With Whom Are You Affiliated?

Don’t worry. I ain’t talkin’ ’bout Democrats or Republicans. Or Libertarians or the Green Party or any of that.

A long while back -- nearly two years ago -- I wrote a post titled “Unaffiliated” in which I talked about why I wasn’t going to try to pursue any affiliate programs anymore on this here blog. There I mentioned a few different reasons why I’d decided against trying to “monetize” (as the kids say) the site in that way.

One reason was it wasn’t working. No cabbage.

Also, at the time we were just a couple of months past the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 having been signed into law, and there was some scuttlebutt going around then that perhaps affiliates were going to be negatively affected -- not just in terms of the bottom line, but perhaps legally as well.

You can read the old post, if yr interested, where I quote folks like I. Nelson Rose, the professor of law and expert in gambling-related issues, saying how affiliates “can easily be grabbed” by the feds enforcing the UIGEA.

Anyhow, all of that was discouraging enough for me to forgo the affiliate route entirely. I began selling the text ads you see under “Shamus Plugs” and at the bottom of the page, but never once pursued any of them affiliate avenues.

Found myself mulling it over again here lately, though, thanks to the confluence of a few different events.

One was the UIGEA having reached its second birthday without the regulations being finalized and, therefore, without having been enforced a single time. I suppose it is possible that, as Rose suggests, the Act might be interpreted in such a way as to find the affiliates guilty of something or another (“aiding and abetting” is how Rose puts it). But as the months pass this possibility is starting to appear increasingly unlikely.

Another was a nice email I received from a reader the other day -- a new poker blogger -- asking me about selling ads, affiliate programs, and the like. In my response I talked about how I didn’t do the affiliate thing, and how at this point it seemed like it might be more trouble than it is worth. I opined that for some of the folks who got in on poker blogging right at the beginning -- the ones at the center of the poker-blog solar system about whom the rest of us revolve -- my impression was that being affiliates might well have been a fairly lucrative enterprise. But it didn’t look as though it were as easy for new folks to get in on that action.

Meanwhile, I have been receiving offers quite frequently from various sites to become affiliates. I sometimes ignore them, or, if the message appears to have been written by a fellow human, I’ll write back to explain that I don’t do any affiliate programs.

I suppose I’m wondering whether I should perhaps go ahead and add a few, though. Still seems to me like a bit of a hassle with limited prospects for success. But I’m newly curious. I know many of you reading keep blogs yrselves, and so thought I’d ask: Anybody have any experiences and/or ideers along these lines to share?

Then again, if it turns out Kentucky gets to keep all them domains tomorrow, maybe we’ll just put this one on the back burner once again.

The Terrible Twos for the UIGEA

Two years ago today -- October 13, 2006 -- President George W. Bush signed the SAFE Port Act of 2006 into law. To be precise, what Bush signed was the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006. Did you know that the “SAFE” in SAFE Port Act was a catchy acronym? Kind of like the USA PATRIOT Act. Or LMAO.

You remember the SAFE Port Act, don’t you? That so-called “must pass” legislation that the 109th Congress swiftly passed in the dead of night some two weeks before Bush signed it into law. It was the last evening of “work” before Congress would adjourn to concentrate on the 2006 elections. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) -- since retired -- managed to have the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 appended to the SAFE Port Act as “Title VIII.”

Thus ensued all sorts of applesauce in the wake of the UIGEA’s passage, including the exit of several popular online poker rooms such as Party Poker, Pacific Poker, and bwin from the U.S. market. Firepay (a much-used third party vendor) would quickly shut off American customers as well, followed by Neteller in January 2007.

What would’ve happened had Frist not surreptitiously snuck the UIGEA -- the latest in nearly a decade’s worth of efforts to pass some sort of anti-online gambling legislation -- onto the SAFE Port Act and gotten the sucker made law while the world slept that autumn Friday night?

For one, some of those self-appointed guardians of American morality who’ve gotten themselves elected to congressional positions would’ve certainly continued the fight to stop the online gambling scourge.

How successful might they have been? Hard to say.

The 2006 elections resulted in more Democrats sitting in congressional seats, which may well have reduced the likelihood of any UIGEA-like legislation getting passed. In the House, what had been a 232-202-1 advantage for the Republicans became a 233-202 advantage for the Dems. In the Senate, what had been a 55-44-1 advantage for the Republicans became a 49-49-2 tie. Some in the poker world have attributed the Democrats’ success in the 2006 elections to backlash against the UIGEA, and while a couple of House seats may have been affected, I tend to believe that idea has been overstated.

One wonders also whether the Poker Players Alliance would’ve established itself as a legitimate lobbying organization had the UIGEA not been signed into law. At the time, the PPA had been in existence about six months or so (I believe), though had less than 100,000 members on the day Bush signed the SAFE Port Act. (The organization now boasts over a million members.)

It is probably safe to assume that Party Poker and the other sites would’ve continued to take U.S. bets had the UIGEA not been made law. Neteller may still have left us, as its troubles were in fact related to sports betting and the Wire Act and not the UIGEA specifically. However, other third party vendors would’ve surely been more ready to occupy Neteller’s place had the UIGEA not been around as a discouragement.

What else might have been different? Probably not too much, other than the obvious fact that we wouldn’t have had all of these bills introduced designed to counter the UIGEA’s effects (a lot of legislative energy expended there that might’ve been better spent elsewhere, no?). The regulations for the UIGEA have still yet to be finalized, and it frankly does not appear as though that will happen anytime soon. Thus the law -- technically in effect for two years now -- has not been enforced a single time.

What about the SAFE Port Act? At least our ports are safe, right?

I have no idea, frankly. Well out of my field of expertise, that. I do know that in a six-month review of the Act, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) noted how several of its provisions had yet to be realized, and cited problems with the Department of Homeland Security’s lack of oversight.

I’m also aware that not all of the Act’s provisions have been implemented. One such provision was to require the scanning of containers for radiation (detailed here). Such scanning should also detect “nuclear and radiological material.” A subsequent act, called the “9/11 Commission Act of 2007,” has further directives regarding the mandate to scan all incoming containers arriving at our nation’s ports.

Many have criticized the notion that the ports are the best place to be watching for potential WMD’s -- such detection needs to occur much sooner, obviously. Another problem with the SAFE Port Act that noted by some commentators is the fact that the scanning machines described by the Act (and in the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007) simply do not exist. They do have machines to detect radiation, but nothing to detect enriched uranium. In other words -- sort of like the UIGEA -- the SAFE Port Act apparently contains directives that simply cannot be enforced.

To be fair, the SAFE Port Act has -- according to some, anyway -- apparently done some good. But as far as Title VIII goes, it ain’t done nothin’ beyond creatin’ headaches and a buncha ill will.

Here’s hoping that by the time we reach the third anniversary of this sucker we aren’t griping over the UIGEA anymore.

The Not-So-Super System

In The Biggest Game in Town, Al Alvarez often refers to the high rollers he encounters there in Vegas in 1981 as living outside “the system.” The desire to get to that place where the various worries and concerns that plague the rest of us don’t exist is presented as a primary motivator for many of the players Alvarez sketches for us.

For example, Alvarez speaks to Jack Straus, who’d go on to win the World Series of Poker Main Event in 1982. Straus talks about his father who managed a packing plant, and spells out to Alvarez how life was presented to his father. Back in the 30s when his father began his career, Straus explains, “‘you were told you should work until you were sixty-five, then retire on two hundred a month.’” Unfortunately for Straus’s dad, he died at age 58 and thus never got the chance to enjoy the (modest) fruits of his labor.

Alvarez adds “Straus took that lesson to heart and ordered his life according to two principles: to stay outside the system and to use his talents to enjoy life while he could.”

To live outside of “system” or the “straight world” is an ideal Alvarez connects with the American “romance of personal liberty.” Ever since Jefferson et al. put down in words that bit about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the yearning to declare anew one’s independence has been an essential part of the American mindset.

Such is further evidenced by the more successful players Alvarez encounters, those who “pride themselves on the fact that they survive spectacularly well outside the system: no bosses or government bureaucrats on their backs telling them what they should do and how they should do it, no routine that is not of their own choosing, no success that is not the result of their own unaided talents. Also no failure.”

The latter point refers to that “different ordering of reality” Alvarez attributes to the high roller. As long as one remains outside of the “system,” one cannot fail. One could call it a different kind of “system,” I suppose, and indeed there are those in the book -- like Jack Binion -- who characterize high-stakes gambling with “straight world” analogies, saying it’s like “a high-risk, high-return investment that is also fun to do.” But that’s just a way to make it make sense to those of us still in the “system,” I think.

Writing here following this incredible stretch of days for the American economy (and the world markets, generally speaking), it is hard not to imagine any of us being able to think we’re fully “outside the system.” The Dow Jones’ 2,000-point tumble over the last week (a precipitous drop of 20%) affects us all. Like most of you, I’m fairly clueless about the byzantine machinations of how exactly the relative health of the stock market and banking system affects the various accounts in which my moneys reside.

But I know I’m affected. I’m in the “system.”

And with the signing into law last week of the ominously-titled Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 -- giving the Treasury Dept. the ability to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions -- it appears as though whatever happens next we’re all destined to become even further ensnared in the “system.” A place where not only is it impossible to pretend there is “no failure,” but where failure seems to be an accepted premise.

Best of luck to us all.

Poker Podcasts: What’s Cookin’

Bounced back yesterday during a shorter session of PLO25. Quit after 60 hands this time, my board-reading abilities fully intact (see yesterday’s post). After that I joined a 45-player no-limit hold’em SNG ($5.50) and managed to end up seventh, thus earning a cool $2.37 for about an hour and 45 minutes’ work.

I have been mixing in the occasional MTT and SNG here lately. Have had some modest successes here and there, though nothing much to write about. A new goal here is to land a ticket to the Sunday Million via one of the many satellites on Stars. One variety that looks particularly promising is that 400-FPP rebuy tourney they run about six times a day. Played one of those last Friday in which the top seven got the $215 entries and just barely missed, finishing ninth. (Was down to a couple of big blinds and pushed with KQ-suited only to get called by Big Slick.)

Anyone have any other suggestions for good value, low buy-in satellites to the big MTTs?

A long while ago I happened to win one of those Sunday Million entries (and wrote about it here and here), but at the time was so unsure of my tourney chops I decided just to take the cash. Will definitely play the sucker if I happen to land another one, for sure.

I’ve mentioned before here how I have long preferred cash games over tourneys, mainly because I generally haven’t the time to commit to the long multi-table extravaganzas. Making it tougher is the fact that over the last few weeks I’ve taken on a number of extra writing tasks which have occupied a lot of those hours I might’ve spent playing. Not complaining, though. As anyone who stops by here with any regularity probably already suspects, I enjoy the writing as much or more than the playing.

Keeping so busy has also meant I’ve had little time for podcasts -- both making ’em and listening to ’em.

As far as listenin’ goes, I have been catching some now and then, but haven’t been following all of the 20 or so I have listed there on the right-hand column. (The “most recent episode” dates are all current, though, in case you were wonderin’.) I have about a 45-minute commute to work, meaning I’m in the car 7-8 hours every week. That’s the time when I often try to listen to these podcasts, although lately I’ve found it more relaxing putting on old Miles Davis Quintet sides. However, I have been following a few shows.

Bart Hanson’s Cash Plays provides consistently solid strategy discussions. The Two Plus Two Pokercast is also a good listen (although I’ll sometimes skip some segments when the show runs two-plus hours). The Ante Up! guys are still cranking ’em out, and their show remain just about the only one out there that focuses primarily on the amateur player. I also always catch Big Poker Sundays. Was sorry to hear that Haralabos Voulgaris is no longer co-hosting, but Scott Huff will certainly be able to carry on without him. Huff had Shane “Shaniac” Schleger as a guest co-host on the most recent show. Wouldn’t be bad at all if he decided to do the show on a regular basis, as Shaniac is (in my opinion) a thoughtful, funny commentator.

I can also currently recommend Wise Hand Poker and the Gamblers Book Club Podcast. I’ve opined before here about Gary Wise’s abilities as an interviewer. If you are at all interested in a guest of his, I’d definitely recommend checking him out. Howard Schwartz does a terrific job interviewing guests on the Gamblers Book Club show as well, and he brings in a lot of folks from both poker and other areas of gambling (mostly authors) whom you might not hear on other podcasts.

Finally, let me belatedly announce that the Beyond the Table guys have made a comeback with a new episode, titled “The Resurrection.” Funny as ever. Click here to read my write-up of the new episode over on Pokerati. I believe they do plan to revive BTT here going forward. I think I heard at least one more episode has been done, so keep an eye out for more from Karridy, Pokerati Dan, Tom Schneider, and Sit-N-Go Steve.

With regard to the Hard-Boiled Poker Radio Show, it has been a while since the last episode, but I have intentions to create more episodes. Have already planned out the ninth show, but just haven’t had time to get to it. This delay gives all-a-youse who haven’t heard the show yet time to go back and listen to the previous eps. As I’ve mentioned before, these shows all feature stories and old radio shows devoted to poker and/or gambling, and none of them necessarily refer much to topics of the day -- hopefully meaning they don’t “date” they way other podcasts that deal more with current events do.

Here is a list of the eight episodes (linking to each):

Episode 1: Dead Man's Deal (4/1/08)
Episode 2: The Killer Cards (4/23/08)
Episode 3: Duffy's Tavern (5/15/08)
Episode 4: Hitchhike Poker (6/1/08)
Episode 5: The Queen of Spades (6/25/08)
Episode 6: The Ambassador of Poker (7/31/08)
Episode 7: Fibber McGee & Molly (8/21/08)
Episode 8: Aces and Eights (9/3/08)

You can read more about each over on the show’s blog.

Time for me to get back in the car, where I’ll probably dial up one of these here shows. Or perhaps Cookin’ with the Miles Davis Quintet.

The Object Lesson

Yesterday I played a little pot-limit Omaha ($25 max.) on one of the sites whose domain the Commonwealth of Kentucky is currently trying to block its residents from accessing -- or, failing that, to seize permanently. Sounds like Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate will be taking another week to think it all over before making a ruling in the matter.

My session started out so-so, then I picked up some chips and was up a ten spot when I ran into a hard luck hand. I was in the big blind where I picked up . Two players limped, the small blind folded, and I raised pot to $1.10. Both limpers called. The flop came . Kind of a crummy spot, really, as I have my set but probably can’t push out the draws from out of position. In fact, if someone has both the straight and flush draws, I’m probably a dog.

I bet $3.25 (nearly the pot), one player called, then the other reraised all in for $7.15. The middle position player had enough chips to bust me, but I went ahead and reraised pot to try to squeeze him out and it worked. He folded. My lone opponent then turned over for a lower set. Awesome. He had neither draw going, and was pretty much drawing to a single out.

But wait. There’s another way. The turn was the and the river the , and he’d made a straight to take the pot.

That erased my profit and put me a little in the red. Played a little while longer, crossing the 200-hand mark, and lost a little more. Was wanting to go but now had that irrational urge most of us have experienced to get “back to quits.”

I had multiple reasons to leave, then. I’d been playing longer than usual -- indeed, while I haven’t the stats to back it up, I am certain my win rate during the first 200 hands of a session crushes whatever it might be afterwards. And I was a little cranky from having had my rockets shot down mid-flight.

Then came the hand that I really wanted to tell you about.

I know I make mistakes as frequently as any player of my modest skills does. Some are costly, some not. But one error I never make is reading the board incorrectly. Well, almost never.

Got in a hand from the small blind with . Two players limped, I completed, and the BB checked. The flop then came . It checked around to the button who put in a pot-sized bet of $0.95. Seeing my draw, I called, and the others folded. The turn was the , giving me my straight. I promptly bet out $2.50. My opponent just as promptly raised to $10.30. I happily pushed all in, thinking not only did I have the straight, but the flush draw, too! Yes, somewhere deep in the recesses of my mind, the word “freerolling” was floating around.

Just about the time I’d pushed, I’d saw what I’d done. You saw it, I’m sure. Didn’t you?

Of course my opponent has the jack-ten. Completely missed it. And to rub things in, he had the nut diamond flush draw, too! Damn. Even better than freerolling. I was drawing dead.

Luckily I had him covered and so didn’t lose the whole stack. But I’d thrown away a good twenty clams or so for no reason other than fuzzy thinkin’ caused by fatigue and/or a dash of tilt. Embarrassin’, it was. Kind of like Elpenor in the Odyssey getting drunk and going to sleep on a roof, then waking up and falling off. A most ignoble death.

I managed to skedaddle shortly afterwards. Too bad for me that it took that hand to figure out my head was no longer in it.

We’re always relearnin’ these lessons, I guess. So I’m writin’ ’em down again here today to remind myself of these things (and perhaps you, too, dear reader). Sort of like Elpenor asking Odysseus to give him a proper burial when the hero encounters him in Hades in Book XI. Don’t chase your losses. Don’t let losin’ 90-10 situations get you down. Don’t play longer (or more tables) than you are comfortable with playing.

Oh, and if yr drinkin’ don’t fall asleep on roofs.

Kentucky Fried Court Case

Ever see The Kentucky Fried Movie? All-time fave. Came out in 1977, brainchild of the same crazies who’d go on to do Airplane!, Top Secret!, and The Naked Gun. Buncha hilarious R-rated skits lampooning 70s pop culture.

Somewhere in there comes a trailer for a faux disaster flick -- in the tradition of Towering Inferno and Earthquake -- called That’s Armageddon. Came to mind sometime mid-afternoon yesterday, about the time the Dow was down 800 points for the day.

As chaos reigns and the world crumbles down around them, a man and woman at some sort of romantic crossroads try to negotiate what to do next:

Man: What are you saying?
Woman: Leave her... come back to Montana with me.
Man: I could no sooner run away from her than myself.
Woman: I’m not asking you to run, I’m asking you to face reality!
Man: Whose reality, yours or mine?
Woman: My reality AND yours, that’s whose!
Man: What are you saying?
Woman: Leave her... Come back to Montana with me!
Man: I could no sooner run away from her than myself!
Woman: I’m not asking you to run, I’m asking you to face reality!
Man: Whose reality, yours or mine?
Woman: My reality AND yours, that’s whose!
Man: What are you saying?

The trailer is only a couple of minutes long, but we come back to them again later. They’re still stuck in the same loop.

One assumes sincere efforts will be made to face reality this morning at 9:30 a.m. in a Franklin County Courthouse in Frankfort, KY. That’s when Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate will once again hear the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet’s argument that they should be allowed to seize 141 domains hosting online gambling sites -- including some of our favorites -- if those sites refuse to block Kentucky residents’ access. (Incidentally, a couple of sites have apparently already pulled out of Kentucky, including Goldencasino.com.)

Various others should be on hand as well to argue the opposite view that the Commonwealth of Kentucky doesn’t have jurisdiction here over the domains, and thus to allow such a seizure would be unconstitutional.

An emergency “summit” was held yesterday afternoon at the Capital Plaza Hotel in Frankfort for groups opposed to the seizure of the domains to get together to discuss today’s hearing. The summit was hosted by the Bluegrass Institute, a non-partisan group that describes itself as an “independent research and educational institution offering free-market solutions to Kentucky's most pressing problems.”

The summit brought together representatives of the Poker Players Alliance, the Internet Commerce Association, Interactive Media Entertainment & Gaming Associates, Americans for Tax Reform, among others. It is expected that these same folks will show up for this morning’s hearing, along with a lot of other interested parties, possibly including representatives of some of the online gamblinge sites currently hosted on the 141 domains in question.

I wrote a little about this attempted power play a couple of weeks ago when the news first hit. Still tend to think it would be highly unusual for this case not to be dismissed, but who knows, really?

Will be very curious to follow the news outta Frankfort today. The PPA’s “Selected Coverage of Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear’s Actions Against Internet Poker” should be a good place to go for the latest, I’m thinking.

Of course, these sort of end-of-the-world type threats seem to have been the norm for those of us who like to play online poker. For the last two years or so, anyhow. “Again?” we say, then shrug...

“That’s armageddon!”

Bill Collector: Senator Introduces Internet Skill Game Licensing and Control Act of 2008 (S. 3616)

Late last week, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) introduced yet another bill intended to temper the effects of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. His bill, called the Internet Skill Game Licensing and Control Act of 2008 (S. 3616), is designed to help fashion a licensing and regulatory framework for “internet skill games” such as poker.

The Poker Players Alliance has lauded the bill as “an exciting new development and welcome legislative proposal of which millions of American poker players can be proud.” Indeed, as far as online poker players are concerned, S. 3616 is a particularly attractive piece of legislation. No accident, as the PPA was in fact consulted in the drafting.

You can check out the 28-page bill here, or head over to PokerNews where Haley Hintze has already provided for us a useful summary and analysis of S. 3616. Also, the discussion over in the “Poker Legislation” forum at 2+2 is worthwhile, if yr lookin’ to learn more.

What is the significance of a bill being introduced in the Senate as opposed to being introduced in the House? Well, over in the House the 110th Congress has just about finished up all of its business. Meaning all of those bills still lingering in committees will have to be reintroduced (and thus renumbered) when the newly-elected 111st Congress reconvenes in January. That could well happen for some of the eight UIGEA-related bills currently on the table, but since all 435 seats of the House are up for grabs come November 4th, one never knows.

Meanwhile, the Senate is a so-called “continuing body” -- it never formally goes out of existence, so a bill introduced over there doesn’t fade away when Election Day rolls around.

All of which makes S. 3616 even more welcome, as it means all of these efforts we’ve seen in the House over the last year-and-a-half to counter the UIGEA won’t have been in vain. In fact, looking through S. 3616 one discovers how it seems to collect together various elements of several (not all) of the other eight UIGEA-related bills that have been introduced over in the House since the spring of 2007.

As the 110th Congress turns its attention away from legislating and toward campaigning, I thought it might be worthwhile to go back through and catalogue those House bills here, briefly noting along the way how the new Internet Skill Game Licensing and Control Act seems to relate to each.

UIGEA-related bills introduced in the House of Representatives (110th Congress)

1. The Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (H.R. 2046), a.k.a. the IGREA, was introduced by Barney Frank (D-MA) in April 2007. That’s the one that proposes instituting a comprehensive system of licensing online gambling sites. (Full discussion here.) This new Senate bill certainly resembles Frank’s bill, although it pointedly excludes sports betting from its scope of “Internet Skill Games.” Like the IGREA, the new bill outlines in detail the process a site must go through to obtain a license to operate an online gambling operation, and like Frank’s bill this one also allows for states and Indian tribes to opt out and not allow its residents to obtain licenses (which certainly would be a concern for some us, depending on where we live). There are also the same provisions in there requiring licensed sites to prevent minors and problem gamblers from playing, to protect their customers from fraud, and to ensure tax obligations are met.

2. In early May 2007, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) introduced the Internet Gambling Study Act (H.R. 2140). This was the bill designed to fund a comprehensive study of online gambling by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Such a study would likely be useful for gathering support for something like S. 3616, although if a bill like Berkeley’s were to come up again, it would likely take at least a couple of years for the study to be conducted.

3. In June 2007, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced the Internet Gambling Regulation and Tax Enforcement Act (H.R. 2607), designed to amend the IRS tax code to regulate and tax online gambling. The new Senate bill -- like Frank’s IGREA -- does specify that in order for a site to obtain a license it must institute “Reasonable mechanisms to ensure that all taxes relating to Internet skill games payable to Federal and State governments and to Indian tribes are collected as required by law.” Of course, as Haley points out, the extent to which these “skill games” are taxable is perhaps a matter for debate.

4. Also in June 2007, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced the Skill Game Protection Act (H.R. 2610) designed to create a “carve out” for skill games such as “bridge, mah-jong, backgammon, and poker.” This was the first UIGEA-related House bill to refer specifically to poker, and it is clear that the new Senate bill has borrowed the idea of creating special provisions for skill games from H.R. 2610.

5. In April 2008, following a House hearing in which representatives of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Department of Treasury made it clear that finalizing the UIGEA regulations looked to be a fairly hopeless task to achieve, Barney Frank introduced H.R. 5767, a bill specifically designed 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. This one gathered a little bit of momentum, but didn’t survive a vote of the House Financial Services Committee in June. The new Senate bill obviously takes a different approach. Of course, those regulations for the UIGEA are still waiting to be finalized, but if S. 3616 were to be made law, online poker would not be affected should that day come.

6. In July 2008, Jim McDermott tried again with something called the Investing in our Human Resources Act of 2008 (H.R. 6501). The idea here was to amend the Social Security Act in a way that allowed for online gambling to be regulated and taxed, with the created revenue then being used to bolster our social security system. Not really something that S. 3616 bothers to address, although I suppose it could come up as an amendment later on.

7. In late July 2008, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) gave us the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Clarification and Implementation Act of 2008 (H.R. 6663) which ostensibly was intended to serve as a mechanism for sorting through some of the UIGEA’s general opacity. You might remember how this one seemed to want to draw some distinctions between the PartyPokers of the world who left the U.S. following the UIGEA’s passage into law and those other sites who remained. I responded to this one with a bit of cynicism, suggesting it actually clarified very little. (The PPA didn’t like it much, either.) For my money, the new Senate bill does a lot more clarifying than did H.R. 6663, especially from the online poker player’s perspective.

8. Finally, last month Barney Frank introduced the Payments System Protection Act of 2008 (H.R. 6870), which I thought was probably a more politically-savvy attempt at doing what his previous “UIGEA prohibition” bill (H.R. 5767) had tried to do. Again, this isn’t the tactic chosen by Menendez’ bill -- i.e., essentially to block the finalization of the UIGEA regs -- but as I say above if S. 3616 were to become law, we online poker players wouldn’t be worrying so much about the UIGEA anymore.

Something to look forward to, then, although we all know that if any bill like S. 3616 were to make it through the Senate and then the House, only one of our two presidential candidates could be counted on to sign the sucker into law. (For a clue, note the party affiliation of most of those proposing these bills.)

Newman’s Cool Hand

I imagine most responded to news of Paul Newman’s death last week by thinking back to particular films in which he appeared. With such a long, impressive résumé, it’d be hard for anyone who watches movies even casually not to be familiar with at least a few of ’em.

I suppose my list of faves ain’t too far removed from that of most others, with Cool Hand Luke (1967) and Slap Shot (1976) at the top, and The Hustler (1961) not too far behind.

Got a kick out of George Roy Hill’s The Sting (1973), too, though wouldn’t necessarily rate it an “all-time” best film (as some do). A terrific “popcorn” movie, however, that consistently entertains without necessarily giving one more nourishing “food” for thought. Besides, I’m a sucker for both the period (1930s) and the subject (grifting, writ small and large), from which much of the hard-boiled fiction I like comes, too.

While the film as a whole is not specifically about poker, The Sting contains what many consider one of the all-time best poker scenes in movie history. There are several fun, memorable moments along the way as the film relates its clever story of how con men Henry Gondorff (Newman) and Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) set up an elaborate scheme to get even with mob boss Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw). But the scene in which Gondorff successfully outhustles Lonnegan in a game of five-card draw in some ways transcends the entire story, succinctly conveying in five short minutes the movie’s entire raison d'être.

Like I say, many cite the scene as an especially good poker scene. David Spanier singles it out for praise in his chapter in Total Poker about poker and gambling in movies. (Spanier also happens to highlight The Hustler in that chapter as a quintessential cinematic exploration of lessons that apply to poker, despite the fact that it is not a poker film.) Why is it such a good poker scene? I can think of a few reasons.

Shaw and Newman both play it well, although in some respects it isn’t the sort of scene that demands too much from the actors. The scene does function to help move the film’s twisty plot along, but it also provides a perfect setting in which to dramatize the characters’ relationships with one another. In other words, unlike in a lot of films that feature poker, here the game is well-integrated into the narrative as a whole.

The main reason why I like the scene, though, is how it involves the audience. Some have taken issue with the way it doesn’t “play fair” with viewers, since we never see exactly how Henry switches out his hand, somehow getting rid of the quad treys that had been dealt to him from the cold deck to show down the quad jacks. We know he came to the game armed with an extra deck of his own, but we don’t actually get to see him remove the treys and introduce the jacks into his hand (as we see Lonnegan do underneath his side of the table.)

But, really. Not playing fair is what this entire film is about, yes? Thus are we almost as surprised as Lonnegan -- and his lackey (check out his expression in the pic above).

Also enjoyable here -- again, something true of much of The Sting -- is the way the scene affords the opportunity for actors to act like they’re acting. (Something else generally provided for by poker scenes.) Gotta love the way Newman plays Henry’s indignation when Lonnegan, faced with having to pay 15 grand to the man who’s proven to be the better cheater, says he left his wallet in his room -- a situation made all the more grin-producing since Gondorff and his colleagues had stolen the wallet just before!

I could say more, but here . . . just take a look for yourself:

WSOPE Final Table Today: A Demidov Double

Can’t say I’ve really followed the World Series of Poker Europe all that closely. I have checked in from time to time over on PokerNews to read some of the live reports, and I’ll certainly be checking in again today to see how that final table of that £10,000 No-Limit Hold’em event goes.

I can’t speak for how things are over on the other side of the pond, but here in America us Yanks are pretty well distracted by a whole heckuva lot of other stuff at the moment. Thus only a tiny percentage of the most ardent poker buffs are even checking in to see who is winning what over in London this week.

One part of the WSOPE story I was curious about from a long ways back was to see how many of the so-called “November Nine” would be making the trip over there. I wrote a post about that subject back in May around the time the WSOPE schedule was first announced. There I speculated that the WSOP Main Event final table hype machine would surely make a point to ship most if not all nine of those guys over to London to get ’em some extra publicity as we ramp up to the final table in November.

Got some inside dope shortly after I posted that, and discovered that when the WSOP made the decision to delay the Main Event final table, they hadn’t even considered that the WSOPE would be coming up in the interval and that there could be some marketing possibilities to be exploited there.

I’ve listened to a few interviews with the November Nine over the last few weeks, and most sounded as though they wished mostly to lay low during these 117 days. Heard both chip leader Dennis Phillips and Darus Suharto over on Phil Gordon’s The Poker Edge, and neither sounded too interested in playing a lot of poker in public during these four months.

Took a few moments yesterday to scan through PokerNews’ chip counts for each of the four WSOPE events to see how many November Niners appear. While not everyone who enters the events gets listed in the chip counts, I’m guessing that all nine of the final tablists -- Dennis Phillips, Ivan Demidov, Scott Montgomery, Peter Eastgate, Ylon Schwartz, Darus Suharto, David Rheem, Craig Marquis, Kelly Kim -- would have been tracked.

So with that disclaimer in mind, here’s what I’m seeing in the counts:

In Event 1, the £1,500 No-Limit Hold’em event, the only November Niner to appear there was Scott Montgomery (currently 3rd place at the WSOP ME). He busted on Day 1b.

In Event 2, the £2,500 H.O.R.S.E. event, Kelly Kim (currently 9th place at the WSOP ME) made it to Day 2, but busted shy of the poundage.

None of those waiting to play the World Series of Poker Main Event final table appear to have registered to play Event 3, the £1,500 Pot-Limit Omaha event.

Finally, six of the November Nine are shown playing in Event 4, the £10,000 No-Limit Hold’em event. Day 1a ended with two of them -- Ivan Demidov (2nd, WSOP ME) and Scott Montgomery -- in the top five. Both Peter Eastgate (4th) and Craig Marquis (8th) played that day as well, but neither made it through. Then David Rheem (7th) and Kelly Kim both made it through Day 1b. Of those four, only Ivan Demidov survived to Day 3. He was 14th out of 67 players left entering play on Tuesday.

Demidov had a good Day 3 and ended the day right in the middle of the pack with 24 players left. And he hung on through the day yesterday, too, and sits in 3rd place with nine players remaining, giving him the undeniably impressive distinction of having made the final tables of both WSOP Main Events this year.

So it looks like there wasn’t any special effort to get those guys over there, but then again, WSOP/Harrah’s maintained all along that they weren’t going to make any of those making the final table do anything they didn’t want to.

But with Ivan Demidov still alive, there’s a real opportunity here. Gotta believe WSOP officials, Harrah’s, and ESPN are going to be pulling hard for Demidov to take the sucker down today, as that would certainly spark some extra interest in the ME final table that perhaps isn’t there at present. (Having John Juanda, Scott Fischman, and Daniel Negreanu there ain’t so bad, either.)

Too bad there are no plans (of which I am aware, anyway) to show the WSOPE final table here in the States anytime soon. If somehow they could’ve managed it to air it prior to November 9th, that might’ve added some seriously needed hype to the delayed WSOP ME final table.

In any event, I’ll admit to being a bit more interested in the WSOPE final table that I would’ve been otherwise. Follow along over on PokerNews, starting at 1:00 p.m. London time (that’s 8:00 a.m. Eastern, I believe).

Hamilton, UltimateBet, & the WSOP

“Former World Series of Poker Main Event Champ Implicated in Online Poker Cheating Scandal.”

Doesn’t sound too good, does it? I mean, we might complain about other champs having come up short in various ways when it comes to fulfilling our (probably unreasonable) expectations for them to serve as the game’s “ambassadors.”

But this.... Sheesh. Talk about a failure to respect the game.

Can’t say I’d really thought all that much about Russ Hamilton before this summer when his name came up in connection with the simmering UltimateBet insider cheating scandal. I remember at the time thinking back to having seen ESPN’s coverage of the 1994 World Series of Poker Main Event which Hamilton had won. That was one of those for which Dick Van Patten provided the commentary.

The other reason for remembering that particular program (on YouTube here) was the fact that Jack Binion had that year promised the winner the additional prize of his weight in silver to commemorate the WSOP’s 25th anniversary. Hamilton was (by far) the heaviest player at the final table at over 300 pounds.

I’ve read various stories about Hamilton having purposely gained 100-plus lbs. and/or loaded his pockets with $2K worth of silver dollars for the weigh-in. Not really sure how valid either tale is, actually. About a month before the ugliness popped up this summer, Tom Sexton wrote an account over on PokerNews of the story of Hamilton’s claiming the 43-silver bar bonus (worth about $28,000).

The bit about the weigh-in -- mythical or not -- had the effect of tagging Hamilton as an angle shooter. So when the rumors surfaced in July that Hamilton, as a consultant-slash-possible part-owner of UltimateBet, had some involvement in the scandal, that reputation (deserved or not) probably didn’t help him. Some sleuths had connected Hamilton to some of the implicated accounts used for the cheating, and for about a week there right at the end of the WSOP it was all the buzz.

Barry Greenstein appeared on the July 16th episode of PokerRoad Radio to summarize a two-hour conversation he’d had with Hamilton. Sort of a pseudo-interview, as Hamilton was being advised by his lawyers not to talk. Was a little tedious to listen to, as I recall, but there were a couple of nuggets in there. One was Hamilton professing to Greenstein that when everything came out a couple of months, names would be named, and he wouldn’t be one of them. So much for that.

Greenstein sounded like he wanted to believe his friend. (EDIT [added 10/2/08]: Or rather, “acquaintance” -- see comment below.) Nonetheless, the Bear said he did think Hamilton most certainly at least knew the guilty party or parties, even if he didn’t seem to know a lot about the day-to-day operations of UltimateBet.

The other interesting item that came up in that interview was Greenstein’s account of a conversation he had had with Phil Hellmuth. Hellmuth is, of course, UB’s most prominent spokesperson, a role he purportedly was recruited for by Hamilton back in the day.

Greenstein spoke about having talked previously with Hellmuth about the scandals at UB, and used the word “oblivious” to describe the Poker Brat’s reactions to suggestions that the problems might negatively affect his image. Greenstein was/is not alone in having that opinion about Hellmuth.

However, when Greenstein asked Hellmuth about Hamilton shortly after the stories about the 1994 champ’s possible involvement in the cheating had surfaced, the Bear says Hellmuth appeared “sheepish” -- the first time in the nearly 20 years he’d known Hellmuth that he’d ever seen him that way. Despite the fact that we’re several removes from what was actually going down, one got the sense that Greenstein was suggesting that when Hamilton’s name became associated with the thing, the Eleven-Star General of the UB Army suddenly seemed marginally less oblivious to the situation.

Then yesterday came that presser from the Kahnawake Gaming Commission unambiguously singling out Hamilton as “the main person responsible for and benefiting from the multiple cheating incidents” that occurred on the site from mid-2004 to early 2008. The release says UB has already refunded $6.1 million to affected players, and that the site will recommence handing out more refunds in early November. Then, as we saw earlier with Absolute Poker, the KGC lists a number of sanctions UltimateBet must abide by in order to retain its gaming permit from the Commission.

My initial response on hearing the news was surprise -- and a bit of disbelief -- at the singling out of Hamilton here, although the release does also say other “individuals” were involved. That is, he was the ringleader of the operation, according to the Commission’s audit.

Then I thought about Hellmuth’s reaction (as conveyed by Greenstein), as well as Annie Duke’s PokerNews interview back in July in which she earnestly defended the company and its new ownership. (Wrote a bit on that here.)

Yesterday’s news cannot be good for either Hellmuth or Duke, one would imagine. While neither spokesperson is apparently guilty of any wrongdoing, their friendship with Hamilton -- and apparent knowledge of his involvement well before yesterday’s report -- certainly doesn’t help ’em, image-wise, I wouldn’t think.

Meanwhile, that 60 Minutes piece looms. And here we are, six weeks from the final table of the WSOP Main Event. Which Hamilton won, fourteen years ago....

Are we starting to get an idea how that might spin?

(EDIT [added 10/1/08]: Just heard on this week’s Two Plus Two Pokercast that the 60 Minutes piece on the scandals at Absolute Poker & UltimateBet is scheduled to air on Sunday, October 26th -- exactly two weeks before the WSOP Main Event restart.)