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?

I’ve read a lot of commentary on Olivier Busquet and Dan Colman’s t-shirts from the EPT Barcelona Super High Roller final table, and I was fortunate enough to discuss the issue at length with Olivier himself as well as with the always-thought-provoking Nate Meyvis on Episode 92 of our podcast.

Olivier conceded that he and Dan didn’t choose the best topic for breaking the ice, and I am sympathetic to the argument that they didn’t choose the best forum either, but I nonetheless respect the attempt and am deeply troubled by those who would assert that politics has no place in poker. These critics paint politics either as a matter of mere opinion to which everyone is entitled or, worse, a hobby or niche interest that people can reasonably choose to just not care about.

When politics is narrowly construed as liberal vs conservative, Obama vs Romney, then I can understand why many people see little point in engaging with it. But politics is much bigger than that: it’s about all sorts of decisions, made (or not made) by a variety of people in many different positions of authority, some far away but some as near as the brush stand. No one is an expert on all of these topics, and very few are experts on any of them, so there’s no sense in saying that only experts have the right to speak on them.

Professional Poker Players Are Not Rodeo Clowns

Robbie Strazynski claims that “Recreational poker players turn to poker for a break from everything else going on in the world. They also watch poker on television to see POKER, not politics.” Setting aside the impossibility of this warrantless assertion being true of all of the millions of recreational poker players in the world, Strazynski seems to believe that this is a good thing and that the role of the professional poker player is to provide this distraction.

That’s certainly not how I see myself, and Busquet also took issue with Strazynski’s assertion that, “Professional poker players play the game to make a living; not to make a statement, political or otherwise.”

Personally I’ve found studying poker to be extremely valuable to me in my decision-making and my general outlook on life away from the poker table. I’ve learned to think more clearly and rationally about certain things, had thousands of lessons in accepting with equanimity that which I cannot control, and become more familiar with mental biases to which all humans are prone.

I’m not delusional; I realize that people read this blog and listen to the podcast first and foremost for entertainment. Nonetheless, I hope that I present poker in a way that highlights the many positive habits of mind it can cultivate. And though I try not to go overboard about it, I don’t think I’ve been shy about overtly political posts. Sometimes they’ve dealt with policies directly related to poker and casinos, other times they’ve used poker as a frame for thinking about other political issues.

No Politics At the Table?

Many of Busquet and Colman’s critics invoke a supposed injunction against discussing politics at the table. Strazynski repeatedly emphasizes that he is all for political discussion on poker blogs, etc., and Victoria Coren claims that, “No politics or religion at the table” is “an old, old unwritten rule of poker.”  That’s never been my experience, and even if that has been a tradition in some circles, it doesn’t follow that that’s how it should be.

Many people, myself included, would argue that television’s ability to serve as a mindless distraction is its worst and most insidious quality. I support televising poker, but I don’t support catering to the lowest common denominator in order to make poker programming more appealing to a particular subset of the viewing public.

One of the other arguments against political discussion at the table is that it can be a divisive, polarizing topic that undermines camaraderie. Then again the same could be said of sports, and that’s certainly a popular topic of conversation.

I agree that poker’s ability to get people of different ages, ethnicities, socio-economic backgrounds, and nationalities sitting together around a table is a remarkable thing. It seems a waste, though, to bring these people together and then insist that their conversations remain tepid and apolitical. Why should they not discuss weighty subjects on which they may disagree? Disagreement does not have to mean contentiousness, and besides poker tables often turn contentious for reasons that have nothing to do with politics.

Political “opinion” also isn’t (or shouldn’t be, anyway) an opinion in the same way that my favorite color is an opinion. Politics ought to be a debate, and people ought to actively investigate positions that they don’t fully understand but are not inclined to agree with. Being open to hearing out the opinions of others, and learning to express your own opinions in ways that make them appealing to people who don’t already agree with you, are important skills that are rapidly eroding in the age of the internet.

As Rob King says, “I am of the view that politics is a major part of everyday life. I was raised in a political household where politics were part of the daily discussion at the dinner table. I really can’t understand why people are afraid of talking about such politics more. It’s as though people are unaware that political decisions impact the average person’s life in a massive way.”

It’s certainly common for players to discuss poker-related politics, such as a change in rake structure, minimum or maximum buy-in, or other policies at the room where they are playing. They may also discuss policies at competing poker rooms, live vs online poker, or legislation likely to affect poker and gambling. Obviously the UIGEA and the Black Friday indictments were both common topics of discussion at brick & mortar poker rooms.

More to Come

I realize that I’ve stacked the deck here by drawing on examples that have a clear and direct relation to poker. In the second part of this post, though, I’m going to look at a few examples that bridge the gap between niche interest for poker players and broader political issues. These are topics that in my opinion ought to be discussed much more than they are in the poker world.

Their execution may have been imperfect at best, but rather than chastising Busquet and Colman for not doing their part to anesthetize television viewers, we ought to take the opportunity to discuss what is the proper relationship between poker and politics.

“Don’t insult me with those ridiculous claims like “the money is for education!” Money is fungible, and education is already a high-priority budget item. Money raised from slot machines and earmarked for education is simply money that would otherwise have been diverted from some other budget item. The disingenuousness of this claim is jaw-dropping, and it’s even more appalling to me how many people fall for and parrot it.”

I didn’t know the intricacies of the state’s education funding policies, but I knew enough to smell the smoke being blown up my ass. An editorial in today’s Baltimore Sun says essentially the same thing in more detail:

“The level of state spending on education is determined by a variety of state laws, most notably the 2002 Bridge to Excellence Act, better known as the Thornton Law. Neither the original 2007 slots legislation nor the gambling expansion bill passed this year change the formulas that determine how much the state sends to each county or how much each county is required to spend on its schools. The money from gambling does not come in on top of the Thornton-mandated spending. It just allows general tax revenues that would otherwise have been spent on the schools to go somewhere else. Theoretically, the state could use the slots money to increase total education funding, but it has never done so.”

It continues to disgust me that Governor O’Malley, the real-life inspiration for The Wire‘s Tommy Carcetti, makes such a disingenuous argument.

Equally disgusting is the current debate over amending the state’s casino policy to permit a sixth casino, table games, and a massive reduction in the tax on casino profits. I was in Maryland between my Europe trip and the WSOP main event, so I had a chance to see and hear the omnipresent ads both for and against the proposed change. The cynicism was jaw-dropping.

Naturally both campaigns are bankrolled by competing casino interests, but the ads make no substantive arguments about casino gambling specifically. Both make roughly the same incoherent claims about “jobs” and “schools”, issues that are only tangentially related to a decision that will have huge implications for the state and its residents.

It’s ironic (or perhaps fitting, for a casino bill) that this supposedly pro-education claim actually aims at hoodwinking gullible citizens who lack the financial literacy and/or critical thinking skills to understand how ridiculous it is. And it’s telling that the bill’s supporters have no better leg to stand-on than a bald-faced lie.

The title of this post is in German because that’s where I am right now. My girlfriend and I have just embarked on a three-month Europe trip. My inability to play online poker has become a convenient excuse to travel the world, spending several months first in Canada and now in Europe. As far as occupational hazards go, these aren’t so bad.

In a sequel to my Gray Friday article entitled Three Days in Madrid, I described meeting two new friends after a last-minute decision to play the Grand Final of the European Poker Tour. Appropriately, both Soeren and Nico are also coming to Berlin for the EPT, and I hope to see both of them today. Nico and I traveled to Cannes for the WSOP-Europe a few months ago, but this will be the first time I’ve seen Soeren since Madrid.

In the last year, Nico’s home country of Spain has adopted legislation restricting its citizens to playing on Spanish-only sites, and Soeren’s home country of Germany threatens to enact similar legislation. Back in the United States, the patchwork of pending legislation at the state and federal levels is too complex for me to keep up with it. Although the holy grail would be legislation welcoming PokerStars back into the US market so that US players could compete against the rest of the world, at this point even the creation of a US-only market would be a vast improvement over the status quo.

For now, though, I remain a poker nomad. I play the EPT Berlin on Monday and hopefully the rest of the week as well. Last night a former student who lives in Berlin picked us up at the train station and took us to dinner. Soon we’ll be on to Amsterdam, where I hope to meet another former student and also spend some time with Richard “tzen1” Veenman, a member of PokerStars Team Online whom I first met in the Bahamas earlier this year.

A long-time blog reader offered us a couch to crash on in his Paris apartment, so that’s where we’ll be after the SCOOP. Then there’s hiking in the Swiss alps, hopefully meeting a student in Switzerland while we’re there, and then on to a small town in Germany for the wedding of one of my closest friends, who asked me to be his best man on this date in 2011.

I still haven’t answered any of those big questions, but I’ve managed to orient myself and muddle my way through a messy situation by focusing on what’s important to me: relationships with family, friends, and my girlfriend; traveling, meeting new people, and having new experiences; and making the best of any situation in which I find myself, doing my best not to look to the past with resentment or longing nor towards the future with fear or anticipation.

How did Black Friday affect you? What has your life been like for the past year? How do you feel on this important anniversary?

Limiting online poker or banning it altogether will not stop the problem gamblers, who will continue to find ways to gamble – legally or illegally. But it will hurt the honest professionals who rely on their poker earnings to supplement their incomes. It is time for Congress to reverse the damage done by UIGEA and fully legalize online poker. More important, it is high time that lawmakers respect and protect individuals’ right to spend their time, money and careers as they choose.

Minton also does a nice job of providing an argument for poker-as-skill-game that ought to be clear and compelling to a general audience:

A 2009 study by Cigital, a leading software-security consulting firm, analyzed 103 million cash-game hands from an online card room and found that the best cards won just 12.5 percent of the time. That means the other 87.5 percent of the time, a better card player got players holding better cards to fold. This clearly demonstrates that the “luck of the draw” has little to do with a player’s ability to win.

Sidenote about the Washington Times: At the 7-11 in Baltimore County where I used to work, we sold not just the Baltimore Sun but also the Washington Post and the Washington Times. The Post is by far the best of those papers, but the Times is the most conservative, and some for that reason it had its share of fierce loyalists. We didn’t keep many on hand, and if one of the loyalists came in to buy one but found we were sold out, he would complain about being forced to choose between, “The BS and the ComPost.”

As with almost everything in politics, public perception does matter and controlling the message matters more. The overall deafening silence from the AGA (and to a lesser degree, Caesars Entertainment, who publicly can’t comment for many reasons, one of which is that they’re helping write the bill), and lack of a cohesive, consistent, and aggressive message from the PPA has created a communications void that is mostly being filled by the opposition. By failing to publicly frame the debate in the mass media as to why online poker should happen, passing the Reid Bill^TM ends up being that much more difficult, especially after January 1st when the Republicans gain control of the House and seats in the Senate.

With this in mind, we’d shape the argument around the following points (expanded on further after the jump):

1. Online poker regulation is about repatriating funds, generating tax revenues, and creating jobs.
2. Online poker regulation will stimulate business for all brick & mortars in all states that opt-in.
3. Online poker regulation protects kids and adults by creating safeguards for participation.
4. Online poker regulation protects the consumer by enforcing safety standards.

Instead, it came from Wicked Chops Poker, home of the Friday Night Parting Shot and the Girls on the Rail feature during the WSOP. What’s next? Bikini-clad models flaunting their stuff on the pages of Thinking Poker?

In all seriousness, they are spot-on about the arguments that need to be made publicly. I understand that there was a strategy to keep this under the radar, and while that may even be the way to maximize the bill’s chances of passing, I happen to believe in democracy. I think that licensing online poker is a major decision- we’re talking billions of dollars in revenue- that ought to be made as part as a public, deliberative process. Passing the UIGEA as a rider was shady, and what Reid is up to now is shady as well.

Do I hope he succeeds? I do. But if he succeeds, I will also wish that this had come about in a better way.

*For the uninitiated: The NDT is the National Debate Tournament, the premier competition in collegiate debate.

**For those who really do want to see more asses on Thinking Poker, here’s a well-known college debate coach mooning one of his colleagues after a heated contest between their teams:

Prospects Are Bleak

The online poker language is not in the tax cuts bill that is going to the floor for a vote. Reid is talking about trying to attach it to something else, but this seriously hurts its prospects for passage. Many on 2+2 are relieved by that, but I am not so sure it is good news. The picture of an unregulated future painted by both the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) and others in the know is rather bleak.

The Status Quo is Bad and Getting Worse

This is the major point that the bill’s detractors largely fail to acknowledge. Things are not just fine as they are now. It may seem that way, especially if you are a small stakes player who hasn’t dealt with moving large sums of money, but the sites that still serve US players face major hurdles in doing so.

The Department of Justice, in shutting down the payment processors that move money back and forth between online poker sites and American players, has greatly increased the cost of doing business for the sites. Not only must they continue to find new and ever more shady (and presumably expensive, given the risks they are running) processors, but they must also eat the costs every time the DOJ seizes funds from a processor. Every time you hear about a processor getting shut down and tens of thousands of dollars seized, that is players’ money that the sites, to date, have always reimbursed in the interest of keeping business flowing. There may come a time when a site decides it is no longer worth it to keep reimbursing these funds and will simply send an e-mail to affected players: “Your withdrawal of $XXX has been seized by the US Department of Justice. If you wish to dispute this seizure, you can file Form DJ-889-7b in triplicate with the DOJ within 30 days of this notice. Thanks for playing at Cereus!”

If you aren’t aware of these payment processor complications, it’s because you have always dealt in small (<$2500) transactions and/or because the sites do their best to insulate you from these difficulties. No matter how bad things get for them and how much money they are putting up on your behalf, their incentive is still to convey the sense that all is well and you can continue to play worry-free. They are shouldering the risk themselves, and while they are certainly being well-compensated for that, there will eventually come a point at which the cost of doing business is simply too high.

So far, it’s only been money at risk, and the sites are making enough of that. Should the DOJ start indicting the individuals believed to own these sites, those individuals may lose their will to fight in a hurry. This is a particular risk for Full Tilt Poker, with its purported owners living high-profile lives in the United States.

My point is that there probably will not be much warning beyond what we’ve already seen. The sites have no incentive to hint at the complications they currently face, as this would only cost them business. Think Netteller. Everything will be fine until one day it isn’t.

Professional Poker Players Have No Bargaining Power

The PPA has done an admirable job of marshalling what influence it has. Some politicians are more honest about this than others, but the unpleasant reality is that nobody gives a shit whether you can make a living playing online poker. We are not in a position to dictate the terms under which online poker is licensed and regulated in the United States.

Those decisions will be made by interests and lobbies far more powerful than we. Whatever happens with online poker in the long-term will be the result of negotiation between social conservatives who generally oppose gaming and major US-based gaming organizations such as Harrah’s. Foreign sites like Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker do not get a seat at the table, and those of us whose who earn a living at the virtual tables don’t either.

The influence of gaming companies, especially in Reid’s state of Nevada, is immense. They literally are the economy of that state, employing a tremendous proportion of the population and generating much of the state’s revenue. We are not in a position to dictate anything to them. The best we can hope to do is capitalize on the ways in which our interests align.

This Bill is the Best We Are Going to Get

Democrats lost a lot of ground in the mid-term elections, including control of the Senate House Finance Committee and the House of Representatives. This bill is far from ideal for the professional player, but there is no reason to think that we are in a position to hold out for something better. Even individual Republicans who themselves have no ideological objection to gaming still have trouble supporting it for fear of alienating socially conservative constituents. If this bill fails, then we will have to hope that Democrats rally in 2012 and bother to revist this issue, and even if all of that happens, they are still going to be beholden to the US-based gaming industry, which is still going to insist on preferential treatment.

Even to talk about our “holding out” for something better is naive, because the truth is that our consent isn’t needed or wanted. We aren’t in a position to block this legislation even if we wanted to. Whether we professionals like it or not is immaterial.

As an academic matter, should we like it? The “blackout period” is unfortunate but not unworkable. I sympathize with the many pros are not able to absorb 15 months’ of vastly diminished income, but in the long run it’s a price worth paying for licensed online poker that can be advertised on US television, funded by US banks, etc.

Is the “blackout period” a deal-breaker? Perhaps not. It seems that Senator Kyl, not the gaming companies, is the source of this provision (though he still opposes even this version of the bill). He is a powerful adversary and not an easy one to move, but there are powerful and monied interests on the other side of this issue as well. The best we can hope for is a last-minute compromise on this point, but even if it can’t be achieved, the impression I get is that a bill containing blackout language will be better than no bill at all.

Other provisions, such as the size of the tax on revenues, are generally considered to be more than reasonable. Considering how hard governments rake their lotteries, we may even be getting off easy on this point. Given the opportunity, would we want to trade the blackout period for far higher taxation? I wouldn’t think so, which is all the more reason to prefer this bill.

The prohibition on non-US players, once a US-based market gets up and running, is the part I find most puzzling. I suppose keeping everything domestic makes matters much simpler, but it also forfeits billions of dollars in potential revenue. From the perspective of the US government, revenue from non-citizens is far more valuable than revenue from citizens, and if anything about the bill changes in the next few years, I would expect it to be this.

What Can We Do About It?

At the legislative level, very little. Pardon my cynicism, but the major decisions will be made by interests far stronger than us. We may have some room at the margins to haggle with details (according to the PPA, they were able to do away with pernalites for players on illegal sites that appeared in an early draft of the bill), but we simply don’t have the influence to fight the US gaming industry on their core interests, which unfortunately do include getting a leg-up on their foreign competition.

There is speculation that, should this legislation pass, it may be possible to play on second-tier sites such as Bodog and Cereus during the blackout period. I would advise you to be very careful if you do so. The long-term prospects of these sites will not be good in a world where they must compete, without access to the US market, against not just Poker Stars and Full Tilt but also gaming giants like Harrah’s.

Their incentive will likely be to make what short-term profits they can before being driven out of business by some combination of the DOJ and their competition. When they decide to close up shop, it will likely be without warning, and they may well take your money down with them. This wouldn’t even have to entail outright theft, though I wouldn’t put that past them, either. An unexpected occurrence such as a major crackdown on their payment processors could render them suddenly illiquid. If you believe that Cereus keeps player deposits in a separate account that is not used for operating expenses, I have some real estate to sell you in Florida….

If you are a professional poker player in the United States, this legislation should be a wake-up call for you whether it passes or not. You need substantial savings. You need a back-up plan. You need to know where your money is and how safe it is there. Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker are huge companies with solid long-term prospects that are not entirely dependent on the US market. Even if they stop serving US players, and even in the absence of legislation this is a realistic possiblity, especially for FTP, they are not likely to abscond with your money. The same cannot be said for smaller sites, especially those with a history of putting short-term profits above honest dealings with their customers.

There are no guarantees. As poker players, we ought to be accustomed to managing risk and making decisions with imperfect information. For my money, this legislation is the best bet we have. The next year or two may well be lean years for us, but if the eventual licensing and regulation of online poker in the US is handled well (this is also not a guarantee), then such a bill will be very good for us in the long-term.

In the absence of legislation, things will continue as usual for a few months, maybe even few years, but they will get very bad in the not-too-distant future. I fear that should that happen, we will all look back wistfully at this window of opportunity and regret that the “Reid Bill” didn’t pass. By then, we may be forced to settle for much worse legislation or even a worst-case scenario where the DOJ aggressively shuts down online poker sites serving US customers, seizes funds, and actively prosecutes players themselves.

Edit: Changed “Senate” to “House” with regard to which Finance Committee the Dems lose in January.

Staffers for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are circulating a bill to legalize poker playing on the Internet that’s backed by large casino interests.

The Nevada casino companies pushing the measure were among the Democrat’s biggest donors during his fierce re-election fight. They argue the bill would provide consumer protection for poker players and would provide some tax revenue for federal and state governments.

This is a mixed bag, although I believe that in the long run it would be better than nothing, which is what we’re likely to get if there isn’t action in this session. The complication is that

According to the draft of the bill reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Reid’s office is considering language that would allow only existing casinos, horse tracks and slot-machine makers to operate online poker websites for the first two years after the bill passes, which could limit the ability of other companies to enter the market.

The bill would also outsource oversight to state regulators, another move supported by existing casinos that don’t want to see the federal government become overly involved in regulating their industry.

The bill as drafted would send taxes on wagers to both federal and state governments.

That could mean no more Poker Stars or Full Tilt for Americans, at least in the short-term. The best-case scenario would be to have something like, “Poker Stars presented by Harrah’s” or something like that, though I don’t think it’s too likely.

Of course this is also bad news if you don’t pay your taxes, but in that case I don’t have any sympathy for you.

Fletcher had been on a tear during the past few meetings of the high school poker club – part of a nascent effort nationwide to take the game from casinos to classrooms, applying card-table concepts to math and logical-reasoning lessons.

As Fletcher’s pile of plastic chips grew last week, he smiled wide. “I don’t know whether math class is helping me with poker, or whether poker is helping me in math class,” he said.

George Mason’s school-sponsored poker club, which was founded in September, has quickly become one of the most popular extracurricular activities at the Falls Church high school. But it also has anti-gambling groups questioning whether it encourages potentially unhealthy habits in children.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t too detailed about how widespread such programs are or how exactly the learning is integrated with playing, which in my opinion would be the critical determinant of success.

Nonetheless, I think this is quite an interesting development. Dating back to ancient Greece and probably before, games have historically been a way of cultivating and rewarding skills that societies wish to see in their young people. Poker’s relationship to gambling has kept it in a separate category and often far away from young people, but I think that recent events demonstrate how badly the US population could use some lessons in financial decision-making.

That’s not to say that the concerns of the anti-gambling crowd are entirely invalid. It would be interesting to see some actual data suggesting a causal link between playing poker at a young age and developing a gambling problem. Hand-wringing and cries of, “Think of the children!” aren’t so convincing.

In the first place, it’s comically sad that this passes for front page news, albeit below the fold.

What really got me laughing, though, was this awesome quote from a Baltimore balla:

John Furst, who was parking at Broadway Market in Fells Point recently, said he quickly realized that he could buy time on a meter on Eastern Avenue- where the city charges 50 cents an hour- and use that receipt a few blocks over in Fells Point where it costs one dollar an hour to park.

“If you are in the know in Baltimore, you can do well,” Furst said.

Way to scam the city out of fifty cents an hour, John, you badass!

Needless to say, the Post story was better than the 60 Minutes segment. Authored by two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Ira Rosen, it explored the cheating and the means by which it was discovered in considerable detail. Best of all, it kept the focus on UB and AP rather than painting all internet poker sites with the same broad brush. The overall theme of the story was that cheating occurred and that, although the perpetrators were not substantially punished, the players were able to uncover it and force restitution to be paid.

The 60 Minutes story was a bit more sensational, with references to the Wild West and cards “tumbling out of the computer”. It was also a bit more entertaining. After he declined to return their phone calls, they took several pretty funny shots UB cheater and former WSOP world champion Russ Hamilton, who won his “considerable weight in silver” along with the 1994 title.

The only thing that struck me as truly irresponsible were the multiple references to online poker being “illegal”. Technically speaking, certain financial transactions between banks and online poker sites are illegal, but the actual playing is not. It’s pretty bad for a highly respected news program to misstate a verifiable fact like that, particularly given that many people from 2+2 called and e-mailed producers over the weekend to point out the error before the show went to air.

Also troubling were the ominous closing comments of Todd “Dan Druff” Witteles about how cheating was probably going on undetected at other sites. He’s already said that he regrets this comment, and while I don’t think the overall message that cheating is possible and players should be cautious is a bad one to send, Witteles and 60 Minutes didn’t communicate it in the most responsible way. There’s no reason to speculate with no evidence about what is actually happening at other sites, only to speak in broad terms about what has happened, what could happen, and most importantly (and largely lacking from the coverage) what can be done to prevent it in the future.

It would have been nice to hear about Rep. Barney Frank’s efforts to regulate and tax internet poker. And if they really wanted to discuss the legality of playing poker online, they should have spoken to prominent legal scholars like Charles Nesson and I. Nelson Rose.

Still, on the whole they largely confined their comments to UB and AP, identified the most prominent perpetrator, embarrassed the Kahnawake Gaming Commission, and portrayed the complicated details of the situation in a way that should make sense to the general public. I continue to be of the opinion that if we want greater legitimacy, we in the poker community must be willing to air our dirty laundry.

The debate team at the Academy of Public Service sailed into the “elite eight” last year at the national championships in Chicago.

Now, thanks to that oratorical success, the debaters have talked their way into another year of funding as their school merges with the nearby Noonan Business Academy in Codman Square.

“The output of the debate team was a big part of the decision,” said team coach Locksley Bryan. “They saw these kids doing academic calisthenics at a very high level and it impressed them.”

The backstory, as I understand it, is that several years ago the Boston Public Schools received a multi-year, multi-million-dollar grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to support a transition to small schools. The grant funded the dissolution of Boston’s large public high schools into multiple small schools sharing a single building. Thus, what was Dorchester High School became three schools within the renamed Dorchester Education Complex: Tech Boston, Noonan Business Academy, and the Academy of Public Service (APS).

Dorchester is one of the more troubled neighborhoods in Boston, and these schools had more than their share of problems. APS, however, was fortunate enough to have a wonderful headmaster and several great teachers who saw the value that a debate team could have for their students and their school. They got in touch with me, and I helped them start such a program three years ago.

Thanks to the efforts of the aforementioned faculty, APS quickly became one of the most successful schools in the League, putting up some of the best participation numbers and repeatedly taking top honors at citywide competitions. This was a big deal for a school that used to be known derogatorily among Boston’s young people as “Dumbchester”.

The Gates grant expires at the end of the current school year, and BPS seems to be reconsolidating some (though not nearly all) of the small schools it created. APS was slated to be absorbed by the more popular Tech Boston and its students dispersed. However, teachers, faculty, students, alumni, and community members rallied in support of their school. As the most eloquent orators, several of the debaters took leadership roles in this effort, speaking before the Boston Schools Committee about the value of the Academy of Public Service. The debate team was one of the flagship programs to which they pointed as evidence of the school’s success.

As an organization, we’ve learned a lot from this event. We’ve come to appreciate more fully how much a debate team can transform a school culture, ultimately affecting even non-debaters in a positive way. When intellectual competition takes on the fun, excitement, credibility, and even popularity of a sports team at a school, that school is bound to improve. Joining the debate team becomes a cool, or at least socially acceptable, thing to do, and more kids get into it. These students, and the teachers who coach them, bring their newly acquired skills into their classrooms, raising the quality of the class for all its students.

An alumnus of the APS debate team who now volunteers as a judge at our competitions put it best when he told me, “If they had said three years ago that they wanted to close APS, I wouldn’t have argued with them. It was a bad school. But it changed when the debate team came along. Debate turned around a lot of kids lives. Kids who were going to drop out started coming to school again so they could debate. It’s a much better school now and I don’t think they should close it.”

After the panel, there was a reception. It was a small crowd, and I was one of the only students there, certainly the least consequential person by a mile. My professor called Bill over to introduce him to me, and I began to tell him my story, “I was interested to hear about the [High School] chess team you met, because I actually coach a debate team at that same school. I’ve had similar-“

Before I finish my second sentence, Bill cuts me off, grabs my hand, says “Great to meet you,” turns his back, and goes over to talk to someone else.

So yeah, Bill Ayers is a terrorist. And a douchebag.

The raid occurred around 7:40 p.m. I was in the kitchen area which was just inside the front door when suddenly there was loud banging from the door. Within seconds, the room was full of Dallas SWAT officers yelling for everyone to put their hands in the air. Behind the Dallas SWAT team came many more law enforcement officers and several camera crews for the A&E reality show, Dallas SWAT. The camera crew’s chests were clearly marked as “A&E Film Crew.”

Bear in mind that, prior to police entering, the place was virtually quiet. There was the sound of poker chips in the air, but not much else. The players were essentially professionals and working stiffs having fun…there were doctors, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals. There was hardly anything “dangerous” about the place at all. In fact, the cops found no weapons in the facility or on anyone there. The show of force and weaponry brought by the cops was simply outrageous and unjustified, given the circumstances, but, then again, are they enforcing the law or making a TV show?

Among other things, I think this is an interesting comparison with the way decisions made by Harrah’s and the hosts of World Poker Tour events are driven by camera crews and the needs of the networks that broadcast poker.

Interview with Poker Stars

O By the Way Blog 1

O By the Way Blog 2

PokerNews Photos

Poker Savvy/Cardplayer Round Table

And honorable mention goes to the Hendon Mob, who reported that:

“Only five players — Andrew Brokos, Pat Dattilo, Marc Friedman, Vinod Jadav, and Stefan Mattsson — cashed in both the 2006 and 2007 Main Events. All were going for their third consecutive cash this year. However, only one player survived (and is guaranteed to cash). He is Stefan Mattsson, from Stockholm, Sweden – currently in 308th place).”

Really, 308th place? Sick run, Stefan. I’m really surprised there were only five of us who cashed in ’06 and ’07.

Also according to Hendon Mob, the record for consecutive cashes is held by Bo Sehlstedt, who cashed in 2004-2007 but failed to cash this year. C’mon, Stefan, we can take him.

I can’t claim to be a poker celebrity, but yesterday I got a taste of what that would be like. After waking early, going for a swim, having breakfast, and putting in some non-poker work at my computer, I made my first trip to the Rio. I wasn’t going to play but to meet up with Bill Ordine, a reporter from my hometown paper, the Baltimore Sun, who is working on an article on poker and philanthropy. He’d already interviewed Barry Greenstein, who’s known as “the Robin Hood of Poker” for donating over a million dollars in tournament winnings to a children’s charity, and Annie Duke, who organized a $5000 buy-in charity tournament called Ante Up for Africa to coincide with the WSOP.

My own story is a little different. I’ve donated only a little more than 5% of my poker winnings to the non-profit organization that I founded, the Boston Debate League (BDL). My real contribution is all of the time and work that I put into it. Poker is what enables me to do that. I average 20-25 hours of work per week for each, and I make enough playing poker that I can afford to put that kind of time into the BDL.

It’s great that Bill is doing this article, because poker sometimes gets a bad rap among the general public. People tend to believe, not entirely without reason, that poker encourages a cut-throat, every-man-for-himself mindset and that it rewards lying, treachery, and deceit. Hopefully an article in a major newspaper that focuses on the good that poker enables people to do will help to clean up that image.

Poker hasn’t just given me the financial freedom to do “good work”. It’s also taught me valuable skills that a liberal arts education did not. To paraphrase Ms. Duke, poker isn’t fundamentally a game of lying, it’s a game of pricing and negotiation. I do feel it’s given me some business sense that has proven useful in meetings with foundations, prospective donors, the Boston Public Schools, and other individuals and institutions with which the BDL works.

Largely, the interaction between my poker “work” and my urban debate work has been a one-way street. That is, poker gave me the skills and financial freedom to grow the Boston Debate League, but the latter didn’t do much for my poker game, except maybe making me feel less of a leech on society by gambling for a living.

Recently, however, that’s started to change. In addition to playing, I now make money by coaching poker as well. Sometimes this is with individual students who pay me by the hour, but I also work for a video training site called Poker Savvy Plus. They pay me to record videos of myself playing or talking about poker and then offer these videos on a subscription basis to people who want to improve their game. My experience teaching debate and working with professional teachers has definitely made me a more successful and popular poker coach.

Yesterday, I got to meet my co-workers at Poker Savvy for the first time (in most cases- there were a few I already knew). But first, I had about an hour to kill between my interview with Bill and my meet-up with Poker Savvy. So, I headed down to the Amazon Room, the convention center at the Rio Hotel & Casino where the WSOP is held. I was hoping I might see someone I knew, but the odds were slim. Actually, the odds were good that I’d see someone I knew but slim that I’d recognize them. Since I play poker almost exclusively online, I plenty of people by their screen names but have no clue what most of them look like.

As luck would have it, though, I was spotted by my friend Richard almost immediately. Richard goes by Shorty both because of his last name is and because he is immensely tall. He was just starting a 20-minute break from a tournament he was playing, so I accompanied him for a quick bite at the WSOP Poker Kitchen while he told me how things had been going for him so far in Las Vegas. Mostly he raved about how soft and juicy the side games were and asked what I was planning on playing.

I told him the truth, which is that I had exactly $10,000 in cash on me, which I needed to buy into the main event. My plan was to play $5/$10 or $10/$25 games, hope for the best, and then find a Bank of America (there are none on the Strip, so I’d have to take a cab there and back) to withdraw more if I didn’t win. Shorty told me that he was leaving town that night and would be happy to lend me some cash since he wouldn’t need it. We exchanged phone numbers so that we could meet up when he was finished playing that night, and then he got back to his tournament.

I wandered around for a bit longer and then headed up to the suite in the Rio that Cardplayer magazine had converted into a studio for the duration of the WSOP. This is where I’d be meeting everyone else from Poker Savvy to record a roundtable Q&A session where we discussed poker topics submitted by Cardplayer readers.

Since I arrived about fifteen minutes early, I had some time to hang out with the Cardplayer crew, including the main reporters/hosts for their internet content: Shawn Green and Lizzie Harrison. Those of you who follow the poker scene may know these two, and those of you who don’t probably won’t be surprised to learn that Lizzie is an attractive and buxom twenty-something. Her looks have earned her a bit of a cult following on internet poker forums, and I can assure you that she is at least twice as hot in real life. But she, Shawn, and the rest of the Cardplayer crew were also very down to earth and fun to shoot the breeze with.

After about twenty minutes, the other Poker Savvy people started to arrive: Justin “Jurollo” Rollo, Dani “Ansky” Stern, Isaac “Ike” Haxton, Chris “Tribefan” Rhodes, Tony “Bond18” Dunst, and some of the behind-the-scenes guys. We took our seats and waited for the star of the show, Mike “The Mouth” Matusow, to join us during his break from the Ante Up for Poker tournament.

For those who don’t know, Mike is, to understate the matter, a character. Though he’s had tremendous success as a poker player, winning multiple WSOP bracelets and several six-figure prizes, he’s also lost a lot of money to compulsive gambling and spent some time in jail for possession of cocaine. He’s called “The Mouth” because he talks non-stop at the table, often berating his opponents’ play, singing his own praises, or just generally calling attention to himself.

Lately, he’s made some impressive gains in getting himself together. In the last year, he’s dropped over sixty pounds, motivated by a $100,000 prop bet to get from 241 lbs down to 179. Just recently, he won his third WSOP bracelet in the $5000 rebuy 2-7 single draw rebuy event.

So we are all sitting in front of the cameras and waiting for Mike when suddenly there is a loud thump on the door. Someone opens it, and The Mouth comes crashing into the suite like a stampeding rhinoceros. “You all wouldn’t believe how f—ing fast I f—ing ran to get up here,” he pants, nostrils flared. “Let’s do it! Let’s go! Let’s get this thing f—ing started!” he shouts, clapping his hands. He takes the last available seat, which is in the back.

I’m wondering if the most famous guy here shouldn’t be seated more prominently, but it turns out not to matter, because Mike makes himself the center of attention no matter what. He fields the first question enthusiastically and then interrupts whomever is speaking when he decides he has something to add. When he isn’t shouting over us, he is gesticulating wildly to the people off-camera that he has to go in a minute or that he would like a bottle of water. We pass it to him, and he consumes the entire thing in a single ten-second chug, then tosses it haphazardly aside.

I don’t imagine that much strategy content slipped past Mike’s antics, but the clip should at least be good for comedic value. It doesn’t appear to be up on Cardplayer’s website yet, but I’ll let you know when it is.

After the taping, we went out for drinks sans Mike. Truthfully, an afternoon with a bunch of internet poker players is not generally something I’d look forward to. Most are brash, self-absorbed, whiny, and otherwise annoying. But I must say that to a person, my co-pros at Poker Savvy were a great bunch. They are all very successful at poker and have a lot to brag about, but they don’t come across as stuck up or anything, and they have some good stories.

For the full-time professionals, the WSOP is a magical time of year. Groups of guys, from four to ten or more, rent palatial houses in Las Vegas and spend weeks playing poker and partying their asses off. I don’t think any of the best stories were intended for public consumption, but you can probably imagine the sort of debauchery that a bunch of guys in their early twenties with way too much money can get up to in Las Vegas. I’m only a few years older than most of them, but that whole lifestyle has never really been my scene. There are times when I feel little pangs of regret and a sense that I could be living a seriously crazy life, but for the most part it doesn’t appeal to me. I do love hearing the stories, though.

We left the bar around seven, and I got a ride back to the Rio. I’d had only one drink in anticipation of putting in some hours at the tables that night. As I was waiting for a seat to open up, I ran into Shorty again. He had just been eliminated from his tournament and was going to go pack his bags then bring me some cash before leaving for the airport.

About an hour later, I was seated in a tight but not particularly tough 10/25 game when I spotted Shorty wandering the cash game section. I stood up and waved to catch his attention, played one more hand, then walked away from the table for a minute to speak with him. “Here’s $7500,” he greeted me, handing me a roll of $100 bills. I pocketed it as he shared some intel on players at my table whom he’d played with in the last few days, then I wished him a good flight and returned to my game.

This really underscores the value of reputation in the poker community. I’ve known Shorty for about three years online, but we’ve met only two or three times in real life. Yet, just as a favor, he’s willing to lend me $7500 in cash on the understanding that I’ll send him a check when I get back to Boston. It’s just a reality of high stakes poker that people often need access to large sums of cash, and now to money on various online poker sites as well, and it’s infinitely easier to manage the logistics of moving this money among friends than to deal with the hassle and expense of wire transfers, getting to an off-Strip bank, or withdrawing from an ATM.

Poker friends can also help you raise money by staking you in a juicy game that’s beyond your bankroll. They reduce your risk by putting up some of the money you need. Then if you lose, they eat the loss, and if you win, they get a cut. In fact, I was up on the WSOP before I even got to Las Vegas as a result of buying 10% of a friend who has had a phenomenal run, making two final tables.

Of course there are scumbags who take advantage of people, borrow money they can’t or won’t pay back, and rip off their investors. But reputation spreads quickly, and these people can quickly be cut off from the world of poker financing. Because I have been an active and ethical member of the poker community for several years, I know many people who would lend me money in a pinch, stake me for nearly any tournament I wanted to play, or help me transfer funds between online poker sites. And there are plenty of people for whom I would do the same.

1. Cheating at Ultimate Bet- Ultimate Bet’s press release carefully avoided the word “cheating”, instead using the phrase “unfair play”. Mike and Adam resolved to press Leggett to use the word cheating, but surprisingly he employed it readily and without prompting.

2. Refunds- Leggett also referred many times to “refunding” money that was stolen from players. I’m really surprised by this choice of words, because it seems to imply that Tokwiro is returning money they have rather than compensating affected players out of their own pockets, which is what they claim is happening. I find it very strange that they don’t make a bigger deal out of the fact that they are doing this. I mean, if they were actually taking millions of dollars from their own coffers to replace money that they didn’t steal, you’d think they’d jump up and down about what an amazing thing it is they are doing for their players. But Leggett constantly refers to it as a “refund” and could not sound more dispassionate when he insists, “We’re very upset that someone was able to do this on our site, to our players.”

3. Stolen From UB?- Leggett repeatedly refers to money stolen “from our players, from our site” as though money were taken from them as well. I’m pretty sure he actually means that it was stolen through or using UB rather than from UB. It’s like he’s trying to portray his company as a victim in all of this as well. I guess if their story is true, then UB is a victim, because their reputation is shot to hell and they are on the hook for all the money.

4. Coughing- Leggett clears his throat constantly, pretty much any time he’s asked a tough question. It’s hard to say, though, whether he’s nervous because he’s lying or nervous because he’s getting grilled.

5. Absolute Poker Cheating Deal- Apparently, Tokwiro, which also owns AP, struck a deal with the perpetrators of the cheating on that site. In exchange for a detailed explanation of how the cheating was carried out, they agreed not to release the names of the individuals or attempt to prosecute the crime. This is new information and certainly inconsistent with the allegation that that cheating was carried out by owners of the site.

6. Kahnawake Gaming Commission Fine- Leggett confirms that the KGC fined Tokwiro $500,000 for the AP incident in addition to the cost of the audit that was performed. I really wish Mike and Adam had asked what the KGC was doing with this money. Since when does the regulator get to issue arbitrary fines and then keep the money for themselves? Yet as far as I know the KGC hasn’t said or done anything publicly with that money for the affected players.

7. Joe Norton Not So Corrupt- This made me laugh out loud. After Leggett cites the KGC fine, Mike and Adam ask if the KGC is really so independent, given that former Kahnawake Grand Chief Joe Norton is the sole owner of Tokwiro Enterprises. Leggett, who not surprisingly seems to have a close working relationship with Norton, says that Joe didn’t found Tokwiro until he was out of public office. He then adds that this is no more corrupt than a US Senator going to work for a lobbyist after he leaves office. That’s a real high moral standard they’re holding themselves to….

8. Return Visit? After the interview, Mike and Adam decide to keep inviting Leggett back every few months in an attempt to hold him to his timeline and insure that his promsies are kept. This is a great idea, and I hope they’ll stick with it.

The theft was uncovered through the collective effort of several 2+2’ers who were high stakes regulars at UB affected by the theft, most prominently trambopoline, dlpnyc21, josem, and also Nat Arem. 2+2 Moderator Cornell Fiji composed a thorough summary of what is believed to have happened along with the damning evidence that goes well beyond what UB admits in its press release.

In this new thread, Cornell is once again doing an admirable job exposing all of the deception in the press release. I’m not going to try to summarize it all, but basically it is at the very least a shameful lapse, and more probably deliberate negligence, that UB’s security didn’t notice any of this until 2+2’s amateur investigators compiled undeniable evidence. If security isn’t tracking win rates and investigating the play of the biggest winners in the biggest games on the site, what exactly are they doing? How is it that amateurs with nothing more than Poker Tracker databases can unravel this stuff, but a supposedly professional security team cannot?

Moreover, UB claims that it knew nothing about the potential for its software to be exploited in this way. But UB is owned by Tokwiro Enterprises, which also owns Absolute Poker, which was the subject of another scandal where a similar vulnerability was exploited from the inside. It’s absurd for them to claim that they couldn’t have anticipated this, and it’s disgraceful that they either didn’t anticipate it or actively facilitated the theft.

Nat Arem had a chance to question one of their representatives, but don’t expect too much new info from that Q&A session.

Like Absolute Poker, UB tries to reassure its customers by pointing to its “regulatory agency”, the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. Aside from the gross incompetence (or worse) demonstrated above, there’s another big problem with the KGC: Joe Norton, the owner of Tokwiro Enterprises, is also the former Grand Chief of the Kahnawake Mohawk tribe of Montreal! In other words, there is nothing independent about the KGC.

During his time as Grand Chief, Norton was accused of more than his share of shady dealings and corrupt bargains. Though members of his tribe accused him of being a puppet of the Quebec government, he also had a well-publicized (in Canada) clash with Canadian police and soldiers.

In a lot of ways, this latest scandal is very discouraging and disheartening. However, both UB and AP were eventually forced to admit that something had gone wrong and to return player funds that were stolen. This demonstrates the power of the online poker community to exercise some level of independent oversight over the sites where we play. Ideally, this will discourage other sites from trying anything shady in the future. However, if the only ramification for UB, after all this time and effort, is that they have to return the funds that weren’t theirs to begin with, then this will not be much of a deterrent.

So what can we do? I’ve got some ideas, and I hope you’ll offer others.

1. Boycott AP and UB. I never played on AP, and I’ve pulled all of my money off of UB. If a scandal like this doesn’t bankrupt UB or at least crush their market share, then it will not be a deterrent to any future malfeasance by them or anyone else. I was probably one of maybe twenty people regularly playing 25/50 NL on their site, so hopefully my action will be missed, as will that of other high limit players who refuse to play there.

2. Stop endorsing them. High-profile players like Annie Duke and Phil Hellmuth need to end their affiliation with UB. It is downright unethical for them to be encouraging people to play on this site. Similarly, Cliff “JohnnyBax” Josephy should be ashamed of himself for signing with them this week. He claims he was convinced of their desire to change, but based on what he’s said publicly about this, it doesn’t seem like he was especially well-informed about the allegations nor that he went to great lengths to question whomever he spoke with from UB’s management. Then again, he is supposedly a pretty shrewd businessman, so perhaps he knows something I don’t. But I think he ought to either say a lot more about why he has confidence in UB or stop encouraging others to play there.

3. Ask tough questions of other sites. I’m no expert on this, but personally, Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker are the only sites I’m comfortable playing on right now. Still, I think it would be best to get specific, public statements from them about the nature of their security, why their software is not vulnerable to the exploits that led to the theft on UB and AP, who regulates them and how, etc. UB and AP have been able to hedge, make misleading statements, and deny responsibility because in many cases they had not made explicit statements before these scandals about the nature of their security. As players, we should have a more explicit understanding of the level of security the sites will provide. There should be measurable benchmarks and pre-agreed ramifications for them if something illicit happens on their site. If 2+2 could create a Players’ Bill of Rights or something, thousands of us could ask sites like Poker Stars, FTP, and especially UB to agree to it as a condition for our business.

4. Create a genuinely independent regulatory authority with teeth. Similar to (3), there should at least be an independent regulator whom sites could voluntarily hire to certify the security of their software. Then we as players could refuse our business to anyone who didn’t pay for that certification. There’s probably money to be made here if it’s done right, and it would be a huge boon for online poker generally.

5. Legalize and regulate online poker in the US. Obviously I think this would be a good thing anyway, but as much as opponents of poker may try to use scandals such as this as arguments against legalization, I believe they are actually arguments in favor. Not that government involvement is a guarantor of legitimacy, but it’s got to be better than the legal netherworld in which internet poker currently exists. Once again, there’s money to be made here.

6. Spread a genuine understanding of the issue. Casual players have a right to know about the security issues at AP and UB, and its in our interest to have them playing on the more reputable sites where we are taking our business. At the same time, we don’t want to be fearmongers turning the poker world off to internet poker in general. We need simultaneously to inform people that UB and AP are unsafe but that there have not even been any plausible suspicions raised about extensive cheating at sites like FTP and Poker Stars. I honestly feel that the risk of cheating on those sites is barely higher than it is in brick and mortar casinos and much lower than at underground poker clubs. However, I’ll feel a lot more comfortable vouching for the credibility of those sites if and when some of my above suggestions are implemented.

First, a couple important details. My understanding is that everyone at the final table will be paid 9th place money in July. The rest of the prize pool will be kept in a CD, and the interest will be added to the payouts. Harrah’s has tried to make it sound like this is akin to adding bonus money to the prize pool, but really it’s the least they could do and possibly even their legal obligation.

Furthermore, according to the official press release,

“Each of the players who make it to the WSOP Main Event Final Table will receive ninth place prize money on July 14, when the finalists are determined. Harrah’s will then provide each of those players with an all expense paid trip for two for their return to Las Vegas in November to play the final portion of the tournament.

From July 14 to November 9, a span of 117 days, players will have an opportunity to line up sponsorships, coaches, review the play of all their competitors, participate in other tournaments, and take advantage of the new publicity and promotional opportunities that will be available.”

I still think this is kind of tacky and crassly commercial, but I do like the idea of the WSOP gaining popularity as a world-class sporting event. Suspense about the outcome should increase the excitement of earlier WSOP broadcasts, and if Harrah’s/ESPN do a good job of publicizing the final table contestants, they could be minor celebrities by November. Obviously the player themselves will have mixed feelings about that, but it will probably be good for poker in general. I found Daniel Negreanu’s analogy on this point compelling:

The way the WSOP main event airs now, the public is usually already aware of who won. The final episode plays out more like a documentary, a la, this is “how they won.” That will now change. Everyone will know who is at the final table, but for three months, the question will change to “who will win” which I think is more exciting.

On the other hand, the delay greatly increases the likelihood that players will make a deal and/or sell off their equity, which could actually decrease the excitement of the final table. Harrah’s understandably refuses to assist players in deal-making, and in past years there’s been very little time for players to bargain amongst themselves. But four months raises all sorts of possibilities, including the involvement of lawyers, insurance firms, and other professional deal-makers. The players may well end up playing for five rather than seven figures when the dust settles.

More troubling is the risk of collusion. It would not be difficult at all for two or more of the final tablists to become friends over the course of four months and reach an informal agreement to softplay each other. Of course, more large scale cheating is a possibility as well. Several members of the media who were on a conference call with WSOP commissioner Jeffrey Pollack found his response to these concerns lacking. He basically said there would be a new code of conduct and that punishments would be “severe” (no elaboration) in the event of collusion.

Overall, I appreciate the potential benefits, though I’m a bit skeptical since the higher-ups seem not to have given ample consideration to the drawbacks. Most troubling, though, is that such a drastic decision was made primarily for the interests of ESPN rather than the players. If the WSOP is going to be run for ESPN, as this and previous decisions have suggested it is, then the players should not be paying for it. The full $10,000 entry should go into the prize pool, and ESPN, Milwaukee’s Best Light, and the other sponsors should be the ones paying for staff, space, etc.

But I suppose it could be worse. If the WPT were doing this, they’d probably claim exclusive rights to market the final tablists themselves the way American Idol does.