The Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show, Episode 2: The Killer Cards

Just posted Episode 2 of the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show. You can listen the show by clicking here. (Right-click and “save as” if you want yr own special copy.)

I’ve put up a detailed post over on the show’s site that provides some background to episode 2 and other “show notes.” And I have managed to figure out how to get the show onto iTunes, so you can now subscribe to it over there, if you wanna.

Episode 2 follows the format of the first one -- some short subjects followed by the “main feature,” an old time radio show involving poker and/or gambling. Got contributions from Tim Peters (CardPlayer, The Literature of Poker) & Bob Woolley (Poker Grump) again. Also have another old 78 RPM record in there. The radio show this time around is an episode of The New Adventures of Nero Wolfe titled “The Killer Cards.”

If you happen to give this sucker a listen, I’d love to hear yr feedback. Still learning some of the ins and outs of managing sound quality, editing, etc. I mentioned it before, but let me say again how arduous it can be to pull one of these podcasts together. Gotta hand it to all of those who’ve tried it themselves. Hell of a lot of fun, too, though, which is why I imagine just about everyone who chooses to do something like this gets into it.

Not sure at the moment what the schedule will be for the next few episodes. I’d like to keep cranking ’em out somewhat regularly (e.g., every 3-4 weeks or so). Of course, once we reach the summer I’m probably going to be preoccupied a bit as I’ll be out in Vegas covering the WSOP.

Speaking of, it looks like I’ll be flying into McCarran just a little over a month from now. Might try to prepare a couple of shows before the big departure so as to have ’em in the can already once I’m there. Don’t really expect to have time for such tomfoolery once the circus kicks off at the end of May . . . .

“Raise That Rake!” (2 of 2)

Last week I wrote about a wild Razz hand in which the final pot had ballooned to 43 big bets. I told how three of the players involved had been dealt essentially the same cards in the same sequence. There was a fourth player who rode the hand to the end who shouldn’t have been there, but among the three real contenders, all of us were dealt pretty much the same hand from beginning to end:

we all started out with three babies

we all received needed low cards on fourth street
(giving us 4-3-2-A, 5-4-3-A, and 6-3-2-A)

we all received high cards on fifth

we all received a 9 on sixth

we all received a 7 on seventh

I concluded by suggesting the hand demonstrated “a general truism of all forms of poker that whenever players get dealt hands of equal value, action tends to increase.” There are other, more specific ways action increases, of course, but generically speaking if multiple players are dealt similar hands, it seems to me that usually ensures bigger pots.

You’ve been there, I’m sure. Spots where you and your opponent are in fact tied but neither knows it. You raise and reraise one another, creating a monstrous pot, and then discover in the end yr betting the same hands & chopping it. And then you discover yr both down a smidge thanks to that rake.

One particularly frequent rallying cry of the “online-poker-is-rigged” camp is to suggest poker sites artificially raise the rake by dealing cards in sequences destined to encourage action. I’ve never been one to indulge in such delusions, but since we were on the subject of “raising that rake,” I thought I’d share one instance when I did catch myself wondering something along those lines.

I was playing what would turn out to be my very last session on Ultimate Bet. Back in November 2007, I told you the twisted tale of my arduous efforts to withdraw funds from the site. There I explained that following the Absolute Poker “super-user” scandal I decided I no longer wanted to play either on AP or UB, since the company that owned AP had bought out the company that owned UB in the fall of ’06. What I didn’t spell out at the time was the fact that it was this particular session –- my last on UB –- that in fact helped push me to make the decision.

I was at a LHE table ($1.00/$2.00). As I remember, there were at least two or three very erratic players at the table, including a fellow to my right who’d end up dumping nearly a hundy within just a few dozen hands. As a result, I ended up doing a lot of folding as I waited for premium hands.

Finally picked up big slick and found myself heads-up against another player. The flop came ace high and we ended up capping it. Can’t remember the turn, but a king came on the river and we capped it again. Yes, my opponent had AK as well. Nothing too remarkable there. That’ll happen now and then.

Then, about two or three hands later, I picked up JJ and ended up creating another big pot against a single opponent. What did he have? Jacks as well. How about that . . . ?

Then, on the very next hand I get pocket rockets and raise it up. Guy to my left calls the two bets, then the player to his left three-bets it. Comes back around to me and I cap it. Guy to my left snap-calls, as does the third player.

Flop comes Q-7-3. I’m acting first and so bet out. First guy calls, second raises, and I three-bet. Again my buddy on my left calls the three bets lickety-split. Other player caps it. The turn brings a J. This time I bet and the guy to my left raises. Now I’m caught in the whipsaw, wondering about a set, but I was too stubborn to let it go. I can’t remember the river, but it turned out to have been a blank, and we did the same dance one more time. The final pot is enormous, something like $80-$90. What did we have?

Guy to my left had J-7 for two pair. Offsuit, no less.

Other dude had the other two aces.

I played a few more hands, then sat out to brood a bit about my misfortune. Then I thought about how friggin’ unlikely it was to be dealt the same hand like that three times in such quick succession.

What are the chances of an opponent being dealt exactly the same pocket pair as you in Hold ’em? According to the Wizard of Odds, at a ten-handed table the chances are 0.0001662 or a little worse than 1 in 6,000. The odds of it happening two hands in a row? Like 1 in 36 million or something . . . ?

Now I’ll admit I had already developed a sincere prejudice against Ultimate Bet before that session took place, and was just about ready to pull my funds anyway. I realized, though, that for a brief moment I’d felt genuinely paranoid about the site’s integrity.

My first thoughts actually concerned Mr. Jack-Seven happily calling all of those bets to get to his two pair. Was he a “super-user”? Could he see he was up against two players with aces? (The most likely explanation, of course, was he was a yahoo.)

Those thoughts quickly gave way to the slightly less-crazy seeming idea that the site was purposely dealing those “action hands.” What easier way to induce action than to give players identical starting hands and let ’em go to war?

I know what yr thinking. “Where’s your tin foil fedora, Shamus?” Don’t worry. I am reasonably certain that even a screwed-up site like UB wouldn’t bother with such shenanigans. Not really . . . .

But I also knew I wasn’t going to keep playing there. Lots of other places to play that haven’t been involved with “super-user” scandals -- where the more sane among us never have to wonder about the site artificially trying to “raise that rake!”

“Raise That Rake!” (1 of 2)

Have been playing more and more Stud/8 lately. Did a quick check of my April stats over the weekend and saw that almost 30% of my hands this month have been at the Stud/8 tables. Was sitting at one a couple of days ago ($0.50/$1.00) and had an issue arise that I know all players (of all games) have probably at least considered before, if not openly debated.

(DISCLAIMER: Usually when I present hands here I alter nothing other than player names; i.e., the action is always exactly as it occurred. In this case I have changed a few of the particulars since they would’ve complicated the question unnecessarily.)

In this particular hand I was dealt with the eight showing. Among the other players only one other upcard was a low card, and it was also an eight. I limped in, then, after a couple of folds, a player to my left -- SideshowBob -- with the showing competed to fifty cents. Two others called, as did I. Going to fourth street the pot was $2.55. On fourth I received the , giving me a so-so low draw. SideshowBob picked up an ace and so acted first with a bet. I called. The other two players also called. Pot $4.55.

Fifth street was good to me. I picked up the , giving me a 8-6-4-3-A low. SideshowBob got what appeared to be an unwanted nine. And the other two were dealt brick-looking cards. This time SideshowBob checked. With the only completed low at the table, I bet the dollar. The others folded and Bob called. We’re now heads-up. Pot is $6.55.

Sixth street is where that issue I mentioned at the beginning begins to arise. I get a jack, and SideshowBob gets another ace. Here’s the scene:

*** 6th STREET ***
Dealt to Short-Stacked Shamus [] []
Dealt to SideshowBob [] []

Bob checks. Dunno what he has underneath, but it doesn’t matter, really. I have the low locked up, he has the high locked up, and if we both remain to the end we’re destined to be splitting this pot. The question is, should I bet?

As you think about that, I’ll tell you I did bet, and he just called. Now the pot is $8.55. Seventh street brings me another jack and SideshowBob checks again. I bet again, Bob called again, and we split a $10.05 pot (with fifty cents going to the rake).

While the cards are being dealt for the next hand, SideshowBob decides to object to my having bet the latter two streets: “you cant beat the hi & youre betting why?” I chime back quickly with a “why not?” His response: “raise that rake!”

Now when I bet sixth and seventh, I know there is little chance Bob is going to fold. The cards I have showing -- -- suggest I could have a flush (or maybe on seventh having completed a very unlikely straight). But I know it is very, very unlikely he’s actually going to fold here. Should I be bothered about raising the rake, though?

Well, let’s look at the rake structure in this particular game. We were on PokerStars, where a nickel is taken for every dollar in the pot, and the site stops taking anything after the rake reaches $0.50. My bets on sixth and seventh meant the final pot ended up over $10, so Stars took the full fifty cents. Had we checked it down on those last two streets, the final pot would have been $6.55, meaning the rake would have been $0.30. Indeed, I did “raise that rake” a full twenty cents, meaning the two of us each lost an extra $0.10 because of our bets. (Or because of my bets, SideshowBob would likely clarify.)

Set aside the fact that nickels and dimes mean more or less to us depending on the stakes we play and think of this question in relative terms. Is Bob right? Should I refrain from pumping up the pot like this in a situation where I know my opponent and I each have half the pot locked up, and I also know the chances are slim my opponent will fold?

Here’s another way to look at the question: How often does my opponent need to fold to make betting the latter streets the right play? What am I risking here? Ten cents. With every dollar I stick into that pot, I’m probably going to lose a nickel. Definitely not smart, if I know that’s how it is going to go down every single time. However, if he does happen to fold on sixth street, I win a $6.25 pot (after the rake). And if he folds on seventh street, I win a $8.15 pot (after the rake). If I’m not mistaken (and hey, I could be, so lemme know), that means . . .

If he folds at least 1 in 62 times on sixth street, I profit.

If he folds at least 1 in 81 times on seventh street, I profit.

Why do I say that? Well, let’s say we played out this same scenario 62 times and I decide to go ahead and risk losing five cents every time with my sixth street bet. If SideshowBob does call me all 62 times, I’m going to lose $6.20 overall. Not good.

But if he folds just once, I win a $6.25 pot for my efforts and come out $0.05 ahead. And if he folds twice, I win two such pots and come out $6.30 ahead. Takes me an extra dime to get to seventh, so that means he’s got to fold once in 81 hands for me to realize that nickel profit. Again, though, if he folds twice I’m gonna be $8.20 ahead overall.

All of which seems to mean that if I think it is possible SideshowBob could fold this hand, say, once every 30 or 40 times we play it, I have to keep betting. Am I right? (You tell me.)

Curious, really, how often people make that “raise that rake!” complaint in the chat box. (Especially in the low limits where I hang out.) Am gonna return tomorrow with one more post concerning this issue of online sites and the rake -- in particular that idea that the so-called “rigged” site pumps up the rake with action-inducing deals.

Flopping Quad Aces Is Usually Fun

Been kind of a light week as far as playing goes. Did manage to participate -- for a while -- in LeCheese Challenge II, to which I received a late invite. (Thanks again, man!) Held steady for the first few levels of the “HA” tourney (half-Hold ’em, half-PLO), then made a spectacularly donkalicious play in a Hold ’em hand that proved my suspicion going in that I was dead money.

The comedy of errors continued when I moved over to Bodog afterwards and accidentally sat down at a PLO/8 table, $25 max. (I’d thought it was high only.) Barely escaped a horrific first hand where I called a preflop raise with K-K-x-x. I stayed for a while, mostly folding, when I had a fairly memorable event occur.

Was in middle position where I’d picked up . I know A-A-x-x unsuited ain’t the cat’s pajamas in PLO high only, and even less so in PLO/8. I can only go high here, and even there I’m shaky. So I limp in, as do about five other players. Then the flop comes out a mesmerizing .

Whoa. But will I get any action? It checks to me and I check to let someone else build a hand. Here comes the turn:

Okay. Perhaps we’re gonna get some business. “Wouldn’t it be lovely if someone made quad queens here?” I think to myself. Let’s see. Everyone in the hand looks to be about $25 deep.

The potential is there, at least, for some sort of score . . . .

I watch as an early position player takes a moment to decide what to do. Hmm. He’s taking a pretty long time . . . . Maybe he does have the queens! No, wait. He’s timed out. Hang on a sec. What the hell . . . ?

To my horror, I see this little sucker pop up:

No! NO!!! No.

Patience, Shamus. Patience . . . . Ah, crap.

This is not good. Sat there long enough to take a couple of screen shots.

I time out and am treated all-in. Next I see, everyone had checked it down and I took the $1.50 pot.

“Lord,” I typed after having resumed my connection. Unlike certain WSOP champs, publicly-made allusions to some theoretical governor of human destiny only occur to me in highly absurd moments like this one. Got one “lol” in response.

Given that others checked it down, I actually don’t think I missed out on any extra cabbage there. Still, flopping quad aces and then losing your connection ain’t the most pleasant of experiences.

Stuck around a little longer, went over and goofed around for a few hands of 5-card stud, then logged off.

Am starting to develop a real aversion to tourneys, I fear. Can’t remember the last time I felt good about how I played one. Haven’t even tried any of those Silver Star tourneys for which I’m eligible this month. Seem to find much more comfort -- and profit -- at the ring games.

So while I’ll probably be staying at the cash tables, lemme go ahead and promote this here PLO tourney (which I may or may not coax myself into playing tomorrow) as I bid you all a happy weekend:

Anti-UIGEA Bills & the Presidential Veto

Been catching up on podcasts here lately. Speaking of, the second episode of the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show is in the works. Should see the light of day before too long. By the way, you can now subscribe via iTunes.

A couple of days ago I listened to the Pocket Fives podcast from last week (the April 10 episode) featuring a brief interview with Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). Wanted to share a little of what he said there as it relates to H.R. 5767, the new bill he and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) proposed late last week “to prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation” pertaining to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.

When asked about the April 2nd hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Frank said he thought “hearing was very helpful” insofar as it illustrated quite comprehensively how the various entities comprising the American payments system do not see the UIGEA as workable. Thus, no matter one’s views on gambling per se, the fact that the banks, credit unions, and other financial transaction providers don’t see the UIGEA as practically enforceable itself constitutes “a good argument for getting rid of that part of the bill.”

Frank was then asked about the current status of his bill, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046), which he introduced just about one year ago. The interview was clearly conducted prior to Frank and Paul introducing H.R. 5767, and thus no references were made to the new legislation. I do think, however, Frank had this new UIGEA-blocking bill in mind when answering David Huber’s questions.

In response to a question about whether or not our being in an election year might hurt the chances of his IGREA from moving forward this year, Frank answered that “it does hurt our chances . . . not so much because of the politics, but particularly because of the time factor.” Since it is a presidential election year, Frank explained, Congress will be taking a couple of weeks off toward the end of the summer for the party conventions, and with the campaigning that will surely follow, he doesn’t believe they’ll even be in session after October 1.

“On the other hand, while I wasn’t too optimistic about some of the votes [for the IGREA], that hearing was very helpful. The hearing was so critical of this approach that was taken and so many members joined in the criticism, that I now think something might be possible,” Frank continued.

He then addressed the question I had posed last weekend about whether or not an anti-UIGEA bill would make it beyond the president’s desk. As Schoolhouse Rock taught us, any bill that makes through the House and Senate must also be signed by the president before it becomes a law.

“I doubt that we’ll get it all the way through and I think President Bush frankly has promised the right-wing . . . religious coalition that is so important to him that he would veto any change. But I think we can move. We can make some progress here so that next year we’ll be closer to being able to do it fairly quickly.”

Like I say, Frank is ostensibly referring to his IGREA here, but I think his words might also apply to the new H.R. 5767. The new bill may well have a chance, but only if it is not passed through the House and Senate before January 20, 2009.

And even then, the fate of H.R. 5767 will depend a lot who is sitting in that chair in the Oval Office.

Tolstoy's Ivan Ilyich and the Meaning of Card Playing

I’ve written here before about a couple of my favorite Russian writers, Fyodor Dostoevsky and Vladimir Nabokov. Nabokov probably wouldn’t care all that much for me coupling the two of them together in a sentence like that. Of Dostoevsky, Nabokov said he was “not a great writer, but rather a mediocre one -- with flashes of excellent humor, but, alas, with wastelands of literary platitudes in between.” He especially disliked Dostoevsky’s penchant for pathos, and I can’t say I completely disagree with him there. Of course, those of us with an interest in existentialism nevertheless tend to appreciate the various little (and large) puzzles Dostoevsky presents. (We poker players tend to like him, too, if only for The Gambler.)

Nabokov preferred Leo Tolstoy, whom he ranked as the greatest of all Russian novelists. I like Tolstoy, though I have to admit I’m probably more attracted to the manic unpredictability of some of Dostoevsky’s characters and plots. I also tend not to go for the more obvious sorts of “messages” and “morals” in some of Tolstoy’s works (esp. the later stuff), but can’t deny how compelling his stories and novels can be.

The other day I happened to be reading back through Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich (one of his later works). Not the happiest of tales, that. There Tolstoy provides a fairly comprehensive criticism of modern materialism and self-interest, having Ivan pay a (literally) painful price for having wasted his life pursuing some false idea of what he thought he was supposed to be. Actually more than a little pathos here, too.

I bring it up because I’d forgotten about a few references to card playing that come up early in the story. The opening chapter shows Ivan’s colleagues discussing his death and fretting over having to miss that night’s card game in order to attend the ceremony. Then we go back to read about Ivan’s life, illness, and eventual death, and we discover he, too, was a card player.

Soon after Ivan gets his first job as an Examining Magistrate, we are told “he began to play vint, which he found added not a little to the pleasure of life, for he had a capacity for cards, played good-humouredly, and calculated rapidly and astutely, so that he usually won.”

Vint, by the way, is a variant of bridge, although there’s no “dummy” like in bridge. (Sometimes the translator refers to the game as bridge, actually.) Was big in Russia in the 19th century, and I suppose Tolstoy is presenting card playing as yet another meaningless time-waster illustrating how empty the lives of modern men really are.

Still, playing cards does have meaning for Ivan. After he becomes ill, and then eventually comes to realize his illness is quite serious, cards become a way for Ivan to escape having to confront the idea of his own mortality. We learn that “as soon as he had any unpleasantness with his wife, any lack of success in his official work, or held bad cards at bridge, he was at once acutely sensible of his disease.”

A key moment occurs later on when we find out even playing cards doesn’t have the meaning it once did for Ivan. One evening he and some friends “sat down to cards. They dealt, bending the new cards to soften them, and he sorted the diamonds in his hand and found he had seven. His partner said ‘No trumps’ and supported him with two diamonds. What more could be wished for? It ought to be jolly and lively. They would make a grand slam.”

His joy is short-lived, however, as “suddenly Ivan was conscious of that gnawing pain, that taste in his mouth, and it seemed ridiculous that in such circumstances he should be pleased to make a grand slam.” The idea of doing well at a card game no longer means very much to Ivan -- one of several realizations he is going to have before the end of the short novel that help add up to a deathbed realization that his whole life has been “a terrible and huge deception.” He ends up misplaying his hand, and notices that his partner is upset. But he also realizes how unmoved he is by his partner’s frustration. “And it was dreadful to realize why he did not care.”

I know Tolstoy is saying something here about the relative worthlessness of card playing, but clearly the value of the activity is connected to the place it holds in a person’s life. For Ivan, it is an escape from what really matters -- i.e., his soul-crushing job, his loveless marriage, his illness. But for a lot of us, playing cards isn’t always an escape from life or the “real world” -- it is life, reality, a source of meaning and significance.

Probably wouldn’t be so good if it were the sole source of such meaning. But it ain’t so hot, either, if card playing only exists as an activity that allows us to evade the question of what our lives mean.

(For more on the topic, check out this interesting post by an online player who says he has decided to quit poker precisely because he no longer finds the game "meaningful" -- just saw this one thanks to a link from Foucault.)

Don’t Mess With Taxes

Heard it again this morning on the radio. That same old cliché one always hears this time of year. “There are two things that are certain,” the saying goes. “Death and taxes.” Har har.

No arguments with the first part of that. No negotiatin’ with Mr. Reaper. Not so sure about taxes, though. I mean it is certain Uncle Sam is gonna try to grab what he can from us, we know that. Not so certain, though, how much he’s gonna get. At least with regard to taxes on online poker earnings.

About a month ago, the Ante Up! poker podcast had as a guest Russ Fox (episode #144). Fox is a tax agent who happens also to have authored three poker books. Amid an interesting discussion about what sort of obligations online poker players face with regard to filing taxes, Fox shared his thoughts regarding Neteller’s agreement with the Department of Justice last year to release details of its transactions with American customers.

For those who paid their taxes, the fact that Neteller gave up the goods to the DOJ shouldn’t amount to anything at all. But, as Fox pointed out on the show, very few online poker players actually report their winnings. On a post on his blog about the matter, Fox estimates the percentage of those who report online gambling winnings to be about 5% total. He also thinks those who didn’t report their winnings and who used Neteller potentially face a couple of issues.

According to Fox, for anyone who ever had at least $10,000 in his or her Neteller account -- at any given moment (i.e., even for just a few seconds) -- that person technically is considered as having had a foreign bank account and thus must file a particular form by June 30th of the following year or risk criminal prosecution. That means if you had $10K in there at any point last year, you’ve still got two-and-a-half months to file that report. Fox says he fully expects the Treasury Dept. to check those records and go after folks who fail to declare their Neteller accounts if they were required to.

Fox also believes the IRS will go after anyone who (1) received large amounts from Neteller; and (2) failed to declare any gambling winnings. He believes it is possible that the IRS will only go after the high rollers, but, as he says on his blog, “given the ability of the IRS to conduct computer matching, if you received funds from Neteller and didn’t declare any gambling winnings, you might receive a ‘letter audit’ from the IRS.” That would be a letter telling the individual how much he or she owes and letting the person go ahead and pay (plus interest & penalties) to avoid prosecution.

For folks who used Neteller for reasons other than online gambling, Fox says if they can prove that fact to the IRS they needn’t worry. Of course, no one who used Neteller for online poker would be able to do that since the transactions will all indicate the sites to which and from which money was sent.

For those who think they might be in trouble here, it isn’t too late. One can always amend one’s return (and pay the interest & penalties). Fox thinks doing so is a much better option than waiting for the IRS to come knockin’.

What did I do? Well, even though my winnings are a relative pittance, I still went ahead and paid what’s owed on ’em. Wrote a post last year right around tax day in which I talked about about how I report poker winnings (or “gambling” winnings, as the IRS puts it).

Don’t know one way or the other whether the fears expressed by Fox are legit or not (though I tend to think he knows his stuff). Like I say, there’s a lot that’s uncertain about taxes. Maybe I’m a sucker for paying -- I’m sure some think so. I know I don’t make nearly enough for it to matter a whole heck of lot to Uncle Sam. In fact, I see folks on the forums who (say they) make 20, 30, even 50 times what I do in a year proclaiming how they don’t report.

I guess for me it goes along with my generally risk-averse approach to the game. All things considered, it seems to me a small price to go ahead and declare now rather than have to endure the stress of a “letter audit” or some other hassle down the road.

An Epic Razz Hand

Had been at this particular H.O.R.S.E. table for a while. Probably 70-80 hands or so. Had sat down with twenty clams and had chipped up to $26.20 when the following Razz hand took place. Even if yr not a big Razz fan, take a look at this one. It’s worth it, I promise.

The table had been on the passive side, without much raising/reraising on third street in the stud games. So when I picked up 2-6-3 with the trey showing, I looked forward to raising it up. Glancing around the table at everyone else’s upcards, I noticed one other trey, two fours, two eights, and two queens. That’s right. Everyone’s upcards were duplicated. Shoulda known then this was going to be a strange one.

One of the queens brought in the quarter. Then the other Q surprisingly called. Then one of the fours completed to fifty cents. I raised to a buck, and the other trey made it $1.50. The original bettor capped it, and in the end there were four of us left to see the flop: yr humble servant, the other 3, a 4, and a hard-headed Q. Pot already $8.65.

Fourth street looked as though it might have been favorable to everyone.

*** 4th STREET ***
Dealt to PhyllisN [3d] [4h]
Dealt to Nirdlinger [Qd] [5s]
Dealt to WalterHuff [4s] [3h]
Dealt to Short-Stacked Shamus [2s 6c 3c] [As]

I have the lead with my ace, and so bet the half dollar. Phyllis makes it a dollar with her 3-4. (Probably believes I paired up, I remember thinking fleetingly.) Nirdlinger calls the two bets. Then WalterHuff makes it $1.50 with his 4-3. I call the three bets, as do Phyllis and Nirdlinger. Pot now $14.65.

*** 5th STREET ***
Dealt to PhyllisN [3d 4h] [Kh]
Dealt to Nirdlinger [Qd 5s] [Js]
Dealt to WalterHuff [4s 3h] [Qh]
Dealt to Short-Stacked Shamus [2s 6c 3c As] [Ts]

Enough bricks to build a shed. Could have seen that coming, actually, as most of the baby cards have already been dealt. I’m technically leading at the moment, though, and so I bet out again. Everyone calls my dollar. Pot is now $18.65, easily the biggest pot of the session. Much like the previous streets, sixth street was also essentially the same for all of us.

*** 6th STREET ***
Dealt to PhyllisN [3d 4h Kh] [9c]
Dealt to Nirdlinger [Qd 5s Js] [Td]
Dealt to WalterHuff [4s 3h Qh] [9d]
Dealt to Short-Stacked Shamus [2s 6c 3c As Ts] [9s]

Nothing has changed, really, although I do see I could now be behind. I bet my 9-6, Phyllis and Nirdlinger both call. (That’s right, with his Q-J-T showing and all that action, Nirdlinger is sticking around.) Then WalterHuff raises to $2. Looking back, I can see now it is pretty clear that Walter must have had an ace, deuce, or five in the hole, and thus was surely ahead of me. At the time, I didn’t really think about that, though, and so three-bet it. Two calls, Walter caps it, and we all call again. (Incidentally, Nirdlinger runs out of chips on the fourth bet here.) “HUGE pot" types a player not involved. Huge is right. The pot is now a whopping $34.50.

As I await 7th street, I’m consciously thinking that if I happen to catch a four, five, or seven, there’s a decent chance I’m going to be good here. I know the fours are about gone (I’ve seen three of them). Have only seen one five, though, and no sevens. Of course, the pot is so friggin’ big, I’m probably not folding no matter what comes on seventh. Here it comes . . . .

I get a seven. Sweet. I’ve made a 7-6-3-2-A. And all that money in the middle. I like it. I bet.

And Phyllis raises. Walter Huff just calls the two bets. I like Walter just calling, as he was my primary concern. I three-bet. Phyllis just calls. NICE! Walter just calls, too. The final pot is $43.50. (Fifty cents will be taken for the rake.)

What does everyone have . . . ?

Short-Stacked Shamus: shows [2s 6c 3c As Ts 9s 7h] (Lo: 7,6,3,2,A)
PhyllisN: shows [Ah 5c 3d 4h Kh 9c 7c] (Lo: 7,5,4,3,A)
WalterHuff: shows [Ad 2h 4s 3h Qh 9d 7d] (Lo: 7,4,3,2,A)
WalterHuff collected $9.45 from side pot
Nirdlinger: mucks hand [4d 2c Qd 5s Js Td 5h]
WalterHuff collected $9.45 from side pot
WalterHuff collected $33.55 from main pot

All three of us caught sevens on seventh street. (Stars does not reorder the cards as Full Tilt does, so we can be sure of the order of things.) Not only did I not win the hand, I was third-best! (Hell, I was third-best on sixth street, too!) In fact, if you look at our relative levels of confidence there on seventh, the poor sap with the third-best hand (me) acted with the most confidence, followed by the second-best hand (PhyllisN), followed by the winner (WalterHuff).

Looking back over the entire hand, it was almost as though each of us (aside from crazy Nirdlinger, that is) had been dealt essentially the same cards on each street. I believe it is a general truism of all forms of poker that whenever players get dealt hands of equal value, action tends to increase. Here we had three of us getting pretty much the same cards every step of the way. (Plus a goofball fourth who couldn’t bring himself to leave the party.)

I’d lost a total $11.50 on the hand, so my six-dollar profit for the session had instantly become a six-dollar deficit. Wasn’t too upset, though. In fact, I kind of enjoyed it when the entire table began chatting amiably about the marvel we’d just witnessed.

Don’t imagine any of us will be seeing any 43-big bet pots again anytime soon.

Bill to Block Finalization of UIGEA Regs Proposed

Then again, the day some people might want to call one of the worst for online poker players may well turn out to have been one of yr better days, all things considered. Check this out . . . .

Yesterday we also learned that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) together have introduced new legislation specifically designed to block the federal government from finalizing regulations for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. The new bill, H.R. 5767, has but one, specific purpose, namely, to stop the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from forcing banks to implement the UIGEA.

As yesterday’s press release from the House Financial Services Committee (which Frank chairs) puts it, the proposed bill forbids the feds “from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation that requires the financial services industry to identify and block internet gambling transactions.” Says Frank, “These regulations are impossible to implement without placing a significant burden on the payments system and financial institutions, and while I do disagree with the underlying objective of the Act, I believe that even those who agree with it ought to be concerned about the regulations’ impact.”

That last point was demonstrated persuasively in last week’s House hearing, “Proposed UIGEA Regulations: Burden without Benefit?” That hearing ultimately provided an overwhelming, hard-to-refute argument against finalizing the UIGEA regs, and it is clear Frank and Paul’s bill has appeared as a response to the hearing.

The actual bill is wonderfully succinct. It’s no Gettysburg Address, but Frank and Paul get to the heart of the matter right away. I quote it in full:

“A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation under subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION.
The Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, whether acting jointly or separately, may not propose, prescribe, or implement any regulation under subchapter IV of chapter 53 of title 31, United States Code, or otherwise give effect to such subchapter or any such regulation, including the proposed regulations published in the Federal Register on 6 October 4, 2007.”

And that is that. If H.R. 5767 were to pass through the House and Senate -- a possibility that seems much more real to me at this moment than does the idea of Frank’s IGREA or other bills working their way up the Congressional ladder -- it will be very interesting to see what happens once it lands on the President’s desk. Could a Bush or McCain veto the sucker? If not, the way would certainly be paved for the IGREA to be more seriously entertained. (Whether that is a good thing or not is another issue altogether.)

In any event, a mighty interesting little intersection of poker news here this morning.

Something Is Up with ePassporte

“To be honest, this is the 3rd-worst day in the history of online poker, behind only the passage of the UIGEA itself and Neteller closing its doors to US players. This is the worst news we’ve had in a long time, and the future of online poker is starting to look troubled.”

So wrote one poster just after midnight last night in response to rumors regarding the fate of ePassporte, the popular deposit/withdrawal option for online poker players. Earlier in the evening, a frequent, respected contributor on Two Plus Two had posted a brief, agonizingly cryptic note saying that “Apparently, epassporte has pulled the plug on US poker players, effective 1:00 p.m. PDT this afternoon.” Thus followed the expected back-and-forthing over the validity of the OP’s claim . . . .

Someone emailed PokerStars support who told him “ePassporte seems to be undergoing some technical issues and is currently not available.” Another got a note from Stars saying they were “aware of the rumors in the message boards, but we have not received . . . a message from ePassporte” suggesting they were no longer allowing transactions to or from the site.

Someone else then noted that ePassporte had been removed as an option from Absolute Poker. A later poster clarified that ePassporte had never appeared as an option on the main cashier page, but that it had been listed as a choice when one went to deposit. No more, though.

Then came the news that Cake Poker had removed ePassporte altogether. This time, the news was supported with an email from Cake support, subsequently got cut-and-pasted numerous times from different posters. The email, addressed “To all Cake Poker customers,” began by saying “We have received notice from ePassporte today that they are unable to continue to provide CakePoker with merchant e-wallet services. We have since confirmed that this situation is not unique to CakePoker and is, in fact, industry wide.”

That last sentence appeared to confirm the original rumor, and the conversation quickly began to exhibit a more resigned tone. Said one poster, “I think we are past the point of debating whether or not it is true.”

Another poster shared a screen shot from the Full Tilt Poker cashier page. “Unfortunately, we are currently unable to process your ePassporte transaction,” the pop-up read. “Please try one of our other transaction options, or try again in 24 hours.” Around midnight someone else reported “Full Tilt dropped ePassporte. It’s over.”

Threads emerged in the other forums as well, including Internet Gambling and News, Views, and Gossip. Someone in IG noted around midnight of ePassporte that “It's completely gone from TruePoker.” Sometime later another reported he had tried to withdraw from Ultimate Bet using ePassporte “and got a [message that] ‘Epassport is having technical problems’ and [was told] to contact Epass for more info.” This morning, another poster noted he had “just got off the phone with a manager in Pitbull poker and they confirmed that they no longer are working with Epassporte”

Sprinkled through all of the discussions were reports from some who had gotten through to ePassporte support, and in each case they were told that indeed the issue was related to technical problems and that no policy changes had occurred. When asked about Cake Poker’s announcement, ePassporte support people responded that Cake was mistaken.

I personally never opened an account with ePassporte. After Neteller exited stage left, I never tried to open account over there. But a lot of online players did make the switch to ePassporte, and many had come to rely on the funding option as heavily as they had Neteller.

No idea what the truth is here, or whether, indeed, we’re looking at what will be regarded as another dark day in the recent history of online poker. (Not seeing any clarifications on the ePassporte website.) If it is true, Mark over on Plan3tGong has run through some possible options for you ePassporte people.

One thing is clear, though. As with those other days alluded to above -- the day the UIGEA was passed & the day of Neteller’s exit -- we are once again seeing demonstrated the relative powerlessness of the online poker player in the face of the industry’s currently ambiguous legal (and regulatory) status.

As they say . . . developing . . . .

(EDIT [added 4/14/08]: Looks like the rumors are true: ePassporte is no longer servicing online poker sites. In a letter from the financial transaction provider to PitBull Poker, ePassporte notes that they “have been advised that the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York is conducting a widespread investigation of internet gambling, including poker.” Read the entire letter here. Sounds more than a little ominous, don’t it . . . ?)