Strategy

Villain #1 opens to $4 from the hijack. His stack is ~$100. Villain #2 calls. His stack is ~$450. The button folds, the SB folds and raises to $12 with Ts Th. Both players call, so it’s $37 in the pot going to flop (no rake).

The flop is 6c-7c-8s. Hero bets $24. HJ shoves for $70 more. CO raises another $100 on top. Hero folds.

In today’s post I want to bridge the gap between these issues that are of obvious interest to poker players and other political topics that may not seem directly poker-related but that still have some tangential relationship to poker players and the decisions that we make about where to play. These are topics about which poker players are likely to have divergent opinions, but I think that they merit more discussion than they get in the poker world, both over the table and elsewhere.

The opposing argument here is the “I come to the poker room to play poker, I don’t want to hear anyone talk about politics” attitude. Your decision to play poker at a particular venue is political, it has political consequences, and I see no reason why these consequences shouldn’t be legitimate topics of conversation. Choosing to ignore or refuse to discuss these consequences doesn’t make you apolitical, it just makes you ignorant.

The following is something like a case study. It’s an example of how poker players can’t just avoid politics, though we can and too often do ignore them. My stance on this specific subject is not a strong one, and I have myself played at these poker rooms before, though it always made me uncomfortable and I’d prefer to avoid playing at them again. I use it rather as an example of an issue that I think some but not all poker players would care about if they were forced to think about it. My point, overall, is that discussion in the poker world ought be more, not less, overtly political than it currently is, and the following is a small contribution thereto.

Playing Poker at Dog and Horse Tracks Subsidizes the Racing Industry

Many poker rooms in the US are at dog- or horse-racing facilities. Often, when seeking legislative authorization to introduce poker and/or casino gambling on their premises, the owners of these facilities explicitly argued that the racetrack alone was no longer economically viable and that other forms of gambling were needed essentially to subsidize the industry. Playing poker and otherwise spending money at these facilities is very directly supporting the racing industry, even if you don’t actually place any racing bets. The Florida Times-Union reports that,

The “decoupling” movement has created an odd alliance between racetrack casino operators, who see the races as a burden, and animal rights groups out to end greyhound racing altogether, much as they succeeded in outlawing cockfighting several years ago.

“When decoupling passes, it will lead to a slow and gradual end” of the industry, said Carey Theil, executive director of the anti-racing group Grey2K USA.

Dog racing’s troubles also could be a preview of things to come for the horse racing industry, which in some states has identical laws tying it to casino gambling. Money bet at thoroughbred tracks dropped from just over $15 billion in 2003 to less than $11 billion in 2013, according to the Jockey Club, an industry clearinghouse.

Though stronger financially than dog racing, horse racing is also far more expensive to stage, and only a handful of the biggest tracks are profitable without casinos to support them.

Some within the horse racing industry see decoupling laws as a threat to their own sport.

“They could set a dangerous precedent for all breeds of racing,” said Lonny Powell, the CEO of the Florida Thoroughbred Breeders and Owners Association, who worked for years as a regulator of dog races.

In Florida, casino owners and animal welfare advocates have actually gotten together to support a bill that would decouple casinos from race tracks, a move that would likely be the death knell for the racing industry in that state. This should give you an idea of the importance of casino patrons to the continued viability of the race track at venues where the two are coupled.

Animal Lovers Should Have a Problem With That

I realize that some people just don’t value animal welfare very highly, and I’m not going to argue that point right now. Judging by the number of “look at my adorable dog” posts I see on my Twitter timeline, I suspect that many poker players do not want to subsidize animal cruelty and have just never really thought about or been pressed on the topic. According to advocacy group Grey2KUSA,

“To racetrack promoters, dogs are short-term investments. Even the fastest dogs only race for a few years, and are expected to generate enough profit during that time to make up for their total costs. The pressure to generate profits can lead to negligent care. Adoption groups often receive dogs in a general state of neglect, including dogs suffering from severe infestations of fleas, ticks, and internal parasites. To cut costs, dogs are fed raw 4-D meat from dying, diseased, disabled and dead livestock. This meat is deemed unfit for human consumption. The quality of veterinary care a dog receives can also be compromised by financial considerations.”

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that,

horse racing continues to wrestle publicly with a drug culture that its officials concede has badly damaged the sport. A New York Times investigation in 2012 showed how a pervasive drug culture, encouraged by trainers and aided by veterinarians, put horses and riders at risk. The Times found that 24 horses a week died at American tracks, a rate greater than in countries where drug use was severely restricted.

These are at the very least problematic industries, and as far as I know there’s been virtually no discussion among poker players about boycotting events at these facilities, although in my opinion there’s more of a case for that than for boycotting the Venetian and other Adelson properties.

Not Talking About Politics is Political

This is a political issue of the sort that could prompt someone to say, “Shut up with your bleeding heart politics and just play poker.” Then again, bringing the issue up at a poker table could easily bring the issue to the attention of someone who does care about it and who will change his behavior accordingly. Thus, the call not to talk about politics is also a call to keep this person in the dark, which of course serves the interests of the racing industry, which would rather not have people talking about issues such as doping or the disturbingly high death rate of their animals.

I’ve gone into detail on this one, but there are similar issues related to many poker venues. Animal lovers might also think about the treatment of captive marine mammals before playing the PCA at Atlantis. Indian casinos have their own set of complications, as I’m sure do most casinos.

It’s easy to shrug and say, “I’m just here to play poker, none of that is my concern.” But should we? And more to point, should we chastise those who do not?

0:30 – hello & welcome
3:53 – more on the borgata scandal
14:21 – burning out of turn
25:51 – ethics: talking about other players at the table
35:02 – interview: daryl jace

Timestamps

0:37 Hello and Welcome
26:30 Strategy
42:05 Civil Unrest in Istanbul
52:48 Book Club

This is the thread that spurred Nate’s simulation of the WSOP $10K Heads Up event. This is a new thread he started about the simulation.

Strategy

Effective stacks $260. Villain opened MP over a few limpers to $11. Hero flatted the CO with 10c8c. Limpers all folded.

(Pot: $29 before rake) Flop is: Js2h6s

Villain c-bet $20
Hero raises to $65
Villain asks for a count after about 20 seconds, I tell him, then he counts his stack of green (about $400) and calls after an additional 30-40 seconds.

(Pot: $159 before rake) Turn is: 7d
Villain leads for $175
Hero folds

As “The Poker Philosopher”, and in honor of one of my favorite non-poker blogs, I occasionally consider the ethical dimensions of a high-profile controversy or occurrence in the poker community. This is the first in a series of posts about the major players in the recent Poker Stars – Full Tilt Poker – Department of Justice settlement. Older editions of The Poker Ethicist are available in the archives.

Q: As you’ve probably heard by now, the Department of Justice recently approved a settlement in which PokerStars will buy the remaining assets of Full Tilt Poker, pay a fine to the DOJ, restore the FTP balances of non-American players, and ultimately re-open the site. American players (more specifically those of us who were Americans as of June 29, 2011), via a process yet to be determined, will be able to apply to the DOJ for restitution of our money. The online poker community, myself included, is understandably elated about this near-ideal resolution to perhaps the darkest chapter in our short history.

Many direct their gratitude towards PokerStars. The word “savior” has been tossed around liberally. Numerous Stars-sponsored players have expressed pride at representing the company. Short Stacked Shamus, in a characteristically entertaining blog post, paints PokerStars as the hero in a John Wayne-esque narrative of law-breaking and vigilantism. Dominic Kofert, CEO of PokerStrategy.com, sees them as the benevolent dictator of the new world order of online poker:

Once the acquisition is completed and Full Tilt goes back online, PokerStars, which already has a world-wide market share of around 60%, will have substantially grown the margin by which it is the largest operator in the world. With most competitors severely struggling, I will not be surprised if PokerStars/Full Tilt’s market share reaches 75% by the end of 2013.

For many, this market dominance will be something to worry about. However, judging by PokerStars’ conduct over the past years and assuming that the company’s great philosophy does not change now that PokerStars.com co-founder Isai Scheinberg has to step down, I think that PokerStars will act responsibly and with the players in mind going forward – as it has always done in the past.

Do we owe PokerStars our gratitude? Or was this just a savvy maneuver to acquire their largest competitor and establish a near-monopoly on online poker? Should the average player really be celebrating this deal?

A: To quote Grandpa Simpson, “A little from column A and a little from column B.”

Let’s start with the obvious: PokerStars isn’t doing anything out of the goodness of their heart. There’s been rampant speculation about why the company would be interested in Full Tilt. Did they seek its customer database? Good will with the DOJ? Good will with the online poker community? Re-entry to the US market? All of the above?

Your guess is as good as mine. Whatever their reasons, I believe Stars wouldn’t have purchased FTP unless they believed it was in their interest to do so.

I know they’re playing a game and acting strategically in their own best interest, but that doesn’t mean I’m not grateful. What I’ve always respected about Stars – I used to represent them myself – is that they are playing a long game, and that’s good for customers.

Among other things, PokerStars has just purchased a generous helping of legitimacy for online poker. Black Friday and subsequent revelations about the FTP “Ponzi scheme” made mainstream headlines around the world and surely scared away thousands of would-be depositors from other online poker sites. Making the affected players whole may not undo the public relations damage entirely, but it’s a gigantic step in the right direction.

The companies that have done the most harm to online poker – Full Tilt Poker, Ultimate Bet, Absolute Poker – were playing a short game. Common wisdom once held that no company would risk slaying the goose that laid the golden egg by stealing customer money. That assumption proved wrong. Principals at all of those companies chose a short-term windfall over an uncertain but potentially even more profitable future. In other words, they took the money and ran (or not).

In ways large and small, PokerStars has repeatedly demonstrated that they are in it for the long haul. It’s clear from their recent actions that they expect to be in the online poker business 10 years from now, and they’ve just made an investment that may take that long to mature.

That makes them a good company to work with, because it means that good customer service is in their interest. They want satisfied customers and repeat business. They want legitimacy and a regulated, predictable marketplace. Their business model seems to align with the interests of their players in a way that, at least in retrospect, FTP’s and UB’s did not (though also in retrospect, the signs were there: re-entry tournaments, anyone?).

Arguably, FTP and UB made the wrong choice, not just ethically, but financially. They may well have made more money by running honest businesses. Sometimes greed overtakes good business sense, and sometimes people are just short-sighted.

I’m grateful that PokerStars has so far eluded these pitfalls, but I don’t delude myself into thinking that they are playing sheriff out of an innate sense of justice. Nor have they claimed to be. In fact, I would distrust any company that did claim such.

I expect a large corporation to act in its own self-interest. If one tries to tell me they are not, then they’re lying, and that makes me suspicious. I’m far more comfortable in a relationship where I know what game the other party is playing and I can see how their interests align with mine. Both PokerStars and I have an interest in the long-term viability and legitimacy of the online poker industry, and that makes me glad to be their customer, even if I’m not kissing their feet. I’m grateful that they seem to have the foresight that some of their competitors lacked, and that even as they close this landmark deal they continue to work tirelessly to serve their customers.

That doesn’t mean that I’m sanguine about a single company possessing such a large share of the market. I feel better when a company, no matter how benevolent the owner (who, by the way, is stepping down as a condition of this settlement) or how strong the track record, feels that treating their customers right is good business and not simply “the right thing to do” as a matter of principle. Principles change, especially when there’s a lot of money at stake.

Thankfully PokerStars still has a lot of self-interested reasons to treat its customers well. They may soon face competition from gaming mega-brands like Caesar’s/World Series of Poker in a regulated US marketplace. They know that they can’t afford to rest on their laurels if they want to gain access to that market at all, let alone be competitive in it. It’s no coincidence that PokerStars’ own announcement of the settlement concludes with these words:

Our settlement acknowledges that both PokerStars and Full Tilt are eligible to apply for a license in the U.S. to offer real money poker when states or the federal government offer such an opportunity. We look forward to this opportunity and are confident that we bring tremendous value, regulatory experience, market credibility and financial integrity to the marketplace.

We’re optimistic about the future and we look forward to sharing the next chapters in our history with you.

My sentiments exactly.

CNN reports that,

“Celebrities who won big money in secret high-stakes poker games at Beverly Hills luxury hotels were paid with funds stolen from investors who had been lured into an illegal Ponzi scheme, a series of federal lawsuits contends.

Actors Tobey Maguire, Nick Cassavetes and Gabe Kaplan, along with professional poker player Dan Bilzerian, two nightclub owners and a Los Angeles lawyer are among at least 11 people being sued by a bankruptcy trustee.”

The lawsuit alleges that Bradley Ruderman fraudulently solicited millions of dollars in investments from at least 22 individuals and lost some of that money in an underground poker game played with the afore-mentioned celebrities as well as Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, and others. It seeks to recoup funds lost to these players so that they can be returned to Ruderman’s victims. Are the investor-victims ethically entitled to the return of these funds?

They are not. If the players who won money from Ruderman had no reason to believe that he was gambling with other people’s money, then they are entitled to their winnings. The simple proof of this is that had Ruderman won money in the game, losing players would not be entitled to collect their losses as part of the fund’s bankruptcy proceedings even if it became apparent that Ruderman had been playing with money that was not his own. A rule like this would enable the investors to freeroll Ruderman’s opponents in the game, entitling them pay nothing if Ruderman loses but to keep anything he wins. The fact that Ruderman probably would have never have returned any winnings to his investors is immaterial. The crime is his, and his victims are entitled to recompense from him, not from others who later received that money through no fault of their own.

We can draw an important distinction between this case and the attempts to repay investors who lost money to Bernie Madoff from the funds of those who unwittingly profited from the scheme. In that case, there is a reciprocal relationship between the “winners” and the “losers” in that both were investors with Madoff. Had the timing been different, the “winners” could easily have been “losers” themselves and entitled to recompense from beneficiaries of the scheme. There is no freeroll in this instance, no group that can win but never lose.

The lawsuit alleges that because the game was illegal under California law, “the player[s] had no legally enforceable contractual right to receive payment.” This may create a legal entitlement on the part of the investors, but it does not create an ethical one.

The only way in which the recipients of the funds could be ethically implicated is if they knew the money was fraudulently obtained. In that case, permitting them to keep the money would enable thieves to launder stolen money through poker games with friends, claiming that it is unrecoverable because lost fair and square. If the winners are not in on the impropriety, however, then there is no danger of this and thus no additional harm is done to Ruderman’s investors as a result of his playing poker with their stolen money. If he wins, they win (at least until he finds another way to squander their money), and if he loses, they lose. This time, they lost.

The real winner here is Gabe Kaplan, who is probably thrilled to see his name appearing in Hollywood gossip magazines alongside those of A-listers like Toby Maguire and Matt Damon.

Technology always pushes the boundaries, especially ethical boundaries. The primary way to think about these boundaries, I think, is the way Andrew presented them: Does everyone have the same understanding of what is allowed, and the same opportunity to use technologies which are allowed? If so, no ethical problem.

I think the conditions that he identifies are spot-on, and I want to delve a bit deeper into them. This time around I’ve got more questions than answers, so I’ll be very curious to hear your opinions on the subject.

The Right To Know

My claim is that use of any technology allowed by the rules of a casino or poker site is ethical, and that using anything disallowed is unethical. This is because, by choosing to play at a particular venue, players agree to both their host and their fellow players that they will follow the posted rules.

As piefarmer points out, this presumes that everyone understands the rules, or at least has the opportunity to do so. Exactly what obligation does this impose on a casino or poker site? Certainly the rules need to be readily available, in writing, for any player or potential player to inspect. Assuming that they are, then I would argue that choosing to play at that venue constitutes agreement to follow those rules, even if the player never actually reads them or fails to understand them correctly.

I think that there must also be a way for players to receive clarification as to the meaning of rules. At live venues, this requires readily available floor staff and properly trained dealers who can explain things clearly and accurately. As many of us know, getting a consistent answer to a question about the rules is not always a trivial matter when playing live poker, and I believe that to be a serious failing of a casino’s obligation to its players.

Is there any obligation on the part of online poker sites to affirmatively warn their players that others may be using HUDs and other technology? I’m sure there are people every day who start playing online and have no idea that such software is available or that their opponents may be using it.

It seems to me as long technology is mentioned somewhere in the Terms & Conditions, the site meets this obligation. I’m interested to hear people’s opinions on this, though. Is there anyone who would argue that sites have an obligation to be more assertive on this point? Perhaps announce to all their players, via e-mail or pop-up, whenever they add a new program to the list of approved software?

Equal Access

This is a thornier question. Is equal access to technology essential to make it ethical? What if there were some piece of poker software that somehow violated the laws of the US but were legal in most other countries. Would it be ethical for a poker site to permit the use of this technology? Would it be ethical for players to use it? What if there were some amazing software whose creator refused to share it with anyone other than a select group of his friends?

Also, is the cost of the software relevant? If there were some amazing software that was readily available for purchase and use by anyone but that cost thousands of dollars, would we still be able to say players had equal access to it?

In response to a recent post I made about using a HUD, commenter “Elmer Fudd” asked,

“I would like you to comment on the ethics of using a HUD in the first place. It most certainly gives you an edge over players that don’t use such software and provides you with stats that you couldn’t readily obtain during a live game. I guess I’m an old-fashioned poker purist, but anything that gives you a slight edge over other players is cheating. “

I would say anything that gives you an unfair edge is cheating. Sleeping and eating better than my opponents gives me an edge. Reading more books than they do gives me an edge. Using a second monitor gives me an edge over opponents attempting to multi-table on a single monitor. Yet none of these is unfair, because my opponents have equal opportunity to take advantage of them.

An edge becomes unfair when it violates the rules of the game as defined by the casino or site hosting the game. Even if you disagree with a particular rule or believe that other players are violating it, violating it yourself is unethical because it is essentially dishonest. By playing on a particular online poker site or at a particular casino, you are promising your fellow players that you will abide by a particular set of rules. This defines the parameters of the game, the ways in which players may and may not seek an edge.

When I sit down at a live game, I accept and agree that physical tells will be part of the game, and that signaling to a partner at the table will not. My opponents, in turn, agree to the same. They know that to keep up with me in this contest, they will need to practice their face-reading skills but not their sign language. If I were colluding with another player, this would gain me an unfair advantage, because it is one my opponents are not expecting me to have and one that they have themselves agreed not to pursue.

On sites that allow them, HUD’s are a legitimate part of the game. Insofar as they do not violate a site’s terms and conditions, then everyone playing on the site implicitly agrees that they are allowed. Some may use them more than others, and some may choose not to use them at all. Similarly, I might choose not to attempt to pick up physical tells during a live game, but this does not make it unethical for my opponents to do so. As long as I have the same opportunity, the playing field is level.

Using a HUD on a site that prohibits it, even if you were to find a way to make the HUD work and to evade detection, would not be ethical. Doing so would violate your agreement with the site and with your fellow players on that site. It would give you an edge that your honest opponents would not enjoy, and this would be unethical.

Online poker is not merely a derivative form of live poker. It bears many similarities, but also many differences. Just because something would not be allowed or possible in a live setting does not mean that it is unethical when done online, any more than a rule prohibiting cell phones at the table at the Rio would it make unethical to use a cell phone at the table at MGM. Different venues have the right to establish their own rules. Some players may prefer the rules generally found in a live setting to those found online, but they may not impose their preferred rules as an ethical obligation on their online competitors.

It turns out I didn’t recognize these guys because they are regulars in games so big I don’t even keep an eye on them to see if they’re ever worth playing. One guy was described as a “regular” at 300/600, which doesn’t even run regularly, so I’m not sure whether one can really be called a regular in them. In any event, I decided these weren’t actually games I wanted to play in.

In the meantime, though, I picked up some cards and won some big pots, including this one:

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold’em, $80.00 BB (5 handed) – Full-Tilt Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

SB ($13765.10)
Hero (BB) ($8080)
UTG ($14597)
MP ($19746.50)
Button ($17475)

Preflop: Hero is BB with A, A
UTG bets $240, 3 folds, Hero raises to $820, UTG calls $580

Flop: ($1680) 10, 10, 2 (2 players)
Hero bets $1212, UTG calls $1212

Turn: ($4104) A (2 players)
Hero bets $2468, UTG calls $2468

River: ($9040) 9 (2 players)
Hero bets $3580 (All-In), 1 fold

Total pot: $9040 | Rake: $3

Results:
Hero didn’t show A, A.
Outcome: Hero won $9037

I completed my third orbit at each table and said, “Peace, I’m out,” having averaged something like $200/hand.

Yes, I hate it when people win a big pot and quit. Yes, I give them a hard time about it in chat. Do I feel like that makes me a hypocrite? Not really.

I get that for a lot of people, it’s a wise move not to stick around in a tough game when they have a lot of money in front of them. I don’t generally believe that they’re under any actual ethical obligation to sacrifice their self-interest for the sake of playing a few more hands. Quitting is good business for them; I get that.

Trying to goad them into staying is good business for me. If I think the guy’s a favorite to lose the money back, of course I’m going to try to get him stay at the table. Creating a generalized social more against hitting and running is in my self-interest, plain and simple.

For example, the other day I was playing heads up with a guy who sat out any time we got 150 BB or deeper. He was willing to start new 100 BB tables, but he wouldn’t keep playing deep. I gave him a hard time about it, I told him he wasn’t being sporting, etc., but ultimately… I started new tables with him. I would have rather played him deep, but it was still worth it to play him shallow. And in the end, I took him for a couple buy-ins.

That said, I don’t sit down in a game intending to quit if I win a big pot. But I will leave without compunction if the conditions that first led me to sit down change, ie if a fish leaves or, in this case, I learn that the spots I thought might be soft were actually quite tough.

Yeah, I bought in for 100 BB at a deep table, too, even though I always give a hard time to the weak regulars who do that at 5/10. See above.