Last month I was in Vegas for a work conference and stayed at the Encore just to check it off my list of Vegas hotels. The rooms were comfy and classy, and allowed me a few convenient sessions of poker in the Wynn poker room. The Wynn poker room was the unofficial host room of the first Ironman of Poker outing, and it has consistently been one of my favorite rooms in Vegas. Classy, reserved, filled with Euro-donks and high-end booze. A little slice of poker heaven.
During one session, I was seated at a $1/$3 NLHE game with the typical cast of Vegas characters—a couple of hoodie wearing "pros", a couple of drunks looking to kill some time, a couple of businessmen with more money than skill, a couple of LAGgy Euros ... and a solid TAG younger gal. In what will be a surprise to my readers, I actually played less than two hands per orbit for the first few hours as I got a read on the table and tried to zombify myself back from card death with the occasional semi-bluff. The two hoodie guys obviously knew each other, and from their chatter they made it clear they were vastly superior to the other players at the table, and most of the other players in the room. Frankly, they made it sound like they were slumming it while waiting for a seat in the $5/$10 or $10/$20 NLHE games. Hmmm, wonder why they didn't head down the Strip to Bellagio or Aria?
Anyway, late in the evening an interesting hand developed. I had built my stack to just over $500, and the other players in this hand all had $300-$800. TAG Gal limps UTG, hoodie raises to $12, Euro calls, other hoodie calls. I'm OTB with QdTs and call. Yes, it is a marginal call, but I had position and an uber-tight image to my credit, and I had some reads on the other players. Plus, I was bored. TAG Gal called as well, and we see a flop of:
Jd9d8d
Holy suited flop, Batman! The other players quickly check to me, and I bet $50 into the $60 pot. I figured my nut straight was good here most of the time, and I wanted to give poor odds to a naked Ad or Kd chasing the flush draw. If raised, I would go with my read, but fold most of the time despite my outs against a baby flush—my Qd was really just a blocker and an emergency draw, not a real flush draw. TAG Gal thought, then called. All the remaining yahoos postured, then folded.
The turn was interesting, to say the least:
Jd9d8d 7d
TAG Gal checked quickly. Hmmm, that kind of sucked. If TAG Gal had called with Ad, Kd, or Td, I was now drawing either dead (if she held the Td for the straight flush) or to one out (Td again, but for a gutterball straight flush of my own). About the only legit hand she could hold that I beat here was a set, or possibly top two pair. But I discounted those hands a bit since she did not bet or raise the flop; her hand felt like a draw or combo draw, and the turn made most of those hands good. Of course, she was definitely good enough to be making a move with a weak hand, hoping to represent the flush, but I wasn't sure she would try that move on the flop with three other villains behind her. On balance, I saw no reason to bet, so I checked and planned to call a small river bet with my now nut-straight bluff catcher.
The river served the pickle on this sh*t sandwich of a hand:
Jd9d8d 7d Js
Yowzer! So most two pair hands and all sets just improved to a full house or quads. TAG Gal thought, then checked yet again. Hmmm, what in hell could I beat? Her entire flop range of flush draws, two pairs, and sets all now beat me. About all I could beat were a pure bluff and a baby flush that I counterfeited on the turn. I thought about throwing out a big bet as a bluff, but decided most of the hands she held that could beat me would call, and the hands I could beat would fold, sort of the opposite of a Sklansky-approved play.
So I checked behind. TAG Gal sighed, grinned, and rolled over Td9h for the straight flush. I laughed and rolled over my hand as well, just to let the table know I hadn't been bluffing the flop. Hoodie & Hoodie, Inc. immediately start jabbering like Monty Python's three-headed knight:
Hoodies: "You didn't bet the river? You have to value bet that river!"
Me: "I figured I was beat."
Hoodies: "She checked the turn and the river! You have to bet for value!"
Me: "I checked for value."
Hoodies: "Checked for value? Huh?"
Me: [pointing to my stack] "I still have all these chips."
Hoodies: "But she checked! It's stupid to check behind on the river."
I just smiled and let them continue to lecture me on proper poker strategy until they both busted out and left in search of a "better game". Probably green-chip War at Bellagio.
In all seriousness, I guess I can see some tournament or higher stakes games with a lot of meta-game factors in play where betting the river might be a decent play. But in low stakes games, in my experience players usually have what they represent, particularly with coordinated boards in a multi-way pot.
But what do you think? Obviously in this case TAG Gal was check-raising any river bet, but is her range wide enough to make a river bet a decent play to consider? Was I a total donkey on this hand? Inquiring minds want to know!
May 21, 2012
Where Is Chimento?
"You rush a miracle man, you get rotten miracles."
~Miracle Max (Billy Crystal), in The Princess Bride
Remember Chimento v. Town of Mount Pleasant, the case where the South Carolina Supreme Court was asked to decide whether home poker games are legal under that state's broad anti-gambling statute? Oral argument was held back in October 2010, and I have been monitoring the court's new decisions each week since then, waiting to see how the court would rule. Although the South Carolina Court of Appeals handed down a gambling decision last summer that referenced Chimento, the Chimento decision itself has yet to be released some 19 months and counting since the appeal was argued and submitted to the court.
Although I am not an expert in South Carolina appellate practice, I do quite a bit of appellate work, and also monitor appellate decisions in a number of states. Most appellate decisions are issued within six months of submission to the court (the submission date simply means the date the court votes on the appeal, usually the date of oral argument if argument is granted by the court). Browsing through the South Carolina Supreme Court's past few months of decisions reflects the Court follows the same general trend; a wait of more than a year and a half is certainly well outside the norm.
So what should we make of this lengthy delay by the Court? Sometimes changes in court personnel will delay an appellate decision, but here all five justices have been on the Court since before the case was argued. A delay can also indicate a controversial decision that has created a split on the Court, with the two opposing factions attempting to craft an opinion that will sway the decisive moderate vote. Similarly, a delay can indicate a unified decision as to the outcome, but disagreement and negotiation over the scope of the decision. For example, the Court may agree that the anti-gambling statute is valid, but be debating over whether to issue a strong decision on that point, or to carve out a limiting principle for certain situations. Conversely, the Court could be prepared to rule that the anti-gambling statute does not apply to home poker games, but is still discussing whether poker is covered by the statute in more general circumstances. Or, the delay could indicate the Court is planning to issue a detailed, analytical decision which requires extensive research and writing by the Court's staff.
Of course, the explanation for the delay might simply be that the Chimento decision is a lower priority than other appeals. Often cases with significant political impact will receive expedited consideration, as will cases involving certain types of criminal and family law issues. I can think of three appeals I've handled where I waited more than 18 months for a decision. In each case, the Iowa Supreme Court issued lengthy, detailed, but ultimately straightforward and unanimous opinions.
Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court which releases all of its opinions for a given Term before its summer recess in June (usually reserving its most controversial decisions for the last week of each Term), state appellate courts generally have no mandatory or even traditional deadlines by which an opinion in a case must be released. So, although appellate court tea leaf reading makes for an entertaining diversion, ultimately I don't think the length of time that has elapsed since the oral argument provides any useful insight into the direction of the Court's ultimate decision. To mix a couple of clichés, only time will tell how the Court will rule in Chimento, but good things don't always come to those who wait.
Anxious about how the South Carolina Supreme Court will rule in Chimento?
Allow me to suggest a watch panther.
Allow me to suggest a watch panther.
May 20, 2012
Inertia Poker Players Can Believe In
Last fall, the Poker Players Alliance organized poker player support for an online petition to the White House advocating the legalization and regulation of online poker. On Friday, the Obama Administration posted its response, which was disappointing only to those poker players who were naive enough to believe that the online petition was something other than a silly publicity stunt on both sides. Chris Krafcik, Research Director for GamblingCompliance, asked me for my take on the response. I emailed him the following:
To be blunt, President Obama does not give a flying pig about internet poker or gambling. Nothing the President or his Administration have said or done at any point in time indicates the remotest interest in the issue near and dear to the hearts of poker players. At best, the President is not opposed to iPoker legalization, and if presented with an iPoker bill hammered out by the major casino, Indian, and law enforcement interest groups, would probably sign it (which is admittedly a major advance over the Bush Administration). But don't expect Obama or his Administration to lift a finger to push an iPoker bill through Congress.
I don't have any profound insight to share re the Obama Administration's statement on iPoker, mostly because I think the statement is pretty much a standard political puff piece, a souped up version of a polite blow-off letter from a legislator to a constituent on an issue the legislator doesn't care about. The statement basically restates the current status of the law—federal law bans sports betting, states can authorize iPoker and other forms of iGaming, and violations of state iGaming laws may also be a violation of federal law. The statement then placates any social conservatives or law and order types by ticking off the usual laundry list of concerns—addictions, minors, fraud, and money laundering.
I think the most telling sentence of the statement is: "The Administration will continue to examine this issue and is open to solutions that would help guard against the use of online gambling sites as tools for conducting illegal activities or preying on unsuspecting individuals to the extent that online gambling is permitted." I read this statement to mean that the Administration is not actively pursuing any particular policy re iGaming or iPoker. Given the Administration's other policy priorities, combined with the fact this is an election year, I doubt the Administration has any interest at all in spending political capital on a niche issue like iPoker where there is strong social conservative resistance, no real political pressure from the President's base, and the issue has little resonance as a pivotal electoral issue either nationally or in swing states. In fact, legalizing iPoker on a national basis is probably a political negative for the President, likely to be portrayed by conservatives as another example of the President dictating social policy to the states.
In short, I think this statement is utterly inconsequential, and was intended to be so. Of course, the poker world will seize on it to support their collective delusion that iPoker legalization is a major political issue.
To be blunt, President Obama does not give a flying pig about internet poker or gambling. Nothing the President or his Administration have said or done at any point in time indicates the remotest interest in the issue near and dear to the hearts of poker players. At best, the President is not opposed to iPoker legalization, and if presented with an iPoker bill hammered out by the major casino, Indian, and law enforcement interest groups, would probably sign it (which is admittedly a major advance over the Bush Administration). But don't expect Obama or his Administration to lift a finger to push an iPoker bill through Congress.
May 13, 2012
A Poison Pill for PokerStars in New Jersey iPoker Bill?
NOTE: This post was inspired by a lengthy Twitter conversation between a number of people I regard as experts in online poker legalization issues: @CKrafcik, @taxdood, @ftrainpoker, @Haley_Hintze, and @GrindUnumbMD_DC. They, along with @GamingCounsel, @PokerScar, and @JamesBarnesEsq, are well worth following if you have any interest in online poker legalization. This post is intended to both summarize and expand on yesterday's Twitter conversation in a more detailed manner and a more accessible format. My post will incorporate excellent observations made by the folks noted above, but the opinions expressed and factual errors made in this post are solely my own.
Yesterday, Chris Krafcik, Research Director, North America, for GamblingCompliance, Ltd., tweeted a link to the newly amended version of the internet poker authorization bill being considered by the New Jersey legislature, as it was reported out of the Assembly Regulatory Oversight and Gaming Committee on May 10, 2012. Although there will likely be some opportunities for further amendments prior to final consideration by the legislature, this version of the bill essentially sets the basic parameters under which internet poker would be legalized in New Jersey.
Krafcik also pointed out a key new section added by the committee which specifically addresses so-called "bad actors"—those poker sites which permitted U.S. players after the UIGEA went into effect in late 2006. New Section 37 (at the very end of the amended bill) contains what appears to be a very broad prohibition against permitting bad actors from being licensed to offer legal internet poker. The provision states (bullets added to aid readability):
First, note that the initial predicate paragraph of Section 37 is broad, applying to any company that might provide any kinds of "goods or services" to a casino offering internet gaming. This would include software, programming, advertising, and marketing—the sorts of activities existing internet poker companies would be in prime position to offer to brick and mortar casinos just getting started in the online market.
Next, note that Subsection 1 is also broad, applying to companies with any direct or indirect control of a company offering poker illegally in the United States. This broad phrasing is meant to ensure that companies cannot avoid the restriction merely by means of a multi-layer organizational structure; for example, the Full Tilt Poker web of interrelated companies (roughly comprised of Tiltware (software), Pocket Kings (marketing), and Filco-Vantage-Oxalic-Orinic (licensees)) would all be barred under Subsection 1 regardless of whether only some of the companies were directly engaged in the day-to-day poker operations. Also, the principals of these companies, at least those who were either owners or sufficiently involved in operations to be considered a "controlling" person would also be barred under Subsection 1.
Further, note that Subsection 1 has a sweeping method for ensuring that all "bad actors" are encompassed in the prohibition. Subsection 1 essentially defines the prohibited activity to be running an internet poker site that took wagers from U.S. residents after December 31, 2006 without a U.S. license (state or federal). Of course, there have never been any U.S. licenses available to any internet poker site, so this is simply a very clever legal method for drawing a line at December 31, 2006, and declaring all sites taking U.S. money after that date to have been operating illegally. So, all the legal arguments about whether poker is a game of skill, or whether UIGEA or other federal or state laws expressly prohibit internet poker are all rendered irrelevant. If a poker site took money from U.S. players after the cut-off date, they are officially "bad actors" under Section 37.
Finally, as Haley Hintze specifically noted, use of the December 31, 2006 cutoff date rather than the UIGEA enactment date of October 13, 2006 effectively allows some notable companies and individuals to escape the Section 37 ban. Although Party Poker and 888 Poker stopped accepting U.S. play nearly immediately after the UIGEA enactment, other companies didn't terminate operations until later in 2006 (or in many cases, until Black Friday). For example, Hintze notes that current Bwin.Party CEO Jim Ryan led Excapsa—the original parent company for UB, including through its "superuser" scandal days—into liquidation in December 2006. So, Ryan and Bwin.Party escape the Section 37 cutoff by a mere couple of months. It pays to have good lobbyists. [FN1]
Moving on to Subsection 2, we find some truly interesting language which expands the ban on licensing and working with licensed casinos to those persons or companies which:
Subsection 2 is essentially a poison pill provision, intended to prevent any licensed casino or online poker site from getting around the restrictions in Subsection 1 by purchasing the assets of a "bad actor" poker site and making use of them. To pull an example from thin air, suppose a licensed casino decided to get a jump start on the competition by purchasing Full Tilt, or just buying or leasing Full Tilt's software, "Rush Poker" concept, or customer database from the Department of Justice. Under Subsection 2, Full Tilt and its assets are tainted because Full Tilt is a "bad actor", and the company and its assets cannot be used legally by a licensed casino or internet poker operator.
The upshot of this poison pill is to make Full Tilt and other "bad actor" sites toxic to U.S. casinos looking to partner with these former sites in essentially any conceivable fashion. Partnerships, buyouts, software licensing, customer sharing, and any other cooperative actions would be barred. Basically, the "bad actor" sites would be completely barred from the New Jersey market permanently under the current bill.
Now, the bill would provide a "bad actor" site an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing to attempt to prove they did not operate illegally post-UIGEA. However, the sites would have to overcome a high evidentiary hurdle—proof by clear and convincing evidence—but the mere fact a poker site dodged conviction for illegal gaming would not be considered by the licensing commission. Basically, the deck would be stacked against any current poker operator ever getting approved for licensing.
So, if "bad actors" can never be licensed in New Jersey, what implications does this have for internet poker on a broader scale? New Jersey has a large population base combined with a long history of gaming regulation, so it is a natural state to take the lead for regulating internet poker, in some ways more so than Nevada. New Jersey's population base gives it a major advantage over Nevada in terms of liquidity; more players means more money. If a multi-state consortium develops for internet poker, poker sites will need to comply with the most restrictive regulations among the participating states; most likely, many states will defer to New Jersey for licensing purposes. So, if New Jersey bans "bad actors", they will be banned across the board for all participating states. Further, if New Jersey begins licensing poker sites ahead of other states, it will set the standard for all other states.
The upshot of these restrictions is that, if the New Jersey bill passes in its current form, PokerStars, Full Tilt, UB, and other poker sites operating in the U.S. post-UIGEA are likely shut out of the U.S. market permanently. In that case, Stars may have to reevaluate whether it makes financial sense to acquire Full Tilt's assets, knowing those assets can't be sold off in whole or piecemeal to U.S. brick and mortar casinos looking to break into the online poker world. Frankly, the entire Stars-Tilt deal might be in jeopardy if the New Jersey bill passes in its current form.
So what are the chances the bill passes? It's hard to know how the New Jersey Senate will view the bill. But if the bill passes, it still must be signed by Governor Chris Christie. Here, the political issues are complicated. Governor Christie is a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state who clearly has national aspirations. If the Governor has his eyes on being the Vice Presidential nominee this year, then he likely would veto the bill to reassure social conservatives he is one of them. If he has decided to wait for a Presidential bid in 2016, he might well sign the bill or allow it to become law without his signature after 45 days in an attempt to curry favor and donations from casinos.
Obviously the New Jersey internet poker bill is a long way from becoming law. But even if this bill is shot down, other similar bills in other states with similar restrictions are sure to pop up. Frankly, the future looks bleak for the prospects of PokerStars and other post-UIGEA poker site "bad actors" ever returning to the U.S. market.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] ADDENDUM (5/14/2012): Paragraph discussing Bwin.Party CEO Jim Ryan added in response to excellent Twitter comments by Haley Hintze, the leading authority on the Absolute Poker/Ultimate Bet superuser scandals.
ADDENDUM (5/15/2012): Haley Hintze has a new two-part post up at Kickass Poker looking at the proposed Stars-Tilt deal. Part 1 examines numerous rumors flurrying about regarding the Tilt-Stars deal. Part 2 analyzes the New Jersey iPoker bill, with some important background information related to Bwin.Party co-CEO Jim Ryan (with a few kind words thrown my way). As always, Hintze is well worth reading if you have any interest in online poker industry issues.
* * * * *
Yesterday, Chris Krafcik, Research Director, North America, for GamblingCompliance, Ltd., tweeted a link to the newly amended version of the internet poker authorization bill being considered by the New Jersey legislature, as it was reported out of the Assembly Regulatory Oversight and Gaming Committee on May 10, 2012. Although there will likely be some opportunities for further amendments prior to final consideration by the legislature, this version of the bill essentially sets the basic parameters under which internet poker would be legalized in New Jersey.
Krafcik also pointed out a key new section added by the committee which specifically addresses so-called "bad actors"—those poker sites which permitted U.S. players after the UIGEA went into effect in late 2006. New Section 37 (at the very end of the amended bill) contains what appears to be a very broad prohibition against permitting bad actors from being licensed to offer legal internet poker. The provision states (bullets added to aid readability):
[A] corporation or any person seeking to provide goods or services to a casino licensee in connection with Internet gaming shall not be awarded a casino service industry enterprise license, and shall not be permitted to conduct business with a casino, in connection with Internet gaming if that corporation or person:
(1) has at any time, either directly, or through another corporation or person it owned in whole or in significant part, or controlled:
(a) knowingly and willfully offered, accepted, or made available bets, wagers, or stakes using the Internet from persons located in the United States after December 31, 2006, unless such activity is licensed by a federal or State authority to engage in such activity; or
(b) knowingly facilitated or otherwise provided services with respect to bets, wagers, or stakes using the Internet from persons located in the United States for a person described in paragraph (1) of this subsection and acted with knowledge of the fact that such bets, wagers or stakes involved persons located in the United States;
....
First, note that the initial predicate paragraph of Section 37 is broad, applying to any company that might provide any kinds of "goods or services" to a casino offering internet gaming. This would include software, programming, advertising, and marketing—the sorts of activities existing internet poker companies would be in prime position to offer to brick and mortar casinos just getting started in the online market.
Next, note that Subsection 1 is also broad, applying to companies with any direct or indirect control of a company offering poker illegally in the United States. This broad phrasing is meant to ensure that companies cannot avoid the restriction merely by means of a multi-layer organizational structure; for example, the Full Tilt Poker web of interrelated companies (roughly comprised of Tiltware (software), Pocket Kings (marketing), and Filco-Vantage-Oxalic-Orinic (licensees)) would all be barred under Subsection 1 regardless of whether only some of the companies were directly engaged in the day-to-day poker operations. Also, the principals of these companies, at least those who were either owners or sufficiently involved in operations to be considered a "controlling" person would also be barred under Subsection 1.
Further, note that Subsection 1 has a sweeping method for ensuring that all "bad actors" are encompassed in the prohibition. Subsection 1 essentially defines the prohibited activity to be running an internet poker site that took wagers from U.S. residents after December 31, 2006 without a U.S. license (state or federal). Of course, there have never been any U.S. licenses available to any internet poker site, so this is simply a very clever legal method for drawing a line at December 31, 2006, and declaring all sites taking U.S. money after that date to have been operating illegally. So, all the legal arguments about whether poker is a game of skill, or whether UIGEA or other federal or state laws expressly prohibit internet poker are all rendered irrelevant. If a poker site took money from U.S. players after the cut-off date, they are officially "bad actors" under Section 37.
Finally, as Haley Hintze specifically noted, use of the December 31, 2006 cutoff date rather than the UIGEA enactment date of October 13, 2006 effectively allows some notable companies and individuals to escape the Section 37 ban. Although Party Poker and 888 Poker stopped accepting U.S. play nearly immediately after the UIGEA enactment, other companies didn't terminate operations until later in 2006 (or in many cases, until Black Friday). For example, Hintze notes that current Bwin.Party CEO Jim Ryan led Excapsa—the original parent company for UB, including through its "superuser" scandal days—into liquidation in December 2006. So, Ryan and Bwin.Party escape the Section 37 cutoff by a mere couple of months. It pays to have good lobbyists. [FN1]
Moving on to Subsection 2, we find some truly interesting language which expands the ban on licensing and working with licensed casinos to those persons or companies which:
(2) purchased or acquired, directly or indirectly, in whole or in significant part, a corporation or person described in subsection b. of this section, or covered assets of such a person, and will use that corporation or person or those assets in connection with the services provided to a casino licensee with respect to Internet gaming. A casino licensee shall not be permitted to use, directly or indirectly, covered assets in connection with Internet gaming involving corporations or persons located in this State.
b. As used in this section:
(1) “significant part” means, with respect to ownership of a corporation or person, the ownership of 5% or more of that corporation or person’s assets, or any percentage of ownership which provides control over that corporation or person;
(2) “covered assets” means any asset specifically designed for use and used in connection with bets, wagers, or stakes using the Internet from persons located in the United States after December 31, 2006, unless licensed by a federal or State authority to engage in such activity, including the following:
(a) any trademark, trade name, service mark, or similar intellectual property that was used to identify any aspect of the Internet website or of the operator offering the bets, wagers, or stakes to its patrons;
(b) any database of customer information or customer list of individuals residing in the United States who placed bets, wagers, or stakes in or through an Internet website or operator not licensed by a federal or State authority to engage in such activity;
(c) any derivative of a database or customer list described under (b) above; and
(d) software and hardware related to the management, administration, development, testing, or control of the Internet website or operator.
Subsection 2 is essentially a poison pill provision, intended to prevent any licensed casino or online poker site from getting around the restrictions in Subsection 1 by purchasing the assets of a "bad actor" poker site and making use of them. To pull an example from thin air, suppose a licensed casino decided to get a jump start on the competition by purchasing Full Tilt, or just buying or leasing Full Tilt's software, "Rush Poker" concept, or customer database from the Department of Justice. Under Subsection 2, Full Tilt and its assets are tainted because Full Tilt is a "bad actor", and the company and its assets cannot be used legally by a licensed casino or internet poker operator.
The upshot of this poison pill is to make Full Tilt and other "bad actor" sites toxic to U.S. casinos looking to partner with these former sites in essentially any conceivable fashion. Partnerships, buyouts, software licensing, customer sharing, and any other cooperative actions would be barred. Basically, the "bad actor" sites would be completely barred from the New Jersey market permanently under the current bill.
Now, the bill would provide a "bad actor" site an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing to attempt to prove they did not operate illegally post-UIGEA. However, the sites would have to overcome a high evidentiary hurdle—proof by clear and convincing evidence—but the mere fact a poker site dodged conviction for illegal gaming would not be considered by the licensing commission. Basically, the deck would be stacked against any current poker operator ever getting approved for licensing.
So, if "bad actors" can never be licensed in New Jersey, what implications does this have for internet poker on a broader scale? New Jersey has a large population base combined with a long history of gaming regulation, so it is a natural state to take the lead for regulating internet poker, in some ways more so than Nevada. New Jersey's population base gives it a major advantage over Nevada in terms of liquidity; more players means more money. If a multi-state consortium develops for internet poker, poker sites will need to comply with the most restrictive regulations among the participating states; most likely, many states will defer to New Jersey for licensing purposes. So, if New Jersey bans "bad actors", they will be banned across the board for all participating states. Further, if New Jersey begins licensing poker sites ahead of other states, it will set the standard for all other states.
The upshot of these restrictions is that, if the New Jersey bill passes in its current form, PokerStars, Full Tilt, UB, and other poker sites operating in the U.S. post-UIGEA are likely shut out of the U.S. market permanently. In that case, Stars may have to reevaluate whether it makes financial sense to acquire Full Tilt's assets, knowing those assets can't be sold off in whole or piecemeal to U.S. brick and mortar casinos looking to break into the online poker world. Frankly, the entire Stars-Tilt deal might be in jeopardy if the New Jersey bill passes in its current form.
So what are the chances the bill passes? It's hard to know how the New Jersey Senate will view the bill. But if the bill passes, it still must be signed by Governor Chris Christie. Here, the political issues are complicated. Governor Christie is a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state who clearly has national aspirations. If the Governor has his eyes on being the Vice Presidential nominee this year, then he likely would veto the bill to reassure social conservatives he is one of them. If he has decided to wait for a Presidential bid in 2016, he might well sign the bill or allow it to become law without his signature after 45 days in an attempt to curry favor and donations from casinos.
Obviously the New Jersey internet poker bill is a long way from becoming law. But even if this bill is shot down, other similar bills in other states with similar restrictions are sure to pop up. Frankly, the future looks bleak for the prospects of PokerStars and other post-UIGEA poker site "bad actors" ever returning to the U.S. market.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] ADDENDUM (5/14/2012): Paragraph discussing Bwin.Party CEO Jim Ryan added in response to excellent Twitter comments by Haley Hintze, the leading authority on the Absolute Poker/Ultimate Bet superuser scandals.
ADDENDUM (5/15/2012): Haley Hintze has a new two-part post up at Kickass Poker looking at the proposed Stars-Tilt deal. Part 1 examines numerous rumors flurrying about regarding the Tilt-Stars deal. Part 2 analyzes the New Jersey iPoker bill, with some important background information related to Bwin.Party co-CEO Jim Ryan (with a few kind words thrown my way). As always, Hintze is well worth reading if you have any interest in online poker industry issues.
May 12, 2012
Dutch Letters & Brutal Honesty
"There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."
~Nigel Powers (Michael Caine), in Austin Powers: Goldmember
So as my Twitter followers may be aware, I recently caved to my sig other's requests for new furniture for our living room, even though we already have perfectly good furniture. Apparently the fact I picked out the furniture before we met coupled with the opinion that my taste in furniture "sucks" and runs toward "ugly, old grandma stuff" means we need new furniture. Well, it's cheaper than a new house (another recurring theme also commonly worked into casual conversation).
In any event, today we drove an hour to the historic and picturesque town of Pella, Iowa, famous for its Dutch heritage. Pella has a beautifully preserved downtown area with gorgeous old brick buildings, windmills, a canal, and an historic opera house. Each May a tulip festival is held, drawing hordes of tourists. The locals are so into the Dutch theme that even modern fast food restaurants and convenience stores must be built in faux-Dutch manner, heavy on the brick and steep-sloped roofs. My favorite Pella attraction is the old country Jaarsma Bakery on the town square, with its wide array of pastries, most notably strudel and Dutch letters.
After looking at three living room sets the sig other had scouted a week or two ago—including a set identical to a set we had looked at here in the Des Moines area but at $500 more—the sig other headed on the road with Berkeley to his hometown for Mother's Day with his family, and I headed back to Des Moines after popping into Jaarsma Bakery for a coffee cake and a dozen Dutch Letters. The road home took me right past the Meadows ATM, and my car guided me into a prime parking spot late in the afternoon. So something productive was salvaged for the day.
The Meadows poker room was strangely dead with one $3/$6 LHE game and one $1/$2 NLHE game running. After waiting 15 minutes or so, a new $1/$2 NLHE game was opened, but it was hard to tell the difference as my cards were colder than an iceberg. Eventually I hit a couple of hands and cashed out with a $200 profit—or as I prefer to view it, 10% of a leather sofa.
One amusing moment occurred late in the session. A young college kid joined the game, and was clearly new to live casino poker. His first hand he posted in, then accidentally pulled back his post, resulting in the dealer mucking his hand preflop—he of course claimed he had a pocket pair and would have flopped a set. Then when his blinds hit, he would put out his blinds, then fiddle with them and accidentally put the chips back in his stack before the action got to him, resulting in an embarrassing lecture from the dealer and some teasing from the table. His play was pretty ABC weak-tight, and he was a tell-spewing fish most hands.
Late in my session, an older regular known for his blunt talk joined the game. Young Fish was visibly uncomfortable at our table. Eventually a seat opened up at the other $1/$2 NLHE table, and Old Regular was first up for a table change; he declined. Young Fish then asked if he could change tables, leading Old Regular to spout, "You can't move! You're the reason I'm staying at this table!" Everyone laughed, but it was clear Old Regular was being completely honest. Young Fish began racking up to leave, and Old Regular says, "Can I at least have your phone number? We have a home game you should play in."
For some reason, he never got that number.
.JPG)
Windmill near Pella town square.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)