndicated radio show. “We have an enormous addiction problem in this country.... Marijuana is an illegal drug in this country under federal law, and the states should not be permitted to sell it and profit from it.”

Stewart’s response to that position is to bring up Christie having signed into law the online gambling bill back in February 2013 that opened up poker and other casino games to online players in New Jersey. Actually Stewart doesn’t bring it up specifically, but rather plays another clip from another news show reporting that.

“There is a difference though, to be fair,” concludes Stewart via his usual deadpan. “If you smoke too much pot, no one comes to break your f*cking knees.”

It’s obvious that while Stewart did evoke a long legacy of gambling being associated with other criminal activity -- including violence -- to get a laugh, he hardly “attacked online poker” as Rich Muny of the PPA has tweeted out (and which others are also saying).

The point of the observation by Stewart is entirely muted by that response, actually. Rather than “attack” online gambling directly, Stewart is showing what appears to be an inconsistent position by Christie regarding the ability of states to pass laws that aren’t in accord with federal laws. Christie allowed legislation in New Jersey that goes against the feds’ legal stance on online gambling, Stewart and The Daily Show are pointing out, which seems to contradict what he is now saying about individual states legalizing the sale of pot despite federal laws making it illegal.

Those responding to this tangential reference to online gambling (and online poker) as though it were an “attack” are building it up into something it is not, thereby making it seem as though Stewart -- someone with a fair amount of influence -- is some kind of threat to the cause when he clearly isn’t.

Anyone remember way back in 2006 -- before even the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was passed into law -- when Stewart joked about members of Congress arguing about legislating against online poker (and other forms of gambling) while permitting wagering over the internet on lotteries and horse racing? Again, there was an inconsistency worth highlighting and a source of some ready grins. (Here’s that clip on the Comedy Central site.)

In order to reflect on the absurdity of allowing some forms of online gambling and not others, Stewart evoked Alaska senator Ted Stevens’ much-derided characterization of the internet as “a series of tubes.” Aided by some hilarious animation, Stewart explained how poker chips clog up the tubes whereas horses can run through them easily and lottery balls blow through them without a problem.

When making that point about the inconsistency present in the bill being proposed (that would eventually become the UIGEA), was Stewart attacking gambling over the internet on horse racing and lotteries? Well, he wasn’t promoting those things, but he was hardly attacking them, either. In truth the observation implied support for online poker, although there, too, that would be reading something definite into the segment that was only implied at best.

Stewart didn’t “attack” online poker this week. I don’t think it makes sense to attack him as though he did.

Railbirding RAWA

A few months after I started this blog -- more than eight-and-a-half years ago, if you can believe that -- the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 was passed into law. Suddenly I found myself writing about a host of other topics besides simply playing poker, among them legal matters affecting my ability to play the game online.

As we’ve been reminding each other over and over again since the UIGEA was passed -- kind of like repeatedly relieving a bad beat -- that bill was snuck onto another one in the dead of night just before that Congress adjourned for the final push of campaigning prior to the ’06 elections. Thus did it become law without going through what many would rate a legitimate process of thoughtful debate and decision-making -- that is to say, via a process other than one in which our elected representatives would appear unequivocally to be representing the wishes of those who voted them into office (not that such an ideal is so often realized).

From there followed several years of mixing in posts in which I’d write about various legal developments that followed the UIGEA, including the long, drawn-out process of the regulations getting finalized by late 2008, as well as the many rival federal bills introduced by Barney Frank and others hoping to legalize and regulate online gambling in the U.S.

Then came Black Friday, which I might call a game-changer but in truth more or less stopped the game altogether, at least for most online poker players in the U.S. Before then, though, I remember somewhere along the way finding an analogy between poker and legal machinations surrounding the online game, the parallel having to do with both involving a combination of luck and skill.

That’s a generalization, but the point was that when it came to legislation regarding online poker, the process was in some respects controlled by the “players” (i.e., legislators, judges, lobbying groups, plaintiffs and defendants and those representing them, and so on) and also -- seemingly -- by what often appeared “chance” elements insofar as the combination of individuals and circumstances would result in lots of unpredictable outcomes.

Some “players” in the legislative game -- like in poker -- have a lot more influence than others, with money often making the difference in both contexts. Such is what we’ve been seeing happening over the last couple of years with Sheldon Adelson’s ongoing efforts to curb online gambling of all kinds. The CEO of Las Vegas Sands (parent company of the Venetian Macao Limited) is purportedly the 10th richest person in the world (as of this past summer), thus it hasn’t been difficult at all for him to toss chips various legislators’ way in order to lean on them to play his way.

The most recent orbit of this game has involved Adelson backing this new Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA) first introduced in both houses back in March of this year. This federal law would rewrite the Federal Wire Act of 1961 (which the DOJ opined in late 2011 only applied to sports betting) to prohibit most forms of online gambling in the U.S., including making current state-regulated online gambling (in Nevada, New Jersey, and Delaware) illegal. (Horse racing and fantasy sports would still get a pass.)

RAWA has gotten some co-sponsors but not huge traction this year, but during this “lame duck” session some surmised it could be tossed into this huge $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, with a lot of talk about how the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) was being goaded by Adelson (and his money) into sneaking it in there in UIGEA-like fashion. You’ll recall how during an earlier lame duck session (in 2010), Reid was introducing a federal bill to license and regulate online poker while curbing other forms of online gambling. Well, now he apparently is sitting behind someone else’s stack.

During the day yesterday I noticed Rich Muny, Vice President of Player Relations for the Poker Players Alliance, noting how on his most recent webcast a former member of the House, Jon Porter, said it was “50-50” the RAWA would get added to the spending bill. The bill finally dropped last night without RAWA, and as one commentator in a Two Plus Two thread about the situation noted, “we went from about a 50% chance of being safe, to about... 85%.”

Again, just following the story makes it hard not to think of poker analogies. In this latest hand, those not wanting to see a federal bill outlawing online gambling across the U.S. were all in preflop with Q-Q versus an opponent’s A-K-suited, and now have faded both the flop and turn to have a big edge with one card to come.

The problem with those analogies, though, is that most who oppose RAWA aren’t even sitting at the table, never mind making decisions about pushing their stack in behind a premium hand. They’re on the rail, watching others with big stacks keep buying back in and playing the game on their own.

On What Happened

“What happened?”

So read the subject line of an email I received a little earlier today. Not the kind of subject line you like to see, especially if your life is complicated by various deadlines and assignments -- like mine, and like that of just about everyone else, too, who’s checking email regularly.

Looking closer, the sender’s name was vaguely familiar, then after I opened it I realized it was one of those regular mailings the Poker Players Alliance send out, I think on a weekly basis. The letter explained how I’d been sent a note recently asking me to contribute to the PPA. As I had not done so, now I was being chastised for not responding to the request to help “protect poker from DC politicians seeking to ban our game” by sending in some cabbage for the cause.

Have to say I didn’t like that feeling the subject line gave me, namely to think for a moment I might’ve lost track of some important assignment or other obligation. Not appreciating that, I found the link to unsubscribe from the mailing list, and did so.

I thought a little afterwards about both the “cause” -- that is, the fight to “protect poker” from those who wish to prohibit the game from being played (online or elsewhere) -- and the extent to which I am obligated to fight for it.

I obviously feel strongly that I should be allowed to play poker when and where I wish, and thus I am also obviously especially dissatisfied that is far from the case at present. I also appreciate the efforts of those who are working to change the current status quo.

That said, when it comes to online poker here in the U.S., it is impossible for me to be at all hopeful about that particular cause either in the near future or long term.

I was mentioning yesterday listening to that poker podcast from seven years ago. So strange to go back like that and hear the discussions and ads all reflecting a time when online poker was mostly taken for granted, with the associated issues (the first big cheating scandal and “ghosting” concerns) seeming like relatively minor problems that could be fairly easily endured while the games continued unabated.

A different world, that. What happened? I guess I more or less know what happened. And knowing that, it’s hard to be optimistic about anything that might happen next.

Poker and Other Gambling Games

Recent developments with online poker have inspired conversations (again) about poker’s relationship to other gambling games, especially other casino games.

When I first became serious about poker and broadened my knowledge enough to appreciate first-hand its strategic complexity, it wasn’t long before I found myself becoming similarly serious about wanting to distinguish poker from other types of gambling which I was much less inspired to pursue. Most who come to poker not via those other gambling games but by other routes (as I did) probably experience something similar, if they become at all serious about the game.

I have to admit I feel differently today, though -- still convinced of why poker is distinct from those games, but much less energized by any special need to point out the significance of that difference.

When the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was suddenly sprung upon us a little over eight years ago, responses from the poker community included a lot of hopeful talk about “carve outs” and how poker somehow shouldn’t be considered “a game subject to chance” (to quote the UIGEA) -- even if, of course, it is. That “skill argument” continues to invigorate some including the Poker Players Alliance, the lobbying group created in response to the UIGEA, despite the fact that legally speaking the argument that poker isn’t entirely “subject to chance” hasn’t really had any major influence.

Sure, there have been occasional rulings by judges sympathetic to poker’s skill component, including that one from August 2012 in which a federal judge maintained poker “is not predominantly a game of chance” while throwing out a conviction for illegal gambling of someone who’d run a poker game out of a Staten Island warehouse. But a year later the ruling in that case was reversed, and it doesn’t seem any occasional declarations in courts acknowledging that it takes a little more know-how to win a hand of poker than to hit your number in roulette has ever mattered all that much as far as the law is concerned.

Meanwhile in Nevada, New Jersey, and Delaware came the passage of online gambling laws that have made it possible for players within those states to play poker against each other (“intrastate”) while allowing for casino games, too. We in the poker community focus more on the poker side of things, but just like in live casinos, online poker is operating right alongside online slots, online craps, online blackjack, and so on. And relatively speaking -- also like in live casinos -- those other games are earning significantly more revenue than poker, to no one’s surprise.

Other recent developments with regard to online poker sites operating outside the U.S. have perhaps served to emphasize further poker’s connection to other gambling games, and I’m not just alluding to PokerStars recently following other poker sites to offer other casino games.

Games like the Jackpot Sit & Go tournaments on Full Tilt Poker and the Spin & Gos on Stars are still poker, of course, though incorporate elements from elsewhere in the casino like slots or the “wheel of fortune.” (Wrote a little about Spin & Gos here last month.) There are plenty of examples of video poker available online, too, a game that might be considered even more of a hybrid of poker and slots. Meanwhile something like live dealer casino holdem at Paddy Power actually changes poker into more of a blackjack-type game -- still incorporating some strategy, though it’s a game fairly distinct from traditional poker.

Makes me think a little of how you’ll often find dice wedged in there next to decks of cards inside a poker chip set. What are they doing there? Well, for one thing, they’re reminding you of traditional notions of poker being just another gambling game.

I still think it’s worth pointing out (when relevant) that poker is different from most gambling games, especially those in which you’re playing against the house rather than other players. But the game’s place in various cultures -- in the U.S., in other countries, and online -- has always been very closely aligned with other forms of gambling. And whenever poker gets pulled away from those games, it seems like it can never be for long before it gravitates back toward them again.

Faraway Poker

While in Macau last week, we were all mindful of the reopening of Full Tilt Poker that happened Tuesday, November 6. There was even a minor buzz in the poker room at the moment FTP’s cash tables opened up, with people mentioning it to one another and wondering aloud about transferring money to and from their PokerStars’ accounts.

I called up the newly updated client on my laptop, actually, and a few of us looked in briefly as players began to take seats at the money tables. For us it was the evening, with the final table of the Asia Championship of Poker Warm-Up event going on before us. That was the final table featuring Johnny Chan (who finished seventh) and Joseph Cheong (who took third), with the Australian Jeff Rossiter eventually winning later that night.

I watched the number of players starting to climb a little -- not overly dramatically, but certainly increasing -- then closed the client. And really, I pretty much forgot all about Full Tilt Poker the rest of the week.

Looking at PokerScout today, I see that according to their tabulations Full Tilt has swiftly moved back into second position behind PokerStars as far as cash players are concerned, with about a third the number they are counting at PokerStars’ real money tables.

A couple of “Sunday majors” played out on the site last weekend (tourneys with $50K and $200K guarantees). Viktor “Isildur1” Blom -- now an FTP-sponsored pro -- is back on there vying for six-figure pots again on the $50/$100 PLO tables. And the FTOPS XXI schedule has been announced -- 35 tourneys totaling $7.5 million in guarantees starting in early December.

Meanwhile as far as FTP is concerned, we Americans piddle around on the free money tables, wonder about our balances (which now read “$0.00”), and read less-than-inspiring missives from the Poker Players Alliance regarding the DOJ-managed return of our balances.

According to the PPA, there is no timeline in place at present as far as the U.S. players’ return of funds is concerned. Says PPA Executive Director John Pappas who has been meeting with DOJ officials about it all, the “completion of a refund claims process is a long way away.”

Apparently a “third-party claims administrator” needs to be found -- with possible entities bidding on the right to assume that duty -- before anything else can happen, and even there no date has been set for when such an administrator will be put in place.

Over on PokerFuse, Dave Ferrara wrote a piece about “FTP Hoopla From Afar: A U.S. Player’s Perspective on the Relaunch” in which he wistfully laments being kept on the sideline amid the excited tweets, forum posts, and articles regarding FTP’s return.

Indeed, the “hoopla” tends only to accentuate the already well established feeling of powerlessness felt by the U.S. online poker player -- unable to play, wholly dependent on others for the recovery of lost funds, and with still uncertain future prospects for playing the so-called “American game” of poker online.

It almost seemed weirdly appropriate to have been 8,000-plus miles from home to watch Full Tilt Poker’s relaunch of cash games. As Ferrara’s choice of headline suggests, it does feel as though FTP 2.0 is all happening from “afar.”

Meanwhile, the return of our FTP funds is a “a long way away.” And for Americans, our regular playing of online poker is quickly receding into a distant past, perhaps to return at point -- unknown as yet -- in the future.

Meanwhile... Reid-Kyl

We’re careening toward the end of another Congress, to be punctuated again by one of those weird little stretches between elections and the start of the new year. I’m talking about the so-called “lame duck session” when certain legislation that has been avoided during the pre-election period sometimes gets entertained.

And once again, talk about some sort of federal online poker bill sneaking its way through before the Congressional finish line has arisen. Turning into kind of a tradition, really.

You’ll recall how two years ago the month of December was dominated by talk of the “Reid Bill,” a.k.a. the Prohibition of Internet Gaming, Internet Poker Regulation and UIGEA Enforcement Act sponsored by senator Harry Reid (D-NV).

Looking back through my old posts from the end of 2010, I see how I was distracted enough by the story to write several times on the topic, the titles of those posts kind of describing in shorthand form the narrative’s trajectory: “Getting a Reid on the Situation,” “Adding to the Cacophony: More on the ‘Reid Bill,’” and “Zombie Bill Dies, UIGEA Monster Lives.”

This time we’re hearing about a new federal bill, dubbed the “Reid-Kyl bill” thanks to the co-sponsorship of former UIGEA architect Jon Kyl (R-AZ). This full title of this one is the Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection, and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2012.

A summary of this bill began circulating in September, and I’ll admit that at the time I didn’t pay too much attention to either the bill or the chatter surrounding it. I might cite having been too busy to pay it much mind as a reason for my neglect, although in truth, despite having devoted a lot of posts to trying to sort through various legislative intrigues over the years, I’m mostly bored by the topic.

Also, the bits of early commentary on the Reid-Kyl bill I did catch seemed to suggest it had so little hope of passage that it wasn’t worth too much attention. (I am referring to commentary by people I tend to trust.) In other words, kind of like “Full House with Johnny Chan,” there didn’t seem to be much future for the bill, and so my response was necessarily muted.

The very first item in the Reid-Kyl summary talked about undoing “the impact” of that DOJ memorandum that became public in late 2011 which offered the opinion that the 1961 Wire Act only applied to sports betting -- that is, what opened the door for states to start exploring licensing and regulating online poker (and other non-sports related gambling) on their own. Later comes the talk of online poker, which would be permitted although with the provision that states or reservations could opt out if they wished.

Also present in that summary was an item indicating that in order “To deter U.S. players from patronizing illegal sites, the bill makes explicit that any property involved in or traceable to a gambling transaction in violation of the new act (including winnings) is subject to forfeiture.” That item understandably raised some eyebrows, insofar as it represented for the first time talk of players potentially being penalized for playing on non-licensed sites.

Late last week a full-text draft of the Reid-Kyl bill surfaced, and with it discussion about the bill has been revived. QuadJacks provides a copy, if you’re curious.

The actual bill appears to correspond fairly closely to the summary in pretty much all respects. However, the big news accompanying the publication of the actual bill was the apparent omission of that business about the feds being able to grab the funds of players who patronized unlawful sites.

This take on the Reid-Kyl bill -- repeated on practically every poker news site -- was largely influenced by the Poker Players Alliance. In an article for Pokerfuse last Friday, Rich Muny, the PPA’s Vice-President of Player Relations, is characterized as having “asserted that this language [about player penalties] is now completely absent from the current bill draft.” Muny is also quoted suggesting that the removal of such language was largely due to the PPA’s influence as a lobbying organization. Referring to the legislators, Muny says “They knew we would likely oppose a bill with player penalties and were willing to answer us on that.”

So if you peruse the news sites, you see that in most of the articles about the full text of the Reid-Kyl bill being made public the focus is on that “player penalties removed” message.

There’s a problem with that reporting, though. It’s wrong.

The bill does contain a short section (“Bettor Forfeiture”) that describes “any property, real or personal, involved in a transaction or attempted transaction in violation” of the Reid-Kyl bill and explains how it that language would be added to Section 981(a)(1) of Title 18 of the United States Code. That section of the U.S. code spells out all sorts of offenses resulting in property being “subject to forfeiture to the United States,” including any property (including money) that’s used to traffic weapons, commit fraud, support or plan acts of terrorism, or break a host of other laws.

Reader “TA Miller” left a comment on the Pokerfuse article pointing out the significance of that section in the bill and how it does in essence represent what could be considered “player penalty.“ And Haley Hintze has provided a lengthier examination of the PPA’s misinterpretation of Reid-Kyl bill which adds some further speculation about whether this section about “bettor forfeiture” might possibly apply to U.S. citizens playing from abroad on sites the U.S. considers unlawful.

As Haley rightly points out, any bills spelling out ways for governments to start seizing player funds introduces something fairly alarming into the equation for U.S. citizens playing online poker -- namely, the idea that playing itself is an act that can be penalized, just like funding terrorists or breaking other federal laws can.

That said, much like talk about future installments of “Full House with Johnny Chan,” this whole discussion is probably mostly about something that ain’t never going to happen. It appears doubtful that the Reid-Kyl bill has much chance of actually becoming federal law. (I’m not even sure if the bill’s sponsors are wholly serious about pushing it through.) Rather, it seems much more likely that within the next year or so we’ll be talking about online poker being played in the U.S. via state-level licensees and regulation.

But who knows, really? Things can get weird after an election and before the new Congress steps in. Or weirder, I should say.

(EDIT [added 10/24/12]: Chris Grove, author of the Pokerfuse article referenced above, clarifies a few points while also responding to some of Haley’s analysis in an article posted yesterday on his Online Poker Report website titled “Reid/Kyl, Haley Hintze and the PPA.”)

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.

A Break-In, a Brouhaha, and a Beginning

Hugely busy these days, trying to get everything together before all the gift-giving, family-visiting, and food-stuffing gets going in earnest this weekend. As a result I haven’t had a lot of time to devote to poker -- either playing it or giving a lot of attention to the various news items surfacing in the poker world.

I did get a chance to skim through a few stories standing out from the most recent cycle, though.

Truly hated to hear about 2010 World Series of Poker Main Event champion Jonathan Duhamel being the victim of what sounds like a harrowing home invasion this week. Two men broke into his Montreal home, tied him up and physically assaulted him, threatened to kill him, then left with money and other items including his 2010 WSOP Main Event bracelet.

Of course, that bracelet is a pretty damned conspicuous item -- hard to imagine the thieves being able to pawn such a thing with ease. It sounds like they also made off with a lot of 500 Euro notes that are also rare enough to raise eyebrows, should they try to use them. Here is a report about the incident from a Canadian news outlet.

I also found myself a little distracted the last couple of days by this multi-way spat that has arisen involving I. Nelson Rose, the Poker Players Alliance, Mason Malmuth, and Rep. Joe Barton.

Barton, as we know, has proposed a federal bill designed to provide a means to license and regulate online poker in the U.S. He’s also appeared a couple of times before the House committee that’s been discussing the topic of online gambling, speaking in particular about poker and his desire to see his bill or something similar move forward.

Earlier this month, the gambling lawyer I. Nelson Rose attacked Barton in a piece for Poker Player Newspaper, primarily aiming at Barton’s previous record regarding votes to prohibit online gambling (including his votes on the UIGEA).

The Poker Players Alliance took issue with Rose’s article, sending out a rebuttal of sorts on Tuesday. And Mason Malmuth stirred the pot some more by starting a thread on Two Plus Two in which he shared the PPA’s statement, then jumped in to criticize Rose himself. Then following Rose’s appearance on QuadJacks Radio yesterday, Malmuth appeared on QJ Radio as well to further discuss Rose, Barton, and everything else.

The result is a fairly noisy, overlapping discussion touching on a number of different issues, including the prospects of Barton’s bill, Rose’s political leanings, the PPA’s effectiveness as a representative of poker players’ interests, the possible editorial stance of Poker Player Newspaper, Malmuth’s status as a firebrand, among others.

Finally -- and not unrelatedly -- today we’re learning of Nevada moving forward as expected to adopt intrastate internet gaming regulations. A vote today confirmed that Nevada has agreed to rules for allowing entities to apply for licenses to operate online poker sites.

It sounds like this vote means that should any sort of federal legislation come to pass, Nevada will be a place to go for those seeking licenses to operate sites. It also sounds like Nevada may be ready to go forward with in-state-only sites, too, but work will have to be done to ensure they'll be able to pull that off (i.e., successfully limiting play within the state's borders).

I still need to read up more on this latter item in order to grasp the particulars. Here’s a Wall Street Journal piece from yesterday describing what was voted on today, which as mentioned did pass. (EDIT [added 12/23/11]: Here is a report from PokerFuse about the Nevada vote and its possible implications.)

Definitely appears as though movement on the state level is going to be happening a lot more swiftly than on the federal level, as far as the licensing and regulating of online poker in the U.S. is concerned. And while it is hard to say just yet what the significance of today’s move in Nevada will ultimately be, it does appear to be the beginning of something.

Speaking of beginning something, these gifts aren’t gonna wrap themselves. Better go get started.

House Hearing on “Internet Gaming” Shows U.S. Online Poker a Complicated Game

As you’ve probably heard, there was a hearing this morning in the House of Representatives where the prospects for licensing and regulating online gambling were discussed. The meeting was of one of the subcommittees of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and was titled “Internet Gaming: Is There a Safe Bet?”

I’m not going to offer an exhaustive summary of the meeting as I have occasionally done in the past for these sorts of things. You can watch the hearing yourself online over at C-SPAN here. Also, over on the Energy and Commerce committee’s site you can find much of what was discussed in the meeting, including a background memo, the opening statement delivered by Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), plus the prepared statements of all of the witnesses.

Those witnesses were as follows (the links are to the statements): Parry Aftab (FairPlayUSA), Ernest Stevens (National Indian Gaming Association), Keith Whyte (National Council on Problem Gambling), Alphonse D'Amato (Poker Players Alliance), Kurt Eggert (a law professor at Chapman University), and Dan Romer (Adolescent Communication Institute). If you don’t want to wade through all of that, Michael Gentile has provided a nice summary of all of this testimony over at PokerFuse.

Overall, the hearing struck me as much more focused and potentially constructive than many of the others that have taken place, including those held to discuss matters related to proposed bills such as the ones put forth by Barney Frank.

Poker players like to make fun of non-poker folks’ use of metaphors, but I kind of liked Mary Bono Mack’s opening statement in which she used the stages of a hold’em hand to outline the meeting’s purpose:

“In many ways, the debate over legalizing Internet gambling is a lot like Texas Hold’em poker,” she began. “Three cards are dealt face-up. Is the further expansion of gambling in the United States a good bet? Can online gambling be regulated effectively? And what role should the federal government play to protect American consumers from ‘sharks’? This is the ‘flop’ we’ve been dealt for today’s hearing.”

She continued: “Then there’s the ‘turn’ card: with billions of dollars sitting on the table, can Congress afford not to get involved? And, finally, the ‘river’ card: what impact would legalizing Internet gambling have on American consumers and the U.S. economy? Clearly, the stakes are high, and a ‘showdown’ is likely on Capitol Hill in the months ahead.”

I liked the way Mack’s metaphor clarifies how there are most definitely multiple stages left in this process. A “showdown” or ultimate vote on some proposed bill is still quite a ways away, for sure. So it made sense for her to characterize today’s meeting as coming relatively early in the “hand” -- a chance to explore ideas and perhaps begin talking about the logistics of having licensed and regulated online poker in the U.S.

I say “online poker” and not “online gambling,” because it seemed as though throughout the hearing that the focus was really more so on poker than not. The title of the hearing was generic (“gaming”), but the statements by the witnesses and most of the discussion afterwards primarily concerned the idea of setting up poker games online in which players can compete against one another as they have in the past.

There were a few moments along the way that stood out for me.

Joe Barton (R-TX), who has of course proposed his own bill (the Internet Gambling Prohibition, Poker Consumer Protection, and Strengthening UIGEA Act of 2011), emerged as a useful voice in the discussion thanks to his understanding of poker, including the online version.

Barton also talked about poker being “an all-American game” and alluded to his having learned it in the Boy Scouts. These observations are all sort of tangential, but the fact is poker is a significant part of American history and culture and thus references to this fact aren’t altogether irrelevant.

D’Amato made a few interesting observations, but I remain somewhat unsure of his status as a representative for U.S. players wanting to play online poker. The former senator certainly still carries some political clout, though, as perhaps was indicated by the compliments sent his way by some of the committee members.

D’Amato alluded a lot to the problems an unregulated environment can cause, on several occasions referring to the Full Tilt Poker situation as an illustration. He also provocatively noted how despite the UIGEA, Black Friday, and everything else, U.S. players can still play poker online, noting how John Pappas -- I presume the PPA’s Executive Director, not the similarly-named poker pro -- had recently opened a cash account on Bodog. (Rep. Barton alluded to folks still being able to load up on Bodog as well.)

Speaking of the PPA, late in the hearing D’Amato was asked point blank if the group took contributions from off-shore online gambling sites and D’Amato answered that they did not. A more honest answer would’ve mentioned how up until very recently such sites were primary contributors to the PPA. Kind of weird at times to see D’Amato holding up Full Tilt Poker’s rogue ways as exemplifying the need for regulation after the PPA had been so closely linked to FTP for so long. Indeed, it was just a few months ago that both Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson were on the PPA’s Board. (EDIT [added 9 p.m.]: See this Forbes piece from later on Tuesday that specifically explains FTP’s prior status as an indirect contributor to the PPA.)

Finally, a lot of the latter part of the hearing saw witnesses and Congress members uncertainly discussing bots, collusion, tracking software, and other elements that make online poker different from the live game. Some folks were better informed than others here, and so a few howlers escaped along the way revealing some of the discussants’ lack of understanding of online poker.

Still, these sort of issues have to be discussed at some point. As Scarlet Robinson was explaining to me the other day, we all have to realize that any kind of licensing and regulating of online poker in the United States is going to look much different than what other countries have come up with, as well as what was the case previously in the largely unregulated (or sorta self-regulated) environment.

The U.S. is going to have a lot of concern with various issues -- e.g., “anonymous” play, all transfers of money, consumer protections, etc. -- that were either of only limited concern previously or not important at all. In other words, things like tracking software and bots will be part of the discussion, although hopefully Congress will be able to bring in folks who know more about it going forward.

The “river” is still a long, long way away, though. Never mind the “showdown.” Indeed, we may see the proponents of some sort of licensing and regulation having to fold a few hands before it ever gets that far.

No, we really haven’t even reached the “flop” yet in this complicated game.

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.

Response Time

Back home. And back online. Played last night for an hour or so, two-tabling some PLO25. Had played about a hundred hands and was up a pittance (five bucks or thereabouts) when Vera asked if I’d run to the store for some milk and juice.

No problemo, was my response. I closed one table, then put the tic in the little “Sit out next hand” box just as the cards were being dealt on the other. Hmm, aces. Other two cards not so bad, either -- . I leaned forward. Guess I’ll have to play this one.

I was UTG+1. Folded to me and I raised it pot to 85 cents. I’d been raising in other spots and with other holdings, so my bet didn’t necessarily announce to the table I had aces. Whatever it did announce, several players quickly responded by calling. Six players (including me) stayed for the flop, making the total pot $5.10.

I remained ambivalent. Unlike some Omaha players, I don’t mind letting aces go when faced with an unappealing board. If an ace or flush draw doesn’t pop out here with those first three board cards, I’m out the door and on my way to the Food Lion.

Flop came . Faster than you can say "Waco Kid," the small blind bet out $4.85, leaving himself only five or so bucks behind. The action was on me.

You’ve been there, I know. You’ve had a reasonable little session and have already made up your mind to leave, when suddenly you find yourself plunged into do-or-die territory. Whatever happened here was gonna color the whole friggin’ session a bright, cheery rose or dismal, charcoal gray.

I had $19.55 left in my stack. Of the other players acting after me, all but one had me covered.

If I someone other than the short-stack called, I’d surely be an overall dog to make it to the river unscathed. I did have my own open-ended straight draw, though (minus the clubs), to go with my top set. What to do?

I couldn’t fold. Didn’t really want just to call, either, although I suppose I could have waited to see if the turn was safe. Could I have . . . ? Nah, I couldn’t. I had to push. I bet as much as I was allowed -- $19.40 -- leaving me just fifteen cents behind.

Player to my left thought a bit, then pushed his entire stack ($27-plus) in as well. Then another dude called. The short stack called, too, of course, so we had ourselves a four-way all-in with two cards to come. Total pot was $88.50, although I was only playing for about $70 of that.

This was on Stars, so it was not until the hand concluded that I got to see the others’ cards. Turned out three of us had flopped sets. Coupla guys gunning for flushies, too. Here’s how Two Dimes calculated all of our chances with two cards to come:



(EDIT [added 3/25/08]: I didn’t quite enter the cards into Two Dimes correctly, so these percentages aren’t right. I was, in fact, better off than this. See MacAnthony's comment -- or click here for the gen-u-wine figgers.)

Turn was the , and the river . Made it! A smile on my face as I ran out the door. Such is PLO (sometimes).

By the way, for some reason my hands weren’t saved to the hard disk last night, so this morning I requested the hand history from PokerStars suppport. Got an answer within an hour-and-a-half telling me they were on the case, then the hand histories were sent about an hour after that. Most reading this blog know it already, but no one beats Stars for support.

Finally, while we’re on the subject of getting responses, I did want to make sure you saw a couple I received in relation to last week’s posts.

On Monday of last week, I wrote about Full Tilt Poker’s new agreement with CardRunners, pointing out how the decision to allow the CardRunners guys to create temporary “alternate” accounts appeared to violate one of the Kahnawake Gaming Commission’s “Regulations Concerning Interactive Gaming.” I wrote an email to Full Tilt asking them about it, and they did respond to me on Friday. I appended their response to the post. Also, I’m seeing over on Two Plus Two their plans to create so-called “educational” tables to handle these CardRunners folks, so it does appear Full Tilt took heed of complaints & queries about the original plan.

You might also check out the comments on last Friday’s post, “PPA Can Do Better.” All three of the PPA State Directors mentioned in that post came around to leave thoughtful replies, which I do appreciate.

PPA Can Do Better

Back in January, Frank “Life’s a Bluff” Frisina started a thread over on the Poker Players Alliance forum regarding the Absolute Poker scandal. Specifically, Frisina was wondering why the PPA had not chosen to issue any sort of statement regarding the AP scandal.

Some reasonable discussion ensued. Rich “TheEngineer” Muny offered his thoughts on the subject. The subsequent back-and-forth between the two then moved onto some other PPA-related subjects, and while Frisina and Muny disagreed on several points, there was a genuine dialogue going on between them. Incidentally, Muny is actually one of those PPA State Directors (he represents Kentucky). He’s also a PPA Board member, and made clear to Frisina that his responses to him were as a board member, not as a state rep.

The thread died down after the first week or so, but in February another State Director, Randall Castonguay (of Massachussetts), chimed in to point out some of the good things the PPA has been doing.

In fact, earlier this week the PPA helped stage a rally across from the Mass. State House to oppose a recently-proposed casino bill that included a clause making playing online poker a felony for which one could get two years in prison and/or pay a $25,000 fine. The turnout for the rally was apparently light -- Foucault was there (see his summary). In any event, the protestors’ efforts were not in vain as the bill was thankfully voted down by the committee considering it, so it never went to the full MA Congress for its consideration.

Anyhow, after lauding the PPA’s efforts in his state, Castonguay ends his post by censuring Frisina for having raised his criticisms. Writes Castonaguay, “So, you wanna b%$#@ and moan because you think the PPA isn't doing enough of this or that...then look in the mirror and ask how much action YOU have taken to support the cause.”

That’s how one PPA State Director responded to Frisina’s criticisms. Not the sort of tone one would like to see from someone charged with leading others, but there it is.

Then another State Director, Steve Brubaker (who represents Illinois), added his two cents yesterday. After dismissing worries about Ultimate Bet -- Brubaker says he continues to play at UB because he sees the current troubles there as an “isolated incident” -- he echoes the sentiment of some others by saying that the PPA doesn’t need to publicize any given online scandal since “most people know about it and can make decisions based on their trust of the site.” A few debatable claims in there -- that UB is A-OK, that “people know about” the scandals -- but Brubaker is certainly entitled to his view.

However, his post doesn’t end there. After making his point and defending the PPA, Brubaker saw fit to add this bit of paranoia-fueled vitriol:

“Now - a word on ‘trolls’. In any open forum, trolls (haters that only want to stir up problems) abound. I think Lifesabluff [i.e., Frisina] is a troll. Perhaps he's an employee of casinos or others that want to see the PPA or online poker fail. I think he should be blocked from posting.”

Again, this is a State Director of the PPA, here characterizing a member who has raised questions about the organization as an enemy combatant who needs silencing.

Can’t say I blame Frisina for cancelling his PPA membership. I realize those who have volunteered to serve as State Directors are especially passionate people who believe not only in fighting for citizens’ rights to play poker but in the PPA’s strategy for accomplishing that goal. They have to be that way -- the organization would be ill-served by State Directors who didn’t feel so strongly about the cause.

Even so, I find the responses of Castonguay and Brubaker to Frisina to be appalling. State Directors simply cannot come onto the PPA forums and address members in this way, no matter how much they might disagree with the opinions to which they are responding.

As the PPA’s recently-altered mission statement claims, the organization allegedly “consists of enthusiasts from around the United States who have joined together to speak with one voice” in the effort to preserve our rights to play poker. How can that happen if issues raised by members are met with derision and/or calls to suppress those offering a dissenting view?

One (Ex-)Member Inspires PPA to Alter Its Mission Statement

Still in S.F. Vera and I ended up at Fisherman’s Wharf last night for a wind-blown walk up and down the bay. Stopped off for some seafood and a glass of Anchor Steam (supersized), then took a rowdy bus back to our hotel. Along with my Oaks Card Club excursion earlier in the day, I probably walked at least six miles altogether yesterday, and so I was fairly zapped when we made it back last night.

Wanted to weigh in briefly on Frank Frisina’s interesting interview with John Pappas, the Executive Director of the Poker Players Alliance. Frisina posted the interview on Life’s a Bluff yesterday, along with his own comments regarding some of Pappas’ answers. There have also been a number of comments by others added there as well, including some from Rich “The Engineer” Muny, a PPA Board Member and frequent (& helpful) contributor to the 2+2 Legislation forum.

If yr interested, you should check out the interview and subsequent discussion. I just wanted to touch on a couple of items I found intriguing.

One point of interest concerns the issue of PPA’s funding. I had not previously realized the PPA wasn’t solely maintained by those dues some of us have sent to the organization. (By the way, I sent ’em my twenty bucks back in October 2006, shortly after the UIGEA was signed into law. My member number is 16,290, although I think there were actually over 100,000 members when I signed up.) According to Pappas, “the PPA receives its funding from member dues, merchandise sales, individual contributions, and financial support from the Interactive Gaming Council.”

The Interactive Gaming Council is a not-for-profit outfit located in Vancouver whose interests cover not just online poker, but all forms of “interactive” or online gaming. According to their website, the IGC’s purpose is essentially twofold -- (1) to establish fair trading guidelines and practices so players can be sure the sites they play on are legit ; and (2) to be a public policy advocate (e.g., fight things like the UIGEA).

Like a lot of us, Frisina was interested in having Pappas explain why the PPA hasn’t bothered to speak publicly about the various scandals that have plagued online poker over the last year or so, including the Absolute Poker insider “super-user” scam from last year. From an outsider’s perspective, it seems that the PPA would be very interested in talking about such scandals as they could be used to further their case for the passage of bills like Barney Frank’s H.R. 2046 -- a bill that would invite governmentally-run, industry-wide regulation.

Frisina suspects the IGC’s support of the PPA may have something to do with the PPA’s reluctance to weigh in on the matter. He points to the presence of Mohawk Internet Technologies on the IGC’s member list as potentially significant here. Mohawk Internet Technologies is that server farm where something like 60% of the world’s online gambling sites are hosted, and it is owned by the Kahnawake Mohawk territory (located just outside of Montreal). That’s where you’ll also find the Kahnawake Gaming Commission, the group that adminsters licenses to 400-plus online gambling sites.

You remember the KGC. They’re the ones who made public that report back in January telling how Absolute Poker had violated four of their regulations, and so the Commission put AP on a kind of probation (the site is subject to random audits for two years, and if they fail any they’re no longer a KGC permit holder), made the site get rid of the guilty guy(s), forced them to pay a fine, etc. (Here’s the full report.)

Of course, Absolute Poker is owned by Tokwiro Enterprises ENRG, which is located there in the Mohawk territory and is owned and run by the tribe. Tokwiro is presently headed by Joe Norton, former Grand Chief of the Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake. Norton has also served as the CEO of Mohawk Internet Technologies, though I don’t believe he presently holds that position. All of which means it isn’t obvious how separate Absolute and the KGC really are, thus making the Commission’s $500,000 fine of AP more than a little suspect-seeming. (Who was paying whom?)

So what we have here is a lengthy, possibly-curious chain linking the PPA to the IGC to Mohawk Internet Techologies to the KGC to Absolute Poker, all of which makes it reasonable to wonder (as Frisina does) whether there might be something in the way the PPA is funded that prevents them from weighing in on the AP scandal. I can’t really say one way or the other here -- the web of obligation and influence is too tangled for me to see through clearly. However, something else came up in the interview that perhaps explains even more directly why the PPA isn’t interested in being involved when online poker cheating scandals erupt.

In the context of asking Pappas about the AP scandal, Frisina asked the PPA’s Executive Director to comment on the organization’s mission statement, specificially its reference to wanting to “ensure the integrity” of the game. Pappas responded by saying “Admittedly, our mission statement overstates the PPA’s interest in serving as the ‘integrity police’ for the poker industry.” Rather, said Pappas, the organization is more directly focused on “providing the legal/legislative framework for licensed and regulated poker to prosper,” thereby establishing “a secure and safe place for poker players to enjoy the game they love.”

Sort of a weird, unexpected response here, I thought, to say the PPA isn’t going to act as the “integrity police” while also saying the PPA wants to make poker not just legal, but “safe and secure” for everyone.

Even more eyebrow-raising, the PPA has apparently altered its mission statement in the wake of the Life’s a Bluff interview. Up until this week, the PPA described itself as a group “who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game, ensure its integrity and protect the right to play poker” (emphasis added). If you go to the PPA website today, you’ll find the organization now consists of people “who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game and protect the right to play poker in all its forms.” The reference to “integrity” has now been removed.

Perhaps it makes sense, on a practical level, to get rid of the “integrity” stuff. Hell, I don’t know of any group, now matter how big, who can do that for online poker at present. Even so, doesn’t it strike you as just a little bit disingenuous to alter your mission statement after nearly a million people have joined your group?

The PPA definitely should have made it clear from the outset it was simply a lobbying organization looking to keep poker legal (“in all forms”), and not anything more than that. Easy for me to say that now, of course. Then again, it isn’t clear to me that supporting bills like H.R. 2046 really is going to result in accomplishing that goal, either, as discussed here previously (“Do We Want Online Poker Regulated? (1 of 2)” & “Do We Want Online Poker Regulated? (2 of 2)”).

Anyhow, lots of stuff to ponder. Gonna meet up with Tim Peters (of “The Literature of Poker” and CardPlayer) later today -- looking forward to that. There is a possibility I might get over to Lucky Chances tomorrow; I’d say the odds are about 70-30 against at the moment . . . .

Looks like another windy day out there. Better take my hat.

Going to California

Am headed to San Fran this morning for a week’s worth of R & R. Might well find my way to a cardroom while I’m there -- am not sure at this point. If so, I’ll surely report back what happens to transpire. I have never played a hand of poker in California before (not in a casino, anyway). So am definitely curious to get out there and see what’s what.

Have had a not-so-hot little stretch of online play here for the last few days, mostly at the PLO tables. And while I can’t say for certain, it seems like things should be going better.

Jeff Hwang makes a smart observation at the very beginning of his Pot-Limit Omaha Poker: The Big Play Strategy. “Pot-Limit Omaha is not a 50-50 game,” writes Hwang. He explains that while those “coin flip” situations do come up fairly often (e.g., a flopped set vs. a big wrap+flush draw), “it is a pure fallacy that you have to be in a gambling situation when the money goes in.”

He’s absolutely correct. There are numerous scenarios whereby one can get one’s opponents all-in drawing dead or nearly dead, if one is savvy enough to recognize those spots and take advantage of them.

Even so, been feeling as though I have endured more than my fair share of suckouts here lately where I have my opponent at a severe disadvantage and he or she gets there by the end. Seems like everyone gunning for that flush draw (and nothing else) keeps hitting after I get ‘em all in on the turn with my big set. Those are usually 85-to-15 type situations. Then, of course, there are the cases where I have a smaller edge, or it really is a coin flip, and I don’t seem be winning enough of those to make up for the other losses.

Then there are the hands I just simply screw up – mistimed bluffs, stubborn big calls with no redraws, etc. Ended up scampering back over to limit Hold ‘em just to clear my head a bit.

Probably a good time to get away, frankly. The online poker world is such a headachy mess, and I ain’t even referrin’ to them crummy beats. For more on that, go check out Frank Frisina’s latest over at Life’s a Bluff. Frank is discussing Ultimate Bet’s admission to a cheating “scheme” occurring on its site and how little coverage it has received.

In his post Frank invites readers to Google “Ultimate Bet cheating” and see what they find. Let me invite you to do the same. On that first page, sort through the old stuff -- and a couple of links pointing you back here to Hard-Boiled -- and you’ll find an interesting post from last week that appeared on Richard Marcus’ site suggesting the UB scandal might be a lot bigger than even the site has let on. (Marcus is the author of Dirty Poker.) Take a gander at that list of problems going on over at UB . . . just horrific.

Meanwhile, do stay tuned over at Life’s a Bluff for the interview with John Pappas, Executive Director of the Poker Players Alliance coming forth later this week, which I think should prove interesting as well.

Not sure at the moment what sort of access to the intertubes I’ll be enjoying while I am in San Fran, so my streak of posting at least once per weekday may well be in danger. So I’ll talk to you next either from California or after I return . . . .

Considering the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, Part I: "A Game Subject to Chance"

Previous iterations of the UIGEA contained a section designed to update the 1961 Wire Act. The 35-year-old law specifically prohibits anyone from taking sports bets over the telephone (or “wire communication facility”). That law refers to “bets and wagers” both in a generic way and with regard to a “sporting event or contest.” My understanding is the law is also primarily aimed at folks who try this sort of thing across state lines. In other words, once the Wire Act came down, the poor sap in Idaho who routinely called in his football bets to Vegas was no longer able to do so.

There are two ways the old Wire Act doesn’t quite address online poker. One, it isn’t clear whether the internet is to be understood as a “wire communication facility.” Two, it has yet to be determined in a court whether “bets and wagers” includes something like poker. According to Allyn Jaffrey Shulman of CardPlayer, a case was brought before a District Court judge back in 2001, and that judge determined the Wire Act in fact did not apply to online gambling (including poker).

Nonetheless, the Attorney General’s office of these here United States continues to maintain in a blunt, non-specific way that the 1961 Wire Act indeed makes online gambling illegal. And when they say gambling they mean poker, too. Incidentally, the Attorney General -- Alberto Gonzales -- is the government’s legal advisor. He is part of the executive branch of government. That’s the branch that enforces the laws (not like the legislative branch that writes the laws, or the judicial branch that interprets the laws). Even though the Attorney General often has a lot of influence over how laws are interpreted, he doesn’t get to interpret them.

Back in 2003, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft sent his deputy assistant, John Malcolm, over to the Senate to tell them that online gambling was a problem, particularly because it made it easier to launder money. According to Malcolm, the growth of online gambling sites (including poker sites) represented a “great concern to the United States Department of Justice, particularly because many of these operations are currently accepting bets from United States citizens, when we believe that it is illegal to do so” (emphasis added). The Attorney General's office can "believe" whatever it wants to about how to interpret a law, but in reality the courts get to decide such things.

When the UIGEA was revised late last week and rammed through Congress, the section attempting to update the Wire Act (to include transactions via the internet and to revise “bets and wagers” to include other kinds of gambling than betting on sports) was removed. What was left behind does include vestiges of that section of the Act, including a passage early on that defines a “bet or wager” as “the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance.”

So the version of the Act that passed through Congress doesn’t exactly take care of the whole “can we regard the internet transactions the same way we regard transactions made over the telephone” question. (Although its references to “interactive computer services” does address this issue -- more about that in the next post.) However, this version does contain this somewhat tangential reference to other kinds of online gambling -- which, depending on your point of view, may or may not include online poker.

Some groups -- such as the Poker Players’ Alliance -- continue to argue poker should not be regarded as “a game subject to chance.” On their website, the PPA insists poker is “a skill game.” Indeed, over on the 2+2 Forums there was an inspired post and discussion hoping for a “poker carve-out” in a lame duck session of Congress that would make an exception for poker.

Nice idea. Ain’t gonna happen, though. The fact is, the authors of the Act and (many of) those who voted for it are thinking primarily here about online poker. They unflinchingly see it as “a game based on chance.”

This is the only part of the Act with which I agree.

I’m not saying I like it. Nor am I saying that the Act does an unambiguous job of amending the definition of “bet or wager” to include poker. But I have to agree that poker, while a “skill game,” is also most certainly “a game based on chance.” How about a quick for instance . . . ?

Last Friday, late afternoon. I’m sitting in the BB with . (Again, 6-max limit HE, $0.50/$1.00.) First two players fold, the cutoff limps, and the button raises. The SB folds. I call the raise, as does the limper, so we’ve got three to the flop ($3.25 in pot).

The flop comes and the action is on me. Big Slick may be lurking. (I’ve written before about players making “the Big Slick assumption” about preflop raisers.) Or a set of queens. Actually, though, I’m thinking I’m probably good here . . . for now, anyway. The button has shown he’ll raise from late position with less than premium stuff, and the limper has been gunning for almost every pot. I check it, the limper bets, and the button just calls. The button could be slowplaying something big. Or not. I check-raise, figuring (1) I’m probably still good, and (2) if I’m not, I might be able to determine that right here. The limper calls, then the button reraises. Uh oh. Hello Big Slick. I call, as does the limper, so now the pot is $7.75.

The turn is the , a card I did not want to see. Even before the limper bets and the button raises, I was certain I was no longer in front. Now I’m caught in the chip sandwich -- if I call, I’m probably looking at more raises and ultimately putting in four bucks to see that river card.

Now I am capable of folding a hand like this, but this time I decided to chance it. That’s right. I made a conscious decision to continue with a hand where I knew I was an underdog and did not have pot odds on my side. I’m hoping for a jack or ten on the river -- four measly outs (and, in fact, I can’t be certain any of them actually give me the nuts). As I suspected would happen, the betting was capped on the turn, so I ended up contributing $4.00 into what had now ballooned to an $19.75 pot. Playing like a donk here, odds-wise, since I’m taking an 11.5-to-1 longshot while getting not even 4-to-1 on my money.

The last card came . . . . Sweet sassy molassey. Your humble donkey bet out, was called by both players, and scooped $22.25 (giving fifty cents to the rake). Knowing full well I’d rivered them both, I didn’t even bother to look up what they had until today. Limper had for the second-best straight. Button indeed had . Showing he’s a good sport about such things, the button typed “nh” to me. I responded shame-facedly: “not really, but thx.”

(Feel free to file this one in that growing folder of "Rat, River, Shamus Is A" we've been building here over the last few weeks.)

Poker is gambling, let there be no doubt. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say poker involves gambling -- to a greater or lesser degree, depending on how one approaches the game. Good players tend not to take the “worst of it” like this very often. But even those who never stay with hands unless the odds dictate they should are still playing “a game based on chance.” Big Slick capped the betting on the turn knowing there might be at least a few river cards that would take his money away. The CardPlayer Hold ’em calculator says he was over 90% to win or tie going to the river. But that still means he could lose. He, too, was playing "a game based on chance."

In Anthony Holden’s 1990 book, Big Deal: Confessions of a Professional Poker Player, Holden offers early on to explain why poker might be considered more of a “skill game” than other forms of gambling. “The difference between a gambler and a poker player is a crucially simple one,” writes Holden. “A gambler, be he one who bets on horses or sports events, on casino games or raindrops running down windowpanes, is someone who wagers on unfavorable odds. A poker player, if he knows what he is doing, is someone who wagers favorable odds. The one is a romantic, the other a realist.”

Nicely put. Note, though, that both are wagering. Both face odds -- i.e., there’s a chance both might lose.

I’m a poker player. I’m also a realist. That’s why I believe our new definition of “bet or wager” -- lovingly bequeathed to us in this here UIGEA -- is always going to refer to poker as another "game based on chance."

In the next post I’ll talk a bit about what the Act says about “interactive computer services” (or ISPs) and how I think that part of the Act is gonna affect us American punters. Perhaps more than any other.

Photo: “Honest Abe” (adapted), jeff_golden. CC BY-SA 2.0.