Now Tell Me Something I Don’t Know
October 26, 2006 at 4:53 pm | In Psychology | Leave a Commentby John Vorhaus
First published in Poker Player
Here’s a little item I recently spotted in that bastion of hard news in America, USA Today:
PREDATORS PREFER DIMWITTED PREY Chimps and large predatory cats are more likely to target dimwitted prey less capable of escaping attack, a new study reports.
The researchers focused on predators from Africa and South America such as chimpanzees, jaguars, leopards and pumas.
To determine whether these hunters were biased towards certain types of prey, the scientists compared how often a prey species appeared in the wild with how often it turned up in the diets of the predators.
The results suggest prey with small brains relative to their body size, such as mongooses, the red river hog and certain small antelope, were hunted more often than prey with larger brains. Among all the prey species considered, primates, which have large brains compared to most other mammals, were targeted the least.
Yeah? May I just say: No sh*t, Sherlock. Any half-decent poker player can tell you that the law of the jungle — survival of the fittest — is the only law that matters in poker. And how do the fit survive? By preying on the weak! The small stack. The loose caller. The timorous titmouse who will fold to a reraise bluff. Success in poker is directly measured as a function of who has the best brain — plus heart, courage and a whole lot of other Wizard of Ozian qualities — and the best brains know to punish and pummel their dim bulb foes first.
This is where the whole concept of “dead money” comes from in tournament poker. It’s a given that in any tournament field there’s a fixed percentage of players who simply don’t know what they’re doing. For the rest of us (you, me, and that canny chimpin- a-chair over there), our job is simple: prey on that loose, dead money and scoop up as much of it as we can before the other smart predators beat us to it. Thus, while it’s true that, “patience is precious when chips are cheap,” it doesn’t do to be too patient in a tournament’s early stage. If you are, you’ll find yourself treading water while other, tougher players are building big stacks.
Next thing you know, you’re not predator, you’re prey. Not good. Think about this next time you go into a tournament determined to “survive.” Make sure you’re not confusing survival with “lasting a long time,” and make sure that your game plan includes at least a decent set of tactics for preying on the weak minds you find. Be prepared to steal blinds. Be prepared to reraise bluff. Be prepared to blow some smoke with your image, so that if the cards cooperate and bring you the right hand at the right time (a little thing we call situational luck) you’ll be able to convince some dim bulb pumpkin to pay you off. In other words, give yourself a decent chance to win the tournament, and give yourself that shot from the start, even at the cost, sometimes, of an early exit from the field.
Also be aware of the dangerous cats around you. Know who’s capable of bold, tricky moves, and who is not. It’s easy to know this stuff, you know. Just watch your table’s play for half an hour, and then try to categorize each player at your table as “tricky” or “straightforward.” You won’t, I promise, be too far wrong. Then attack the straightforward players, avoid the tricky ones, build your stack, and move ahead. It’s simple, really. When you think about it, successful poker play, and successful tournament play, and even successful life in the wild, really just boils down to this:
Don’t Challenge The Strong, Challenge The Weak.
That’s What They’re There For.
Online Gambling Bill Backlash: George Will Speaks Out in ‘Prohibition II’
October 23, 2006 at 5:01 pm | In Uncategorized | Leave a Commentby Haley Hintze
First published in PokerNews
The extent to which the religious right usurped the American political process with its illicit passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act [UIGEA] has had an unforeseen effect — the opening of a schism between fiscal and religious conservatives. One of the leading lights of conservative economic thought, George F. Will, has now checked in with his thoughts on the matter.
The Oct. 23 issue of Newsweek features Will’s eye-opening condemnation, entitled “Prohibition II: Good Grief.” In the piece, Will not only notes the rampant nanny-state religious paternalism that drives the act, but clarifies just how destructive the new act is likely to be, both monetarily and to the respect of government that defines American society. Will also examines why the UIGEA is going to make a lot of people rich, from hypocritical state governments and pari-mutuel industries who constructed walls protecting their own profits from the exact same gambling behavior, to the offshore businesses that will bill benefit as the online gambling industry reconfigures itself around the ban.
Will surely understands what the UIGEA’s authors are simply unable to comprehend; online gambling just isn’t going to go away, short-term triumph for the far right this measure seems to be. In reading, one senses that the billions in London Stock Exchange market equity laid waste by this bill’s signing are anathema to the thoughts of free-market capitalists, of whom Will is a champion.
And finally, Will, with his deep sense of historical perspective, points out just how un-American the UIGEA is. Will assails the government for “its mother-hen agenda of putting a saddle and bridle on the Internet,” just as he rails against the “the speech police [who] are itching to bring bloggers under campaign-finance laws that control the quantity, content and timing of political discourse.”
Will’s summation drives home the point that not only is the UIGEA wrong, it’s wrong by centuries: “Gambling is, however, as American as the Gold Rush or, for that matter, Wall Street. George Washington deplored the rampant gambling at Valley Forge, but lotteries helped fund his army as well as Harvard, Princeton and Dartmouth. And Washington endorsed the lottery that helped fund construction of the city that now bears his name, and from which has come a stern—but interestingly selective—disapproval of gambling.”
Neteller ‘Updates’ Its Position on the Online Gambling Bill
October 21, 2006 at 4:21 pm | In Legal Issues | 8 Commentsby John Caldwell
First published in PokerNews
E-wallet company Neteller issued a statement announcing a modification in their policy toward Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). The company, which processes a significant amount of the online poker, and online gambling transactions from the U.S. indicated they are going to abide by the rules of the act, but will continue to do business as usual until the rules of the act are written by the Treasury Department. The Treasury Department has a 270 day window to issue the rules by which the financial providers must adhere to.
“NETELLER, a company registered outside the US, will comply with the Act and its related regulations as if it were subject to the Act’s jurisdiction. This action is intended to ensure that the Company is able to continue to operate with the support of its principal commercial partners and to protect its shareholders, business partners, employees and reputation.” The company said in its statement.
However, the company also said it will continue to conduct business as usual with U.S. customers for the 270 day window, or until the rules are clearly defined.
“In the interim, US-resident customers are able to use the NETELLER service as normal. The funds of US-resident customers are held in trust accounts and will be available for withdrawal, on demand. The ability to withdraw funds will exist regardless of the customer’s location or ability to transfer to any site.”
The rules in the UGIEA are not yet clear as to what responsibilities non-U.S. based companies like Neteller would have. However, if the company views itself as a U.S. financial institution for the purposes of this act, one would assume the company would have to stop taking transactions from U.S. based customers that direct toward online gambling companies.
If, as it turns out Neteller would stop doing business with U.S. customers, it could have a devastating impact in the short term on the players abilities to fund accounts. Certainly, solutions will pop up to give players options to fund online gambling accounts, but many of these new solutions may not have the financial stability and reputation of a publicly traded company like Neteller.
Some in the gaming community see this as a natural action, with Neteller simply announcing they are going to comply with any rules before they actually have to be bound by the statement, in an effort to not fly in the face of U.S. authorities.
Stay tuned to PokerNews.com for more updates on the legislation, and reaction from the companies and people affected by this pending law.
The UIGEA’s Conservative Backlash Begins
October 21, 2006 at 4:19 pm | In Legal Issues | Leave a Commentby Amy Calistri
First published in PokerNews
If Senator Bill Frist thought that the inclusion of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) into the Safe Port Act would play well to the conservative base, he may have miscalculated. Today’s New York Times Opinion-Editorial page featured a lengthy piece by Charles Murray entitled, “The G.O.P.’s Bad Bet.” Murray is a scholar at the conservative think tank, The American Enterprise Institute, and the author of the controversial book, The Bell Curve.
Murray points out that the UIGEA not only erodes the Republicans chances this fall, but also will damage American’s respect for the rule of law. He points out that the bill catered to the few Americans that had an issue with online gaming without taking into account the millions they have now outraged; millions, he speculates, that are disproportionately Republicans and Reagan Democrats.
Murray compares the UIGEA with Prohibition and other current regulatory laws that are problematic to law abiding citizens and corporations, “not because they cut into profits, but because they are simply, stupid.” He further argues that Americans are less inclined to obey stupid laws that are unenforceable and notes that in this respect, “the attempt to ban online gambling is exemplary.” He notes that American’s “reflexive loyalty” to the rule of law is one of our country’s key assets and that it is irreparably damaged by laws like the UIGEA.
The American Institute is one of the most influential conservative think tanks, affecting a number of key public policy issues within the Bush administration. More than two dozen AEI alumni have served in a Bush administration policy posts or served on government commissions. So it is almost like harsh criticism from within when Murray summarizes the UIGEA by saying, “And so the federal government once again has acted in a way that will fail to achieve its objective while alienating large numbers of citizens who see themselves as having done nothing wrong.”
The statement might be some what more surprising if Charles Murray didn’t confess that he plays poker on four different internet sites. But in that respect he makes his case; he is just one more member of the conservative base who feels alienated and disillusioned by the new law.
U.S. Justice Dept. Officials Continue Push for Increased Net-Monitoring
October 21, 2006 at 4:16 pm | In Legal Issues | Leave a Commentby Haley Hintze
First published in PokerNews
The rights of online poker players came under an additional, if indirect, threat on Wednesday when FBI Director Robert Mueller called on Internet service providers to record and store records of their customers’ online activities to a greater degree than that currently mandated by law. The move, part of the greater battle between governmental control and the freedom and flow of information that the Internet represents, is likely to trigger fierce debate as privacy and law-enforcement concerns butt heads in a legal battle that’s now expected to occur early in 2007.
The end-of-session flurry of activity precluded such a user-monitoring measure from being enacted in recent weeks, although the U.S. Justice Department did try to sneak it by in a manner similar to that used for the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act [UIGEA]. According to a CNetNews.com article, ‘Justice Department officials admit privately that data retention’ [the term used for the proposed practice] ‘legislation is controversial enough that there wasn’t time to ease it through the U.S. Congress before politicians left to campaign for re-election.’
Data retention, as proposed by FBI Director Mueller, various states’ attorneys general and legislators such as Colorado’s U.S. representative Diane DeGette, takes one of two forms. The first is to require ISPs, ’social’ network sites and search engines to log and store for a year or two the identifying IP [Internet Protocol] address of each user. The second proposed form is broader and even more offensive to civil-liberties purists, requiring companies to record and store the identities of e-mail correspondents, instant-messaging logs and users, and the addresses of web pages visited.
As expected, the Justice Department seized on the extreme examples of Internet misuse to justify the erosion of civil liberties, citing child pornography, terrorism and money laundering. Readers will remember that last item used as justification for the UIGEA’s passage as well, despite the fact that documented cases of massive revenues from an online poker site being part of a laundered-money scheme, as of this date, number exactly zero.
What’s ignored is the fact that technologies already exist to circumvent much of the control that data-retention legislation is designed to put in place, and it’s a safe bet that the more egregious the violators, the more likely they are — as a group — to use these already existing tools. One example is that of anonymizing web browsers, such as Torpark, which re-route or otherwise obfuscate an Internet user’s real identity; these browsers are certainly in use by criminal elements but are gaining a much wider mainstream audience, a direct response to some of the extreme freedom-restricting measures being enacted by the U.S. and a few other governments.
Few online poker players realize that the ISP-blocking provisions of the UIGEA are already of little value should an online player choose to circumvent then. Poker sites already exist that are based on Shockwave Flash technology, and when one combines the way these sites work with the data-encrypting capabilities of a Torpark-style web browser, the IP addresses of both the user and the online site are encrypted and never make it to the point at the user’s home ISP where address blocking would occur.
It’s true, though, that this type of technical workaround would take significant time to penetrate down to the average player, if it ever became a standard method at all. Many players lack the technical comprehension to understand how and why these things work, while another player population — mostly casual players — are unlikely to ever go to the bother.
Data-retention laws make common sense on the surface, as no one wants to see child pornographers or terrorists using the Internet for such purposes. However, it’s the making of data storage mandatory, imposing such extreme time requirements — up to two years — and the forcing of yet another non-funded mandate onto the private sector that has freedom-of-information defenders up in arms.
It’s a situation with no easy answer, and more countries than just the U.S. are wrestling with what is almost universally viewed by governments as the need for Internet control. No matter the form that the data-retention legislation takes, it’s sure to spark a hot debate, and this time online poker players have a vested interest in determining where the line between supervision and censorship should be drawn.
What You can do to Support Online Poker
October 17, 2006 at 9:10 pm | In Legal Issues | 1 Commentby Stephen Noh
First published in PokerNews
Whether you are a casual poker player, professional, or simply an interested spectator in American politics, the recent passage of the Port Security Bill should have been met with outrage. However, while it was unfortunate that the bill was passed in the first place, you should not feel powerless; we as a poker community still have methods available to weaken the power of this bill.
Possibly the most effective method to voice your displeasure is to write a personalized letter to your local representative. While the prospect of writing a letter may seem intimidating and pointless, it is actually the complete opposite – Congressmen take these letters seriously; their job is to serve their local constituents (you), and taking the time out to write a letter shows that the issue is important enough that it could potentially win them a vote during the upcoming election season.
Also, although writing a letter may seem cumbersome, it is actually quite easy to do. If you don’t know who your representatives are, there is a good tool for this at visi.com where all you need to do is enter your zip code. Once you have the contact info for your congressmen, write a short, to the point personalized letter explaining why you feel the way you do. Be sure to include your name and contact info, which bill you are talking about (HR 4954) and your stance on it. It is better to include facts to support your opinion rather than personal emotions, and there are plenty of viable facts on why this bill should not be supported. Just a few include:
Another good method to reverse this bill is to attract attention through your local media. The PPA has an excellent tool on it’s website which makes creating a personalized letter to the editor of your local newspaper quite short and easy. Getting mainstream people informed will help poker players’ cause because, frankly, the large majority of Americans are on our side. The problem, however, is that they do not even realize that online poker is in danger. Enlisting their support and educating them about the passage of the bill through mainstream media outlets could provide a huge advantage in getting online poker back on track.
Finally, go out and vote for the representative that you feel will represent the issues you care about the most! Election day is November 7th, and your representatives are doing anything in their power to secure your vote. Taking less than 15 minutes out of your day to contact those with power may help ensure your right to practice online the game that takes a minute to learn but a lifetime to master.
Online Satellite Winners ‘Most Likely Not’ Accepted For 2007 WSOP
October 15, 2006 at 5:01 pm | In Legal Issues | 5 Commentsby Haley Hintze
First published in PokerNews
The online-satellite pipeline to the Main Event at the WSOP found itself clogged in a major way this past week, as word leaked out from Harrah’s Entertainment, owners of the World Series of Poker, that they will no longer accept third-party registrations on behalf of player who won their seats through satellites on online sites. A large majority of the 8,773 players who participated in the 2006 Main Event qualified in this manner, and in combination with the passing of the UIGEA and several sites’ withdrawal from the U.S. market, all but ensures that the WSOP will have significantly smaller participation numbers in 2007.
One of the first public mentions of the change was by Phil Gordon, who talked about the communication on his “The Poker Edge” program, co-hosted with Andrew Feldman on ESPN Radio. Gordon, one of the celebrity endorsers for Full Tilt Poker, suggested that the change will eliminate perhaps 75% of the Main Event entrants, predicting that 2,200 players might be a reasonable expectation for 2007. That said, the WSOP change Gordon referred to seems largely unconnected to a mailing from Full Tilt this week telling winners of recent online qualifiers that if the event the player qualified for was based in the U.S., the player would need to accept a cash-equivalent deposit into his or her account, or attend a non-U.S. event instead, with events in Niagara Falls (Canada) and Dublin (Ireland) among those mentioned. The Full Tilt mailing inferred that the larger gaming changes caused by the pending passage of the UIGEA were responsible for the move.
The new Harrah’s policy remains unofficial as of this writing, and the initial word went out to only the largest sites, rather than all those that had sent online qualifiers to the WSOP in 2006. However, Pokernews.com can confirm that the new rules will become official in the near future. Gary Thompson, Director of the World Series of Poker, told us via e-mail “While we’re still reviewing registration requirements, it’s likely we will accept third-party registrations from entities such as charitable and civic organizations and offline tribal and commercial casinos in the U.S. and abroad with whom we have licensing agreements to conduct WSOP satellites, as well as entities for which we have sponsorship agreements that run contests for their customers. We most likely will not be accepting third-party registrations from other entities.”
Reaction from online sites was mixed. The site sending the most players to the WSOP for the last several years, Poker Stars, did not have a reply in time for inclusion in this report. Bodog Founder and CEO Calvin Ayre acknowledged the change but chose to accentuate the positive, offering this: “No matter what, players will continue to hone their poker skills at online sites such as Bodog.com. To this end, we will continue to develop world champion poker players, such as Team Bodog s 2006 WSOP winner Jamie Gold, who will continue to dominate land-based poker tournaments.”
Word began to trickle down to the smaller sites as well, such as Australia-based Poker.com, which sent 18 of its own players to the 2006 Main Event, then picked up the sponsorship tab for three more Main Event qualifiers from an unconnected site, Check n Raise Poker, when that site ran into cash-flow difficulties and defaulted on its promise to send those qualifiers to the WSOP. Poker.com’s Head of Affiliate Marketing, Paul Cherry, opined that there still might be workarounds for sending players to the WSOP. “I can’t see it being a real problem,” said Cherry, “it just means the player will have to fill out the pre-registration forms and submit them him/herself. Surely we can still do the wire for them. If not, we just give the money to the player and they can pay.”
Still, even the optimistic Cherry conceded that a new era for the WSOP is at hand. “There is one thing for certain; the 2006 World Series of Poker was the
biggest poker tournament you will see for a long time.”
FirePay will not accept US online poker payments anymore
October 12, 2006 at 6:13 pm | In Legal Issues | Leave a CommentFirst published in Professional Poker
American online gamblers found a notification from the FirePay-FireOne e-cash processor in their accounts this week, advising them that once the U.S. President had signed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act 2006 into law, they would be unable to use the service to make transfers to online gambling merchants.
And online gambling merchants will have a 10 day window after the law comes into effect to settle up with players, after which transfers from gambling merchants will be declined.
The notification confirmed earlier announcements by FireOne parent group Optimal that once President Bush approves the Act, FirePay will no longer allow US consumer payments for online gambling merchants.
Beginning the day President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any purchase transactions from US FirePay account holders at any gambling merchant site.
Ten days after President Bush signs the Act, FirePay will decline any transfer attempt made by any online gambling merchant to a US FirePay account.
All US FirePay accounts holders will continue to be able to make purchases and receive payments from non-gambling, online merchants, as well as “Deposit From” and “Withdraw To” their US bank account.
The notification included a special note that “…..this new policy will not affect FirePay account holders from outside of the United States.” Readers with any questions regarding these deadlines or the US policy can email info@firepay.com, the advisory says.
Neteller Committed to Staying in the U.S. Market
October 12, 2006 at 6:12 pm | In Legal Issues | Leave a Commentby John Caldwell
First published in PokerNews
The passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act sent shockwaves through the online poker industry. Reactions ranged from ‘the sky is falling’ to ‘all is well’ as the industry analyzed the language of the bill, looking for what the true impact would be.
As time went on, and it became clear that the core emphasis of the bill was to prevent U.S. banks from taking gaming transactions. This fact made the big question – What are Neteller going to do?
Neteller is a company that provides financial transactions between consumers and third party vendors via the Internet. Most people that play poker online have Neteller accounts, and a great portion of the transactions that occur between players and online poker sites occur via Neteller.
Most players have had trouble in the past trying to fund via their banks long before the bill was even introduced to Congress, so Neteller has become a way of life for many online poker players.
So, if U.S. banks are forced via this law to stop taking gaming transactions, companies like Neteller would be a player’s only recourse if he or she were to want to continue playing.
It is a great relief to all in the business that Neteller’s Executive Vice President of Sales and Marketing Bruce Elliot told an audience of online gaming executives in Barcelona yesterday.
“We are staying in the U.S. I don’t think we have a problem.”
A PokerNews.com executive who is at the conference confirmed the news, and spoke to another top Neteller executive who confirmed “We are completely committed to the U.S.”.
The last two weeks have been a dizzying ride for most people in the online poker business, but the news over the last few days has mostly been positive toward the continued survival of the business. By no means is online poker ‘out of the woods’ with respect to possible troubling times ahead, but the commitment of Neteller to the U.S. market will put player’s minds more at ease.
Mainstream media highly critical of new US gambling bill
October 10, 2006 at 7:15 pm | In Legal Issues | Leave a CommentFirst published in Professional Poker
More and more reports are appearing in the mainstream media that are highly critical of the new US gambling bill and the way it passed through the Senate without any debate.
The Financial News asserts: “When a continental European country takes action to protect its industry from external competition, it is called economic nationalism. When the US does the same, we are meant to believe it is about preserving the fabric of society.”
The article goes on to suggest that investors in publicly quoted companies that suffered immediate and heavy losses as a result of the American political moves probably did not foresee the sector becoming a political victim of the forthcoming US congressional elections.
“For Republicans struggling to hold on to both houses, the gambling crackdown is an easy vote winner,” the FN commented. “The law’s backers may rail about the pernicious effects of online gambling, but they seem happy with gambling itself,” the FN points out.“Groups such as Las Vegas Sands, Harrah’s and MGM Mirage are world leaders. Yet there has been no bill proposed to congress calling for the demolition of Atlantic City or Las Vegas!”
The Las Vegas Sun published an article over the weekend that concluded the proposals rammed through Congress as it went into recess recently were more about politics than poker.
The newspaper quotes Internet gambling expert and Whittier Law School professor I. Nelson Rose, who joins other experts in criticizing the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act as a well-timed political maneuver:
“I don’t think (Senate Majority Leader) Bill Frist cares at all about Internet gambling, but he rammed (the bill) through at the last minute. That’s reprehensible, especially for ‘Mr. Values.’ One of the values of democracy is that people know what they are voting on.”
The Review Journal.com also joined the many publications voicing concern at the manner in which the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was steamrollered through Congress as a late attachment to a critical security bill recently.
Commenting on the folly of prohibition through legislation that targets leisure activity, the respected publication reports that proposer Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist was determined to please his religious right political base with a new law before November’s election, no matter how flawed or misguided it might be.
“The cause was so preposterous it couldn’t win passage as a stand-alone bill,” the Review says. “Sen. Frist first tried to attach the Internet gambling ban to a defense appropriations bill. No luck. So he slipped it into port security legislation that passed the House and Senate early Saturday.”
The article includes a quote from expert gambling attorney Tony Cabot, who says: “In order to get this bill passed, they (Republicans) sold their souls. They gave so many exceptions that it’s now a wide-open area.”
The highly respected business publication the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that despite a proposed U.S. government crackdown on the financial instruments used to fund Internet gambling accounts, experts say patrons of the industry will likely still find ways to get their bets down.
The WSJ quotes Alan Feldman, spokesman for Las Vegas-based casino giant MGM Mirage, as saying: “Trying to stop Internet gambling is akin to trying to hold a wave on the sand and stop the ocean from sending any more.”
Unlike the public online gambling companies whose shares took a massive hit after Congress voted on the measure, the vast majority of online wagering sites are not run by listed companies. Frank Fahrenkopf, president of the American Gaming Association, the industry’s Washington-based trade and lobbying group, told the WSJ that there are somewhere between 2 500 and 3 000 offshore Internet sites taking wagers from Americans, and only 100 of them are run by public corporations listed on European exchanges.
The new proposal gives the Treasury Department and enforcement authorities 270 days to devise the regulations necessary for the American banking industry to stop the US gambling cash flow, and possibly block online gambling websites from the USA.
Steve Verdier, director of congressional relations for the Independent Community Bankers of America, which represents almost 5 000 banks in the U.S. said earlier in the week that, “If they [the regulators] find that the banks just don’t have the technology to track and block these transactions, then we don’t have to. The Fed and Treasury are not supposed to ask us to do the impossible.”
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
