YouTube Poker

Banned PokerStars TV Ad

2011-09-30T13:28:00.000-07:00

Not safe to show to the kids, that's for sure. Unless they've already watched Scarface a dozen times and play Grand Theft Auto on a regular basis.

Post #200: Book Update, Monetizing the blog and more

2011-09-28T08:06:00.001-07:00

This is a milestone post on Burbspoker.blogspot.com, post#200! So I will be blaming any spelling errors on the copious amounts ofconfetti and balloons falling from my home-office ceiling –I really spared noexpense in this celebration.

Ok, basically this will just be a quick update on the blogitself, starting with my decision to monetize the blog (see those oh soenticing ads from Google on the right-hand sidebar and at the bottom of thispost). Those are clickable, non-virus, ads chosen by Google to appear on myblog. Every time you click one of those ads I make money (HINT, HINT, WINK,WINK) and you don’t have to buy anything or even fill out a form, unless youwant to. So go ahead and click those links; you know you want to go to ITTTech, and buy a custom poker table!

Second, the 50-in-50 book challenge is just about done, andeven though I haven’t updated in quite some time, it’s still happening.Although, I know there are a few books that I have read that I simply forgot towrite down somewhere –this damn Kindle messed me all up.

So overall I have 46 books marked down as read in the 50weeks, and since I was using the Full Tilt Poker approved AGCC as an oversightcommittee and regulatory body, I say I completed the 50-in-50 challenge andthere’s nothing you can do about it!

Alright, so how is that for a 200^th post!!!!

Post #200: Book Update, Monetizing the blog and more

2011-09-28T08:06:00.000-07:00

Alright, so how is that for a 200^th post!!!!

What I miss the most about online poker

2011-09-26T16:48:00.001-07:00

There are certain nights that I’m on the computer andcursing the government for shutting down online poker in the US (I still havesome money on Lock Poker but it’s just not the same anymore) and taking away mycasual online poker habit –not to mention costing me quite a bit of income asaffiliates and news outlets cut down on their content orders.

However, nearly six months after Black Friday (yes, it’sgetting close to the half-year anniversary) I have discovered an even deeperproblem than a decrease in salary and the inability to play online poker: Ireally relied on online poker for a lot of free swag!

I made this discovery while putting away some laundryrecently and realizing my half-a-dozen PokerStars T-Shirts are ready for thetrash can: Even more alarming is the problem with a lack of hoodies as theweather gets colder here in Massachusetts –have you seen the price of hoodieslately, they’re like $50+ each! Normally this would be solved in 5 minutes witha quick 10,000 point purchase at the PokerStars store (Full Tilt gear wasalways much more expensive in terms of points), and in 2-6 weeks there were myitems, waiting on the front porch.

I didn’t realize just how heavily I relied on the onlinepoker rooms for staple items like T-Shirts, Hoodies, MP3 players, laptopcovers, multiple poker chip-sets, etc. You know the staples of life. I nevermade a really large item purchase from a poker site, except for a monitor backin the day, but I have probably had more T-Shirts/hats/sweatshirts pass throughmy mailbox than the local Target (ok, that’s an exaggeration, but you get thepoint). My key-chains, my hats, my kick-around clothes, jackets, books, DVD’s,random useless items like a tournament that doubles as a button, MP3 players,headphones, and on and on; they all bear the logo of a poker site in my home:Full Tilt poker, PokerStars, Party Poker, even UB Poker is represented!

So what am I to do? I can’t in good conscience go buy threehoodies and five t-shirts at $200+; this is what online poker sites are for!This is an absolute waste of money. Thanks a lot DOJ, thanks a lot!

What I miss the most about online poker

2011-09-26T16:48:00.000-07:00

Social Security is NOT a Ponzi scheme, well technically it isn’t

2011-09-22T05:43:00.001-07:00

There has been a lot of arguing lately about the use of theterm Ponzi scheme. The first arose after Rick Perry infamously called SocialSecurity a Ponzi scheme on national television. And more recently was the useof the term to describe Full Tilt Poker and the way the company was run in therun-up to Black Friday.

Now, the classic definition of a Ponzi scheme has to do witha very specific financial crime where the perpetrator guarantees a return oninvestment far ahead of other investors, or in some other way lures inpotential marks. Divedends are then paid out with the person’s own money or newinvestors’ money, along with the perpetrator taking a nice cut off the top forthemselves.

According to Wikipedia the scam was first mentioned inCharles Dickens’ novel The Life andAdventures of Martin Chuzzlewit, published in 1844 (and considering humannature has probably been around since civilization began in some form). Can’tyou just picture some ancient Sumerian standing on the banks of the TigrisRiver telling his counterparts about a fabulous investment opportunityinvolving clay tablets and cuneiform seals…?

However, like many words and terms in our lexicon the term“Ponzi scheme” seems to be evolving, especially recently. At its heart, a Ponzischeme is simply a fraud, but since “Ponzi scheme” is such a sexier term it hasfound its own place in the English language. Even though it’s originalintention was to describe a very specific type of fraud it has now branchedout, and is used far more broadly to describe money-in to cover money-outfrauds –purists will decry this bastardization of the term, but in the endwords change over time, and mean what people want them to mean.

For instance, here is what a Columbia Law Professor has tosay about the use of the term “PONZI SCHEME”: "Ponzi scheme is certainlythe term du jour these days," said Daniel Richman, a professor at ColumbiaLaw School. "If you want to drive home the point of taking people's moneyand not giving it back and sustaining it through later deposits, using the wordPonzi captures it." Quotetaken from Reuters Article

***As a side notehere, it pisses me off when people like Lawrence O’Donnell (who I like) stateswith unequivocal assuredness that a Ponzi scheme is “…Fraud… Committed byCharles Ponzi in the 20’s…criminal…Bernie Madoff…jail…” So it can’t be used todescribe Social Security or anything that isn’t specifically this type ofinvestment fraud that occurs in precisely this way. Basically this is one stepshy of saying “if the crime was not committed by a man named Charles Ponzi itcan’t be called a Ponzi scheme.”

So don’t act likesomeone who loosely applies the term Ponzi scheme doesn’t understand what itis, or what the original crime committed in the 20’s was. I still love you thoughLawrence. ***

The new definition of the term Ponzi scheme (or betterstated what people apply it to) seems to be: A fraud where certain guaranteesare made that continues over time because the perpetrator uses new moneycoming in to pay out other investors that are due payments. Where at some pointthe money will dry up, and investors will be left out in the cold. The strictdefinition that certain ROI guarantees are made in advance and that the fraud takes place as a financial investment opportunity no longer seems tobe necessary.

So is Social Security a Ponzi scheme? Not really, sincethere is no intention of fraud, but it does have the hallmarks of a Ponzischeme in its execution, especially as the money coming in can no longer coverthe money being paid out (although this is some 20 years away at this point).

Was what Full Tilt poker did a Ponzi scheme? It’s hard tosay at this point, but once again it has the nuts and bolts of a Ponzi scheme,considering players funds (supposedly kept separate), were used to payinvestors, for marketing purposes, and operating costs; in the end playerwithdrawals were being paid with new deposits coming in, which was nowhere nearenough to cover the collective amount of money supposedly in the accounts oftheir player base.

Social Security is NOT a Ponzi scheme, well technically it isn’t

2011-09-22T05:43:00.000-07:00

So don’t act likesomeone who loosely applies the term Ponzi scheme doesn’t understand what itis, or what the original crime committed in the 20’s was. I still love you thoughLawrence. ***

Key points in the new Full Tilt Poker complaint filed by the DOJ

2011-09-20T14:30:00.001-07:00

It really does seem that when it rains it pours in the pokerworld. Take today for example: No sooner had I finished catching up on themajor tournaments taking place in around the globe, followed by checking recentstatements made by US Digital Gaming and the American Gaming Associationregarding possible online poker legislation, followed by a search for any newscoming out of the Full Tilt Poker/AGCC hearing, and just when I finally thoughtI had caught up with all of the day’s headlines after reading through somesmaller news and notes like the Bodog signing of Amanda Leatherman, BAM, the USAttorney in the Southern District of New York unloads a bombshell early thisafternoon.

While the entire amendment being sought is eye-opening,there are several aspects of the amendment that I found particularly interesting.

· Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson were officiallynamed as owners of Full Tilt poker, along with percentages being given.

This is the first time the poker world has received confirmationon what we have always supposed to be true, and it appears the DOJ has detailedrecords as to precisely who owns what, and what has been paid out to eachindividual.

· Full Tilt Poker knowingly lied about the waythey used player deposits.

In the amendment a number of E-Mails and public statementswere posted verifying the claims that Full Tilt Poker claimed to segregate playerfunds –which turned out to be patently false.

· While we all had the feeling that Full Tilt pokerwas making the principle owners rich, none of us had any idea that several keyfigures were pulling in at least $10 million per year –Howard Lederer, ChrisFerguson, Ray Bitar, and “Player Owner 1” (which is almost assuredly Phil Ivey)all profited to the tune of at least $40 million.

The numbers thrown around in the amendment are almost mind –boggling:between Howard Lederer, Ray Bitar, “Player Owner 1”, and Chris Ferguson over $218million was paid out in the last four years!

· It would seem that Full Tilt Poker knew thewheels were coming off long before Black Friday and were in fact making anabsolute last-ditch cash-grab at the players’ expense.

This excerpt from the amendment is particularly damning:

Instead of disclosingthis fact, Full Tilt Poker secretly began to credit funds to players’ onlinegambling accounts that Full Tilt Poker had never actually collected from players’bank accounts. As players gambled, and lost, these phantom funds, Full TiltPoker developed an undisclosed shortfall of approximately $130 million owed toplayers that Full Tilt Poker had never collected because, in reality, thesefunds were never withdrawn from players’ bank accounts. The management of FullTilt Poker, including the FTP Insider Defendants, operated Full Tilt Poker withthe hope that only a small number of players would try to withdraw funds at anyone time, and that Full Tilt Poker would regularly receive additional depositsin amounts greater than any withdrawal requests.

And this excerpt even more so:

Despite the fact that,by early 2011, Full Tilt Poker was severely insolvent, it continued makingpayments of approximately $10 million per month to its owners up to and includingApril 1, 2011. Full Tilt Poker also continued making “loans” to itsprofessional poker players who also owned an interest in the company, includingloan payments totaling more than $2,000,000 to Player Owner 1 between August2010 and January 2011.

And finally the proof that they knew they were in a diresituation:

Full Tilt Poker’s CEO,Bitar, was well aware of the need for new deposits after April 15, 2011, andknew that even a few million dollars’ of unexpected withdrawals could revealFull Tilt Poker’s true financial situation. For example, in an internal FullTilt Poker e-mail dated June 12, 2011, Bitar expressed concern that a company announcementregarding lay offs and the Board (including himself) being replaced would beseen as bad news, which would cause a “new run on the bank,” adding that “itcould be a huge run” and that “at this point we can’t even take a five millionrun.”

Basically Full Tilt Poker was in such a harried state onceUIGEA legislation went into full effect that they decided to engage in the mostridiculous business practices imaginable according to the DOJ amendment.

You can read the entire civil complaint at the following link (the amended portionbegins on Page 63).

Key points in the new Full Tilt Poker complaint filed by the DOJ

2011-09-20T14:30:00.000-07:00

While the entire amendment being sought is eye-opening,there are several aspects of the amendment that I found particularly interesting.

· Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson were officiallynamed as owners of Full Tilt poker, along with percentages being given.

· Full Tilt Poker knowingly lied about the waythey used player deposits.

In the amendment a number of E-Mails and public statementswere posted verifying the claims that Full Tilt Poker claimed to segregate playerfunds –which turned out to be patently false.

· It would seem that Full Tilt Poker knew thewheels were coming off long before Black Friday and were in fact making anabsolute last-ditch cash-grab at the players’ expense.

This excerpt from the amendment is particularly damning:

And this excerpt even more so:

And finally the proof that they knew they were in a diresituation:

You can read the entire civil complaint at the following link (the amended portionbegins on Page 63).

Thoughts on the Subject: Poker “Merge Network” article

2011-09-14T13:18:00.001-07:00

Recently the poker website Subject:Poker published an article claiming that the DOJ would be cracking down onpayment processors used by the Merge Gaming Network, and throughout the articleimplied that the Merge Network would soon suffer a similar fate to Full TiltPoker and PokerStars. As it turns out, the article created quite a bit of anuproar after Merge saw traffic decrease by 40% last week according to www.pokerscout.com, and of course thismeans Merge affiliates also took a major hit.

I don’t plan on getting into the veracity of what S:P statedin the article, or if some are accusing the site of, “writing a hit-job”. Ifyou’re interested in my thoughts on the article you can read them here: SubjectPoker comes under fire for Merge article.

Basically, I think the rest of the poker news community waswaiting for this to happen the moment Subject: Poker came onto the scene citingthe fact that they are not affiliated with online poker rooms in an affiliatecapacity, and with their tag-line of “Poker News Done Right” –the implicationbeing that they are filling a void in the current poker media. Actuallyimplication is not quite right since Noah Stephens-Davidowitz states in his bioon Subject: Poker:

“Noah and Thomas foundedSubject: Poker because of general dissatisfaction with the established pokermedia. In his capacity as editor-in-chief, Noah reads, edits, and approves allcontent that is published on the site.”

Personally, I’ve had limited dealings with Noah –I think IPm’ed him once on 2+2, and possibly communicated with him, or someone else, atS:P when they first came online to see if they were looking for writers—but inthe comments I’ve seen him make to detractors he comes across as a bit finickyand hyper-critical. Noah also makes a point of nitpicking the wording othersuse (such as not quoting exactly and such), yet there is a blatant falsehood inhis bio:

“He uncovered theStoxtrader collusion scandal, the Absolute Poker keno scandal…”

The first part is patently untrue. Noah investigated the Stoxtrader collusion scandal after Grudzien wasouted for multi-accounting, followed by several 2+2’ers questioning his playinghistory with other screen-names.

As to the second part, I can’t state with 100% accuracy thatthis is true, but if my memory serves me, Noah did not uncover the AP Kenoscandal either, and was again an investigator. I’m not trying to downplay hisrole in either instance as his work was exemplarily, but merely want to pointout that the S: P website is not without its own embellishments andunsubstantiated facts.

Back to my original point: It’s one thing to say thatGambling911.com is overly opinionated and likes attention-grabbing headlines,or that PokerNews.com is a bit spammy with some of their affiliate articles,but when you make a blanket statement that you are dissatisfied with thecurrent poker media, so you simply had to create your own website, is a bitobnoxious.

The truth of the matter is that there are literally zeroresources in the poker world for investigative reporting. Anyone who has donereal investigations, like Haley Hintze, does so on their own time and receiveslittle in the way of compensation: Although Haley did eventually sign a bookdeal.

Furthermore, 90% of the poker playing population has nointerest in this type of coverage. They are interested in strategy, tournamentreports, book reviews, interviews, the latest promotions, and so on. For Noahto say that he is dissatisfied with the poker media is a bit of a leap. Basicallyhe is performing an entirely different service: It would be akin to CarlBernstein saying he is dissatisfied with the in-depth reporting of the gossipcolumn on Page 6 of the New York Post.

If Noah and Subject: Poker want to fill this void than morepower to them, and I wish them the very best. But to insinuate that they aredoing the job of –or need to improve upon the job done by-- the general pokermedia is ludicrous. Because of this, I found it a bit hypocritical for Noah andSubject: Poker to pass off their recent Merge Gaming Article as “straightnews”. If you’re going to show up with a holier than thou attitude you betterkeep to the facts, or at least clearly state that you are just conjecturing.

Thoughts on the Subject: Poker “Merge Network” article

2011-09-14T13:18:00.000-07:00

“He uncovered theStoxtrader collusion scandal, the Absolute Poker keno scandal…”

Some more thoughts on the recent tragedy in Milford

2011-08-31T05:33:00.001-07:00

In my firstpost on this topic I focused almost exclusively on the drunk-driving aspectof the tragic death of Matthew Denice, 23, from Milford MA. While I touchedupon my thoughts on illegal immigration, I don’t think I made myself clearenough on what I feel should be done in terms of illegal immigration… I’ll tryto clear this up now.

I will say that this paragraph from MarieParente’s recent op-ed in the Milford Daily news sums up my personalbeliefs on who we should be going after when it comes to illegal immigration: “Lastly,landlords, employers and illegal alien sympathizers should be aware: "Aperson (including a group of persons, business, organization, or localgovernment) commits a federal felony when she or he: assists an alien she/heshould reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employmentauthorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtainemployment, or encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him orher to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in anyway, or knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions."

First of all, this was still –at its core—an issue of adrunk driver. We can say “he shouldn’t have been here in the first place” or“if the Governor adopted the Safe Communities Act this wouldn’t have happened”,but in my mind this is just applying postdiction/Monday-Morning-Quarterbacking/hindsight.The fact of the matter is HE WAS HERE. And now we have to deal with this casein the present, not look back at what could have been done in this instance toprevent this single tragedy. The tragedy already happened –this argument isbetter served looking forward: Basically, my feelings are that the person beingillegal did not kill Matt, the fact that he was drunk and driving did.

As I said in my first post, I’m not pro-illegal immigration,but It’s also not one of my main concerns in life (it probably ranks somewhereahead of dusting the top of my light fixtures, and somewhere below defraggingmy hard-drive). However, there is one aspect of illegal immigration that doesraise my ire, and is something I follow fairly closely, and that is criminalactivity.

Now I’m of the opinion that if you are arrested, orlegitimately pulled over, you should be able to produce some form ofidentification. If you are unable to produce said identification than thepolice should have the right to look into your background, including yourimmigration status! By not enforcing the Secure Communities Act, which simplyallows law enforcement officers to run the fingerprints of people they haveapprehended against the ICE database, our law enforcement officers are the onesin handcuffs.

By not allowing law enforcement officers to look into thebackgrounds of people that have been arrested for assault and battery, breakingand entering, DUI’s, and domestic assault, Governor Patrick is basically givingillegal immigrants an incentive to come to Massachusetts –not just the hardworking ones, but also the troublemakers! They can simply give a false name,claim the need for an interpreter, and will likely be out on bail or released.

As I stated on a Facebook status this past week: If you arehere illegally you should be on your best behavior. If you cannot control yourimpulses when you are on your best behavior, what kind of person are you?Basically, an illegal immigrant who is willing to drink and drive, assault apolice officer, and a slew of other offenses has to have more than a few screwsloose! You’re here illegally and this is how you act!?!?!?!? It would be akinto having a friend invite you to one of their friend’s houses, and when you showup you eat all the food, piss in their sink, and start a fight, and then can’tfigure out why everyone is so mad. Because you were not suppose to be there inthe first place and on top of that you acted like an ass! If you acted normaland were well-behaved there would be no issue with the unknown person –hell,you might even make a few new friends. But if you act like an ass, what do youexpect the response to be?

I have no idea why Governor Patrick is against a sensiblepolicy like the Secure Communities Act –I’m a Libertarian and I have no issuewith it—but his lack of action now is bordering on insanity: Doing the samething over and over (in this case ignoring the facts in front of his face) andexpecting a different result. He has an opportunity to correct his mistake andadopt the Secure Communities Act, to look forward and use this tragedy as awake-up call. This is an opportunity for the Governor to send a clear messagethat we want to attract the right kind of people to Massachusetts (be theylegal or illegal), and make sure that troublemakers are not granted asylum onour streets.

Some more thoughts on the recent tragedy in Milford

2011-08-31T05:33:00.000-07:00

Reexamining the possibility of online poker being rigged

2011-08-26T08:09:00.001-07:00

My standard conspiracy theory pic :)

A while back I wrote a blog post outlining the way onlinepoker sites “might” possibly be cheating players. The method I detailed isvirtually undetectable, and can be skewed to be either more or less severe atthe site’s whim. Furthermore, without complete access to huge blocks of thehand histories from the site, at most some players might “feel” something wasamiss in the back of their brains. In order to keep this post at a manageablesize I won’t go into the details of how a site can rig the deck and not getcaught, if you’re interested you can read about it here: IsOnline Poker Rigged? One Possibility.

Although my original post was meant as a hypothetical, oreven a slight warning to stay alert to all possibilities, I think theperception of the online poker world has changed in such a way that it’s time to revisit thepossibility that something may have been rotten in Denmark, or more aptly, inIreland.

When I first wrote about this possibility I left the name ofthe online poker room that was the focus of my suspicions out, Full Tilt Poker.At the time I did this for two reasons:

#1 – I think it leant more credence to what I was saying bynot fingering a specific target when I have absolutely ZERO hard evidence.

#2 – Very few people at the time would have taken meseriously, since Full Tilt Poker was considered one of the pillars of theonline poker world.

This entire post is still just conjecture, and I have no empiricalevidence, just a hunch, and thanks to all of the findings post-Black Friday atrack record of less than ethical behavior by the site.

Now I want to mention a few things I left out from myoriginal post. The first thing I want to expand on is the fact that Full TiltPoker is the only poker site I have ever played at where I am not a winningplayer –only my rakeback deal allowed me to turn any kind of profit at the site.For a long time I believed the industry hype that the players were just alittle bit better at Full Tilt Poker, but now I am wondering.

Now I’m not a world-beater when it comes to my poker skill,but I am a solid long-term winner, and it wasn’t like I was playing $25/$50NLHE or even $5/$10 NLHE. I quit playing poker professionally in 2006, andsince then I have only “goofed around” at lower stakes, online, games playinganywhere from penny PLO games to $100 buy-in games. Games I should have a verybig edge in.

Here are some questions I have:

· Werethere in fact bots being employed by the site?

Even in $1/$2 and $2/$4 Limit O8 games and $10-$100 PLOgames there were players that were seemingly always there, who played strange(a weird assessment in a low stakes online game, I know), and were long-termlosing players according to my PT Omaha –most slightly under break-even, somehorrible -10BB/100 losers—yet there they were day after day.

When I say they played strange I don’t mean on the whole, whatI mean is a player with a 25/2 VPIP/PFR might cold call a three-bet pre-flop inPLO and turns over JJJ6 at showdown, and then folds his small blind after 4limps the next hand! Which begs the question: What the hell is he foldinggetting 11-to-1 if he thinks JJJ6 is good for flatting a 3-bet?

It wasn’t that the play was unorthodox or just bad; it wasthat they would suddenly go against their typical playing style for a singlehand here and there, showing up with a hand the craziest maniac would havediscarded. So a guy in an Omaha 8 game who is playing 10/7 VPIP/PFR all of asudden turns up in a capped pot pre-flop with A69Q??? Or, a player with an 85/50VPIP/PFR open-folds on the button. It was as if certain hands were programmedto be folded.

As I watched these same players do out of character thingsmy suspicions continued to grow. And interestingly these players never chatted.

· Where didthe rumors, or the notion, of Full Tilt Poker players being “better” come from?

It turns out that Full Tilt had a number of shills postingin the poker forums around the Internet. So were these posters the Genesis ofthis rumor, or just the response from the site to cover up poker bots and otherforms of malfeasance?

In small stakes games I find the best indicator of how gooda game is, is by looking at the average pot. Full Tilt Poker’s pots were aboutthe same as they were on PokerStars or UB, but the one thing I always noticedwas that the games were far less aggressive pre-flop. Basically it seemed to methat there were fewer chasers on Full Tilt. This would lend credence to thepossibility of bots, as well as playing into my next question.

· Why was Ieither red hot or ice cold on the site?

If you were to classify my play in an Omaha 8 game it wouldbe “Nitty”, in PLO I’m a little looser but still pretty much a tight player ina typical game. Obviously in low-stakes games this equals a winning strategy,but it also helps keep my variance pretty low since I avoid a lot of marginalspots where I might be slightly +EV. Put it this way, in all of my yearsplaying live poker I’ve lost a full 25BB buy-in playing Omaha 8 or better–anywhere from $2/$4 to $75/$150 over the years—a grand total of one time! Inmy time at Party Poker and on PokerStars it was maybe a weekly occurrence, butat Full Tilt I was constantly reloading, there were days where I was losingfull buy-ins at two or three of my four tables, sometimes losing up to threefull buy-ins at a single table.

At Full Tilt it seemed I was either running really hot, orextremely cold (especially when playing Sit and Go’s). Considering the gameswere more passive than on other sites, this only makes sense if they weremessing around with the Deck as I outlined in my older post (or rigging thegame in some other way).

Reexamining the possibility of online poker being rigged

2011-08-26T08:09:00.000-07:00

My standard conspiracy theory pic :)

When I first wrote about this possibility I left the name ofthe online poker room that was the focus of my suspicions out, Full Tilt Poker.At the time I did this for two reasons:

#1 – I think it leant more credence to what I was saying bynot fingering a specific target when I have absolutely ZERO hard evidence.

#2 – Very few people at the time would have taken meseriously, since Full Tilt Poker was considered one of the pillars of theonline poker world.

Here are some questions I have:

· Werethere in fact bots being employed by the site?

As I watched these same players do out of character thingsmy suspicions continued to grow. And interestingly these players never chatted.

· Where didthe rumors, or the notion, of Full Tilt Poker players being “better” come from?

· Why was Ieither red hot or ice cold on the site?

Pursuing REAL justice for Matthew Denice

2011-08-22T17:33:00.001-07:00

This is my second really long post in a row, so here goes:

It’s not very often that my stomach churns and twists intoknots, but the news of what happened to Matthew Denice, 23 from Milford, MA, thispast weekend was enough to bring a tear to my eye and send my stomach somewherebetween “excuse me, where is the bathroom” and “get out of my way!”

Denice was the victim of a fatal traffic accident whileriding his motorcycle in total accordance with the law. But it wasn’t simply acase of a distracted driver or even someone texting; the whole scenariounfolded in such a way that it’s almost implausible to think it could be true.

Denice was hit by an inebriated motorist –driving with hisfour year old son in the truck to boot—who ran a stop sign, struck Denice, andthen either unaware, or more likely out of fear of being apprehended, decidedto flee… With a screaming Denice lodged under his truck. As nearby residentschased the pickup truck, pleading for the driver to stop, he continued driving.For a quarter of a mile Denice was dragged before finally being dislodged frombeneath the truck; not because the driver came to his senses, but because hehopped a curb, which allowed Denice’s body to escape an even more torturousdemise.

When I first read the story in my local paper I had aflashback to when I was a teenager (which was some 20 years ago) and while playingbasketball at the Town Park witnessed an out of control motorcyclist –who as itturns out was already being chased by the police—wipeout and plow into a veryyoung girl riding her bike on the sidewalk. Like Denice’s murderer (yes that isthe proper term to use) the motorcyclist felt it best to save his own hide andfled the scene. Fortunately he was apprehended within minutes, which led to oneof those scenes that is forever embedded in your brain: Watching the littlegirl’s mother pound the glass of the police cruiser while the reality of thesituation sunk in on the young man’s face –I don’t recall their names, or whatthey looked like, but I can vividly recall the emotions that were on display.

One added detail of the more recent story was that Denicewas killed by an illegal alien with no driver’s license. While I’m not anapologist for illegal immigrants I am pretty much apathetic to the whole debate–frankly I have my own problems to worry about and cannot be bothered to guessat the immigration status of other people, or their motives for being in thecountry.

The one point I always bring to a debate over illegal aliensis who is to blame? Is it the father of four who comes to this country to findwork who should be the target of our ire? Is it the widowed mother who justwants to escape the gang violence in a Mexican border-town who is to blame? Wouldn’tyou do the same if our roles were reversed?

Or is it the US citizens who hire and exploit these workers;the landlords who rent to these illegal aliens; the used car lots that sellvehicles to them; and of course our government (state and federal) that feelschecking someone’s immigration status when they commit a crime or are stoppedfor a moving violation of some sort –which should take all of 20 keystrokes anda mouse click—is simply unnecessary and outside the jurisdiction of the lawenforcement officer? I’m not saying go Arizona, but if someone is legallystopped by the police and has no ID they should be checked out! If you’retrying to rid the world of drug addicts you don’t lock up the addict, you lockup the enablers and the same holds true for illegal immigrants.

That said; the murder of Denice has sparked an outpouring ofrage and hatred towards illegal aliens in the community –It should be notedthat Milford has a vibrant (sarcasm noted) illegal alien community. But I wantmy fellow law-abiding citizens, who are mourning the loss of this young man’slife, to realize that the murderer didn’t do what he did because he wasEcuadorian, or because he was an illegal alien; he did what he did because heis a scumbag! A DRUNKEN SCUMBAG! Just like the 20-something Caucasian I watchedplow into little girl and run off; S-C-U-M-B-A-G. Let’s not overlook the realproblem here, which is DRUNK DRIVING! Drunk Driving is not a problem confinedto the Ecuadorian community! Let’s not condemn the widowed mother or the fatherof four because of a scumbag; I know I don’t want to be labeled based onJeffrey Dahmer.

People are asking for JUSTICE for Matt, but justice is not eyingevery Ecuadorian in the community with a look of suspicion, or labeling them “illegal”based on their appearance – I’m going to go out on a limb here and say thatSOME of them are here legally, or god forbid some vigilante-style madman outfor revenge on the Ecuadorian population. REAL justice for Matt would mean crackingdown on drunk driving first and foremost. DUI’s need to be taken a lot moreseriously than they are now; we don’t need a three-strikes you’re out policy;we need to make it clear that you do not get a “free pass” the first time youdrink and drive; it’s NEVER OK! When you get behind the wheel of a car drunkyou are a danger to society, period! End of story. Here’s an odd analogy forDrunk Driving: Imagine a guy walking into a random house a grenade with no pin,but promising he will hold it tight (just like a drunk driver promises to becareful); yes 5,000 times nothing will happen, and there will probably be a fewnear misses, but one time SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN.

Let’s honor Matt’s legacy not with ethnic profiling andslurs, but with Matt’s Law which will crackdown on drunk drivers; the goal ofwhich is to make our streets safe for future Matt’s and innocent young girls ontheir bicycles.

All that said, my thoughts go out to Matt’s family and friends as theysuffer through this horrific ordeal.

Pursuing REAL justice for Matthew Denice

2011-08-22T17:33:00.000-07:00

This is my second really long post in a row, so here goes:

All that said, my thoughts go out to Matt’s family and friends as theysuffer through this horrific ordeal.

Why online poker is corrupting the game

2011-08-16T06:57:00.001-07:00

First off, this is a really long post. Secondly, I left outany names that would be viewed in a negative light –although any pokerenthusiast should be able to fill in the blanks. Finally, this is not myopinion of every online poker player, but I do feel it applies to a prettysubstantial number of highly successful online players, since I view thesescandals like a mouse –for every one you see there are at least a dozen lurkingin the shadows! Something that should be evident to anyone who has ever seenthe way people on poker forums –well-known players to boot—defend, or makelight of, the severity of things like multi-accounting. OK, so here we go!

One of my favorite poker books of all-time was written byJames McManus, titled Cowboys Full: The Story of Poker, and in the massive 600page tome McManus details the history of the game, from its origins in Asia andEurope, to the birth of modern poker as we know it in the Mississippi Riverdelta, to the current climate of televised tournaments and Internet poker.

Throughout the book it becomes readily apparent that pokeris game dominated by not just skillful practitioners, but also by sharps andflat-out cheaters. This dynamic seemed to be coming to an end in the early2000’s as poker went mainstream, and the game was taken out of the back-roomsand it’s most skillful practitioners have been fast achieving celebrity status.

Soon after this “poker boom” a new era of poker took hold,the rise of the young online poker superstar. Suddenly experience, both in lifeand at the poker tables, took a backseat as the game shifted further andfurther into the realm of game theory and equity, and away from what were onceconsidered the skills of a poker pro: reading people, experience, and a dash ofcunning to either avoid or exploit the cheats and hustlers that occupied thespace beside them.

But in today’s poker world the cheating is done anonymously,and in many cases it’s chalked up to a “don’t hate the player; hate the game”mentality, where players feel that if someone else is exploiting a loophole orbreaking an unenforceable rule, than it’s also in their best interest to do so.Considering their opponent’s are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of milesaway these transgressions cannot be self-policed as they were even 10-20 yearsago –with a good old fashioned ass-kicking, accompanied by relieving theoffender of their money. 50 or 100 years ago your head would likely be meetingeither the barrel or the butt of a revolver depending on how serious yourtransgression was, or based on the frame of mind of your victim is in.

Instead we live in an age where disputes are settled onpoker forums, and admissions of cheating are met with panels discussing termsand using equity calculations to determine what is a “fair” compensation forthe cheater and for the victim –yes I said that right, what is “FAIR” for theperson who cheated is debated.

This brings me back to McManus’s book Cowboys Full,specifically to the time of riverboat gamblers. Where basically nothing wassacred, and so long as you had a mark, you could pretty much do whatever ittook to take their money from them –even if it meant you lost and simply robbedthem upon debarkation!

This was something that most poker pros thought a thing ofthe past as licensed and regulated casinos and card-rooms began appearingacross the country and the world; the thought of having to bring a gun to apoker game, and keep a keen eye on the door and all of the players was supposedto be a thing of the past. But this is not the case on the Internet!

· On the Internet we have seen several cases ofthe house robbing its players: UB and Absolute Poker being the most infamous,but also sites like PokerSpot and Pitbull Poker who closed up shop never returningplayer funds.

· On the Internet there are numerous instances ofoutright cheating: From collusion packs to poker bots, and viruses and scamshave taken place.

· On the Internet the scruples of the playersappears to be regressing: Ghosting, multi-accounting, shared accounts, sharedhand histories, and all sorts of violations of the terms and conditions of thesites are on the rise –this T&C Violation is how they get around calling itcheating— not the decline.

Doyle Brunson must shake his head at some of the antics ofthese young poker stars, and what they view as “acceptable” behavior; At leastin the old days a cheat knew he was a cheat and didn’t try to rationalize hisbehavior. A scoundrel of a man, and admitted cheater and hustler, TitanicThompson would likely tip his hat at the way these players view and treat “thesuckers” in the modern poker world.

It’s not simply the disdain for the only law that governsthe game of poker –which is that poker is and always has been a self-policingsport much like golf. Yes there are officials in legitimate games, but thefirst line of defense against cheating is the players. Even worse is theflippancy with which they defend their actions or write them off as youthful indiscretions.And the major problem is that these players really don’t know any better!

From age 16-18 they have lived a life of looking for smalledges, studying all the different angles, and finding +EV situations, all thewhile playing a cutthroat game where you are surrounded by other players alleying your money like a like a lion hunting a gazelle. Making matters worse isthe anonymity of the Internet, where you are detached from the actual moneychanging hands, and what the wins and losses may mean for the other playersinvolved. The world of online poker is creating these young apathetic players,who lol at anyone they feel beneath them –it’s schadenfreude at its worst.

Read any “origin” story of the old-school players likeJohnny Chan, Doyle Brunson, or Erik Seidel and you’ll see that they all took tothe game early, but they also worked, studied, and lived a “normal” life forsome amount of time. And even as they began their careers as poker players theywere not instant millionaires; it took decades for some to achieve truesuperstardom in poker. They had families, they had friends, and they travelled.

Now we have these young, apathetic, egotistical, kids, withvery little “life-experience”, participating in a self-policing game, becomingrich and famous during their formative years. They have a gaggle of people whorail them when they play, and follow their every movement on Twitter. They haveenough money that things like credit card roulette and hundred thousand dollarprop bets are commonplace. Thanks to their “edge” over the suckers. It’s as ifthey live in an alternate reality where every decision is based on the EV ofthe situation and not the other people that might be impacted, or even whatdamage they might do to themselves.

But on the flipside, they hear of one guy multi-accountingand they decide it’s necessary to keep that edge. They are duped, or hear ofsomeone being taken, by a collusion ring, a transfer scam, or some othermalfeasance and they immediately look to return the favor in some way –a commonreason for cheating is and always will be, “well so and so cheated me!” Theylook for ways to get around the sites’ terms and conditions like ghosting theirfriends, live coaching sessions, and multi-accounting. They further their edgeon the fish by using software, buying hand histories, and subscribing totracking sites.

But what they don’t realize is this: This type ofunregulated environment simply won’t last. At some point online poker willeither be gone, or will be regulated, at which point all the PTR subscriptionsand PoekrTracker databases in the world are not going to help you.Transgressions previously policed by a forum community like Multi-Accountingand other scams will now be policed by the authorities.

Sure, they will always have their poker theory andmathematics to rely on, but their “edges”, these loopholes that have helpedmany become millionaires will be gone. Sure, there will always be superstarplayers, just not in the numbers that we see in today’s poker world. Take awaythe rakeback deals, the “unethical” behavior like ghosting, and the access toall this information on their opponents for an investment of a few hundreddollars, and how many of these winners would survive? When their edge isshriveled up, and the swings are much wider without that rakeback money?

Why online poker is corrupting the game

2011-08-16T06:57:00.000-07:00

· On the Internet there are numerous instances ofoutright cheating: From collusion packs to poker bots, and viruses and scamshave taken place.

Quereshi speaks as the Girah scamming saga continues to unfold

2011-08-08T07:10:00.001-07:00

I just finished reading HaseebQuereshi’s blog on his involvement with Jose Macedo, and I have to say, Idon’t think I believe a word of it! Throughout the lengthy post Quereshicontinues to downplay his involvement with Macedo, while at the same timethrowing out specific, mundane, details of the kid’s life!

I’m basically going to steer clear of Quereshi’s side of thestory when it comes to multi-accounting and other transgressions –which he sayswas wrong, but, “It's one of those things that happens and that everybody does and has been guilty of at one time or another,but yes, I acknowledge that it was wrong.” REALLY??? Everyone logs into anotherplayer’s account at one time or another?

But on to the real things that stick out at me from his blogpost: First off, who in the world contacts a poker pro –according to Haseeb, Macedoapparently contacted Quereshi out of the blue for coaching—gets rebuffed forcoaching, and then the two go on to form a friendship where they don’t talkabout poker, just life???? Is he serious?!?!?!? And why is he contacting HaseebQuereshi for coaching if he has banked several hundred thousand dollars at theonline poker tables in 6-months????

“He had seen my videos and read my forum posts and told mehe was a big fan of mine and wanted coaching… I told him he should contactJungleman if he wanted some NL coaching… Jose talked to me a lot after that,though we didn't talk much poker. He mostly spoke to me about his life andabout more general things relating to poker.”

Quereshi all but admits to having artificially propped thiskid’s skills up throughout the post –it’s like Jack the Ripper taunting thepolice if you read between the lines. Quereshi wants the praise for havingcreated this false idol, but can’t outright admit to it:

“Anyway, I told Josethe first thing to do was to come out and tell his story for all to see. I knewit'd be amazing enough that he would be able to make a lot happen, but I neverimagined it would blow up as a big as it did. I was amazed when it even got30,000 views, much less 300,000.”

“you write your story,give me all of the details you want to include, and I'll spruce it up and makeit nice and fluid.”

“I told him - once youcreate this story, you're going to become known as the new big poker player onthe block, so you'll need to have one online monicker for people to know you by”

“the story breaks andI advise Jose throughout all of it. How to deal with the media, what to tellpeople, how to carry himself…”

“Jungle, Sauce and Iall ended up posting in the thread vouching for him, or more specifically,congratulating him on his success, as we all really wanted to see him succeedand build a career and name for himself.”

“So, I did a lot ofodds and ends in helping the kid's career move forward. I set him up a websitedomain and helped him find a web designer to create his website, I edited hisblog posts and always encouraged him to tweet, blog, post on 2p2 etc. regularlyto keep his fans happy”

A couple of other small, strange, points he made were:

1. “Attimes it was suggested that I'd receive a cut of his coaching winnings as he always told me he was very excited aboutbecoming a poker coach.” Ok, come on!!! This is like having a highschool football star telling you how much he wants to be a defensivecoordinator at Mississippi State!

2. Whyis this self-made millionaire who crushed the games not allowed to play above$5/$10 without jungleman or Quereshi’s permission?

3. Quereshi leaving the door open that maybeGirah had scammed him: “Actually, Josewas in makeup to Jungle and I by quite a bit - over 50k iirc. He always showedus his EV graphs which showed him running way under EV, and every time wecleared him to take higher stakes shots they seemed to go poorly”

4. Andof course the reason everyone should just drop the drama and let Haseeb off thehook “So there. Now you know everythingthere is to know. Now calm the fuck down, pack up the drama, and let's call ita night.” Yes, let’s call it a night, despite the first-denied and then admittedmulti-accounting, account-sharing, attempts to cover-up the Girah scam and keepit out of the public eye, and all of the other BS lies and half-truths thathave come from the mouths of the people involved over the past year.

Seriously, if you repeatedly deny things until you arecaught, why on earth would the poker community be willing to take you at yourword, because you wrote an extremely long blog post? A blog post where YOU showyour narcissism –a trait that you claim Girah is guilty of—by includingunnecessary details like he compared your writing to F Scott Fitzgerald, howyou were able to ‘touch-up’ his writings and make them better, how he chose youas his agent over all the big poker agencies: all the while you say you don’thave the experience, you think the comparison is ridiculous, blah, blah, blah.It’s the most ridiculous blog post I’ve read since, well… the Ashton Griffinprop bet BS you wrote.

Thispart is important enough that I feel it must be restated: Why is this self-made millionaire who crushed the games not allowed toplay above $5/$10 without jungleman or Quereshi’s permission?

Doesn’tthis shoot a hole straight through the entire origin story of Girah? You wouldthink if they thought so highly of the kid they’d want him playing higher ifthey are staking him!

Basicallywe are supposed to believe a self-taught Portuguese TEENAGER that made hundredsof thousands of dollars in 6-months, randomly contacts a little-known Cardrunnerscoach in the US, and after a long courtship process the little-known playerfrom the US becomes his agent/backer but won’t let him play above $5/$10,despite claiming over $2 million in winnings and crushing High-Stakes games??? Allthe while getting him banned from one network, and causing him to bedisqualified from a most high-profile contest, the BLUFF Pro Challenge. What amI missing here????

Quereshi speaks as the Girah scamming saga continues to unfold

2011-08-08T07:10:00.000-07:00

“you write your story,give me all of the details you want to include, and I'll spruce it up and makeit nice and fluid.”

“I told him - once youcreate this story, you're going to become known as the new big poker player onthe block, so you'll need to have one online monicker for people to know you by”

“the story breaks andI advise Jose throughout all of it. How to deal with the media, what to tellpeople, how to carry himself…”

A couple of other small, strange, points he made were:

2. Whyis this self-made millionaire who crushed the games not allowed to play above$5/$10 without jungleman or Quereshi’s permission?

Thispart is important enough that I feel it must be restated: Why is this self-made millionaire who crushed the games not allowed toplay above $5/$10 without jungleman or Quereshi’s permission?

Doesn’tthis shoot a hole straight through the entire origin story of Girah? You wouldthink if they thought so highly of the kid they’d want him playing higher ifthey are staking him!

Random funny exchange from years ago

2011-08-06T16:50:00.001-07:00

No idea why this popped into my head, but you really can’t argue with this logic…

Person A: “Do you want to go to Applebees and watch thegame?”

Person B: “Do they have naked ladies dancing on tablesthere?”

Person A: “No…”

Person B: “I don’t go to gay bars.”

Person A: “huh???”

Person B: “If there aren’t naked ladies dancing on tablesit’s a gay bar.”

Random funny exchange from years ago

2011-08-06T16:50:00.000-07:00

No idea why this popped into my head, but you really can’t argue with this logic…

Person A: “Do you want to go to Applebees and watch thegame?”

Person B: “Do they have naked ladies dancing on tablesthere?”

Person A: “No…”

Person B: “I don’t go to gay bars.”

Person A: “huh???”

Person B: “If there aren’t naked ladies dancing on tablesit’s a gay bar.”

Thoughts on Tony G angle-shot against Phil Hellmuth on The Big Game

2011-08-05T05:08:00.001-07:00

It’s no secret that Tong G has a disdain for theself-proclaimed “Greatest Poker player of All-Time”, Phil Hellmuth, and prettymuch anytime the two are seated at the same table you can expect somefireworks. In fact, Tony G goes out of his way to get involved in pots withHellmuth, and his main goal seems to be to put the “Poker Brat” on tilt –whichTony is very good at.

With that in mind, I want to examine a hand that took placeon the most recent episodes of the PokerStars.net Big Game, where Tony G wasaccused of shooting an angle against Hellmuth. Now, nobody will rally claimthat Tony G wasn’t guilty of an Angle-Shot –a really, really, nastyAngle-Shot—but was he within his rights as a poker player to do so? For anyonewho hasn’t seen the episode Hellmuth raises with AJ, Tony re-raises afterlooking down at AK, BUT proceeds to tell Phil he hasn’t looked at his cards–going so far as to promise, and even pushing his cards to Joe Hachem to verifyhe hasn’t looked; putting Hachem in the very awkward spot of having to say,“it’s between you and Tony” which Phil should have realized meant “Tony has amonster”.

Now against any other player, sans Ralph Perry or anyonefrom France, I don’t think Tony would ever attempt this move, but with hishistory against Hellmuth I can see why he felt it was an ok thing to do,especially when you look at the dynamics of the PokerStars Big Game and howHellmuth behaves on the show –particularly on the night in question. Basically,to me, it seems like Tony G’s thinking was that he was slow-rolling aslow-roller, and here’s why I think this is the case.

The PokerStars Big Game is supposed to be a loosened-upversion of High Stakes Poker, thanks to the Loose Cannon element added byPokerStars. To me the point of a pro going on this show is for one reason:Exposure. The Big Game is the ideal setting for an up-and-coming poker playeror an established pro to show their personality as well as their poker skills,and it seems Phil Hellmuth simply doesn’t get this concept.

In the episode, Phil lost a huge percentage of his stackearly on –on the first hand actually—and refused to rebuy, instead he sat theirshort-stacking a six-handed game where one player was trying to winlife-altering money! All of the other players had $100k in front of them whilePhil clung to a $25kish stack. A totally unacceptable action for one of therichest people in poker in my view; this isn’t Dani Stern or Peter Jetten where$200k is a lot of money, this is PHIL HELLMUTH, how could he not add at least$50k to his stack!

And this isn’t the first indiscretion that Phil has made onthe Big Game. He constantly berates the other pro players in the game –which istypical for Phil—but also the amateurs! AsI mentioned, he refuses to top-up when he loses a big pot; he takes the gamesuper-serious and whines and moans when things don’t go his way; and perhapshis worst transgression on the Big Game was when he got it all-in post-flopagainst the Loose Cannon Max Martinez in a coin flip situation and afterMartinez asked how many times he wanted to run it –remember the money in frontof Martinez is the equivalent of Hellmuth putting $20 million on the table—Philsays one-time! Thank god Phil missed all his draws and the LC won a big pot.

So, here is Tony G shooting an angle, but doing so in a potagainst a short-stacker who constantly belittles the amateur players on theshow. Is this really such a terrible angle-shot? Well, in any normal situationit would be terrible, and Tony would be condemned for pulling such a move, butin this spot I think it’s just not as condemnable an action as some are makingit out to be. While Phil doesn’t shoot angles, he does have some of the worsttable etiquette in poker.

My Verdict: While I don’t applaud or condone what Tony did,I wouldn’t hold it against him either. This incident doesn’t make Tony aperpetual angle-shooter, which is something entirely different than using badetiquette against: A) a player you dislike to begin with, and B) a player thathimself doesn’t have the best table manners.

Thoughts on Tony G angle-shot against Phil Hellmuth on The Big Game

2011-08-05T05:08:00.000-07:00

Republicans won the battle but lost the war

2011-08-01T06:51:00.001-07:00

Although it appears that the Republicans scored a majorvictory over the debt ceiling negotiations late Sunday night, considering thedeal calls for no revenue increases and some $2.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years–why does Congress do everything in 10 year periods???—if you look at the fineprint I think they have been had; here’s why.

“But if the superCongress somehow failed to enact savings, the measure requires automatic cutsworth at least $1.2 trillion. Those cutswould be split equally between military and domestic programs. Social Security,Medicaid and programs for the poor would be spared, but Medicare providers --not beneficiaries -- would take a hit.” ~ From the Huffington Post.

The real reason the Republicans lost has to do with timing:The Super-Congress deal would be negotiated around the same time the Bush TaxCuts are set to expire, so if the Republicans refuse to deal –like they do--not only would the Bush Tax Cuts expire but entitlement programs and programsfor the poor are off the table, and defense spending will get slashed. What theDemocrats agreed to do is, allow the Republicans to cut $100 billion inspending per year right now, and they will be able to raise taxes at will whenthe debate comes around again.

So, basically the deal allows the Democrats to be theRepublicans during the Super-Congress negotiations: Either you do everything wesay, or absolutely nothing happens and $1.2 Trillion will be cut BUT all of theBush Tax Cuts expire! If nothing passes the Super-Congress, the Democrats stillwin; the Republicans have ZERO political capital to work with; they are all outof bogeymen.

Honestly, the Tea Party killed what should have been a greatvictory for the fiscally conservative. The deal being offered that would havecut spending/increased revenue by a 3-to-1 was every REAL Republican’s wetdream –with the revenue increases mainly coming from subsidies-- now it’s goingto end up being 1-to-1 at best for the Republicans after the next round ofdeals.

My hope is that the two parties –whom I have almost equaldisdain for-- have painted themselves into such a corner that they look atoverhauling the tax-code completely, as well as creating new revenue streamsfrom legalizing pot, online gaming, etc. Stop trying to get more revenue fromexisting sources and look to new revenue streams – It’s like the differencebetween jacking up someone’s Health Club Membership versus bringing in newmembers!

Republicans won the battle but lost the war

2011-08-01T06:51:00.000-07:00

Negreanu and Matusow talk cheating in poker on QuadJacks

2011-07-30T07:53:00.001-07:00

It was a riveting show on Quadjacks.comFriday night, featuring a very long segment with Daniel Negreanu and MattSavage –the pair were later joined by Mike Matusow as well—where amidst thetalk of the “No Talking Rule” rule at the WSOP, the Epic Poker League, and thedealings of Full Tilt Poker, we also got Daniel’s take regarding the rampantrumors of Men “The Master” Nguyen’s cheating; with Daniel saying he sort of feltbad for Men.

Daniel didn’t absolve Men of the cheating allegations, butdid explain the reason why Men is often accused of playing in a cheating packand soft-playing his “horses”. According to Daniel, Men was under a lot ofpressure from the Vietnamese community to not bust Vietnamese players intournaments. Daniel said that if he didn’t soft-play the other Vietnameseplayers –some of whom Daniel described as gang members--he was threatened, withthe players saying “I know where you live Men The Master”.

Of course Daniel then went on to detail two legitimatesoft-playing/chip-dumping scenarios with Men, and implicated him in moreserious charges –charges Daniel didn’t go into detail about, but likely havingto do with missing chips, spotters, and other more serious allegations thathave haunted Men through the years.

Towards the tail-end of the cheating discussion, MikeMatusow jumped into the conversation and outlined how the nosebleed action onFull Tilt Poker --when Guy Laliberte was active on the site-- was also a bitcrooked. According to Matusow, Laliberte was the victim of the other playerspartaking in behind the scenes equity chops, which means that when Guy was notin the pot the players would chop up the big pots based on their equity in thehand. While not explicitly illegal, partaking in equity chops with one playerexcluded and unaware is quite unethical.

Although it should be pointed out that at first Matusowdidn’t want to discuss what happened, and seemed a bit in the dark as to theactual details –but he did say that Barry Greenstein called it on the edge ofbeing ethical.

So while many people were sitting there listening to thetrio –mostly Daniel and Matusow—talking about what is going on behind thescenes at Full Tilt Poker, and Matt Savage and Negreanu at each other’s throatsregarding the Jamie Gold Rule at the WSOP before finally coming to an agreementto reexamine at the next Rules Committee meeting: There I was listening to thepossible cheating allegations –although the other stuff was extremelyinteresting as well!

Negreanu and Matusow talk cheating in poker on QuadJacks

2011-07-30T07:53:00.000-07:00

Where I stand 3 months after Black Friday

2011-07-29T13:58:00.001-07:00

It took a while for me to feel the ramifications of BlackFriday since in the immediate aftermath everyone wanted news stories on whatwas one of the biggest stories in the history of poker –if not THE biggest. Butas time wore on I lost an assignment here, and another there, but overall I wasable to keep the bulk of my writing jobs intact. So Black Friday wasn’tdebilitating for me, and even though I have seen my workload drasticallyreduced there is always a silver lining, as I will soon explain.

While I did lose the capability of playing online poker–which made up a small part of income, more importantly is that the affiliatemarket tightened their purse strings, which reduced the amount of money I was making–as well as the amount of backup work I had to choose from. So where I had my pickof the litter when it came to assignments and projects on April 14^th–which allowed me to be extremely picky with which assignments I chose—just afew weeks after Black Friday I started to see the market drying up, and mychoices with it.

However, this did give me a chance to devote a bit moreattention to my blog, as well as my two Examiner.com pages, and I also pickedup a monthly column at BlindStraddle.comwhich in turn has seen my first submission to the site get picked up by PokerPlayer Magazine.

While these are “exposure” gigs, as I learned fromExaminer.com, exposure is worth quite a bit! So hopefully my new column atBlind Straddle will open even more doors for me in the future.

I was also able to form a better schedule, so when myworkload does pick back up I’ll be able to fit in these new assignments, whilenot harming the current volume of work I’m producing –not to mention I’vebasically cleared out my entire day after 11AM until 7-8PM, so I get to do alot more things with the wife and kids, instead of writing until noon, cleaningup and getting everything in order, writing a little more, and before you knewit, it was dinner time!

Where I stand 3 months after Black Friday

2011-07-29T13:58:00.000-07:00

While these are “exposure” gigs, as I learned fromExaminer.com, exposure is worth quite a bit! So hopefully my new column atBlind Straddle will open even more doors for me in the future.

3 things that the World Series of Poker got right in 2011

2011-07-25T14:48:00.001-07:00

While I’d like to think that all of the changes at the 2011World Series of Poker that I’m going to list below were well thought outdecisions by the WSOP and ESPN, I know that most of them were simply made outof convenience, or simply because of the circumstances in the poker world. Thatsaid, the good news is that these changes happened at all, and hopefully willremain in place in subsequent years.

Here is a look at the three things the WSOP got right in2011:

#1 -- The NASCAR lookis all but gone

Ok, this has absolutely nothing to do with a decision by theWSOP or ESPN, but the one thing I’m grateful to Black Friday for is thedisappearance (with some exceptions) of the gaudy patches slapped on to everyplayer at a featured table. Even the players who were sporting patches weredoing so in much subtler, toned down, ways.

#2 -- The Live Streamwas superb

The one thing I really enjoyed about the live stream was theway they handled the hole-cards –only showing them at the conclusion of ahand—and I hope they incorporate this into their regular Tuesday nighttelecasts. How much better was it to watch a hand develop not knowing if theplayer was bluffing, stealing, or had the goods!

#3 -- New faces inthe broadcast booth

What a difference between Olivier Busquet’s, AntonioEsfandiari’s, and even Phil Hellmuth’s analysis of a hand than the shtick ofNorman Chad and Lon McEachern. Nothing against Chad and McEachern –I think theyboth do an excellent job in their roles—but I am pleading with the WSOP/ESPN toadd a third person to the broadcast team for all telecasts: Baseball utilizes athree-person booth for the playoffs and World Series games; Football has used athree man team for Monday Night Football; and Golf uses a huge array ofannouncers/commentators positioned all over the course.

Of the three I feel poker on TV is most akin to Golf, andthe WSOP could employ an expert to analyze the action at each table, so if abig hand comes up it can be filmed and the main broadcast team could simplythrow it to the pro who is assigned that specific table.

3 things that the World Series of Poker got right in 2011

2011-07-25T14:48:00.000-07:00

Here is a look at the three things the WSOP got right in2011:

#1 -- The NASCAR lookis all but gone

#2 -- The Live Streamwas superb

#3 -- New faces inthe broadcast booth

I’m sorry Daniel, but this is really close to cheating

2011-07-19T08:56:00.001-07:00

Despite being one of the worst-written, ignorant stories Ihave ever seen about poker, there was a very, very, intriguing couple of lines with strange implications, as TheNew York Post quoted Daniel Negreanu as saying the following in a recentstory about the hole-card coverage at the WSOP:

"I had someonetexting me with physical tells while I was at the table,"

"There was a guyfrom St. Louise [sic], an amateur, and I knew what he was capable of because Ihad a friend watching for me.”

If the quote is true –and hopefully based on the fact thatit’s the New York Post it’s not or at the least is extremely butchered—I don’teven know what to think about poker anymore. Really, is poker turning into ateam game where the player with the most resources has the biggest advantage? I’msure the “friend” watching for Daniel was a body language expert, and what’s tostop another player from hiring someone like Joe Navarro to rail them at theWSOP and text them body language indicators on their opponent?

What’s to stop current WSOP Main Event chip-leader AntonMakiesvskyi from offering 10% of his winnings –guaranteed to be mid six-figuresat least—to a couple of top poker minds and a body language expert thismorning?, in exchange for real-time hand consultation and reads on opponents?Is this really “the new poker reality”?

I’m all for working with experts away from the table, and ifyou have the money you can hire the best coaches and experts money can buy, butto have them employed around the tournament, or watching the semi-live feed andtexting you information is getting very close to the line of what is ethicaland what is not. In fact, in my opinion it’s getting close to Ali Tekintamgacterritory –not in the same ballpark, but definitely in the same sport.

Once you sit down at a poker table it’s suppose to be youagainst your opponents; not you and the numerous people you’ve hired/asked tobe your eyes and ears in the crowd and on the live feed against some poorschlep who won his way in through a satellite, or put up a good chunk of his savingsto play on equal footing with the best poker players in the world. Seriously,does Negreanu really have a body language expert watching the livefeed/30-minute delay feed in some secret bunker somewhere and then sending himtexts on his opponents???

This is just another reason why the WSOP and all casinos needto ban electronic devices from the tables –how on earth can this be justifiedas being competitively balanced or good for poker! It’s just like the onlineplayers who dismantle their opponents because they are ignorant of the existence,or cannot afford, tracking software, ICM calculators, and hand history databases,and so on. But unlike online poker the WSOP could easily eliminate this issueby banning cell phones and other electronic devices from the table.

If you want to talk shop with your “hired guns” do it on thebreaks or before and after the tournament. For someone who considers himself anambassador of the game, and has always been viewed as one of the most honestbrokers in poker I’m actually quite surprised that Negreanu would engage inthis –again I hope the stories not true, and if it isn’t then I apologize forlinking Daniel to this. But either way there are obviously people who are doingthis.

I’m sorry Daniel, but this is really close to cheating

2011-07-19T08:56:00.000-07:00

"I had someonetexting me with physical tells while I was at the table,"

"There was a guyfrom St. Louise [sic], an amateur, and I knew what he was capable of because Ihad a friend watching for me.”

Thoughts on the WSOP 'No Talking About Your Hand' Rule

2011-07-17T08:01:00.001-07:00

A strange trend I’ve noticed over the past two years ofcoverage at the World Series of Poker is that tournament officials REALLY sticktogether! Last year it was the strange 10-second countdown that ends at 1,where virtually every tournament official sided with the floorman’s ruling, andthis year it is this odd “what you can/can’t say” when heads-up controversythat has seen tournament officials band together.

The way Matt Savage is defending the enforcement of thisrule on Twitter is really bad. Basically, Savage is saying this is not a newrule –which he’s right, it’s not—BUT the way they are enforcing the rule thisyear is drastically different than in years past. It’s like the way passinterference is enforced in football –from year to year it’s enforceddifferently, but each year the players are consulted and explained why and how the ruleis being enforced differently, with explicit explanations of what is and isn’tallowed.

I think the bulk of the player complaints are in regards tothe way the rule has been changed on the enforcement end without any notice, infact it never even came up during the preliminary events! Suddenly in the MainEvent the rules are being enforced in an entirely different manner. Just likelast year, when suddenly countdown’s –which have forever ended at ZERO—ended atONE!

Savage, Effel, and the rest of the A-list tournamentofficials can say it’s an old rule –the Jamie Gold rule which was enacted afterthe 2006 WSOP—but the problem is obviously the enforcement of the rule haschanged or there wouldn’t be any talk of it!

As an afterthought you should be able to say anything aboutyour hand, or even show one or both of your cards if you’re heads-up. You’rethe one talking so how on earth can you be gaining unless your opponent isunsophisticated enough to give off a tell, or manipulated into giving youinformation: Which is part of poker, no?

If there is actual collusion taking place the tournamentofficials can penalize the players involved for collusion, instead of fortalking about their hand. There are rules in place for soft-playing and collusionalready, why are they making it even more complicated and unclear as to whatthe rule states; especially when they are employing dealers who are unfamiliarwith poker, and poker rules.

Rules in poker should be simple and all-encompassing, notcomplicated to the point where even after an explanation players and dealersstill don’t know what is and isn’t allowed.

Thoughts on the WSOP 'No Talking About Your Hand' Rule

2011-07-17T08:01:00.000-07:00

Rules in poker should be simple and all-encompassing, notcomplicated to the point where even after an explanation players and dealersstill don’t know what is and isn’t allowed.

Have I been wrong about Phil Hellmuth?

2011-07-08T10:22:00.001-07:00

During my time as a poker writer I have argued vehementlythat Phil Hellmuth is not one of the best players in poker, and now Phil’s successat the 2011 World Series of Poker –in non-Holdem games no less—has left meeating my words… a little bit… That was until Phil vindicated my stance withhis own play late in the $50k Players Championship.

For most of the final table Hellmuth was playingbrilliantly; his decisions were fast and confident, he was making solid reads,and he was in good spirits. And then, just before the dinner break glimpses ofthe old Phil came through as he chided Brian Rast for beating him in a pot, andhe went into his usual tangent of “just wait til I get Aces and bust youbuddy!” while standing up and animatedly waving his arms in disgust andmumbling to himself.

Don’t get me wrong, Phil is a very good poker player, but hejust doesn’t have the intangibles to succeed in today’s poker world. His styleand attitude was perfect for the 90’s poker scene where people were afraid tomix-it-up with a well-known, brash, nut-peddler. Middle-aged poker players whodidn’t understand the merits of continuation bets and semi-bluffs were scaredof Phil, but this is no longer the case.

His play in non-Holdem games isn’t really a surprise to me–he has final tabled many of these formats in the past—but he did have methinking that he must have rededicated himself to poker after watching theentire Players Championship live feed… right up until the dinner break of the$50k Players Championship final table he had me hoodwinked –although I also sawthis at the 2-7 Lowball Championship final table where he lost to John Juandaheads-up.

So what do I see as Phil’s weaknesses? Here is a short-list:

· He tilts way too easy, and doesn’t recover oncehe starts to get riled up. Phil on his A-Game is a really good player who makesvery few mistakes; Phil on tilt is a calling station/bluffer with horridtiming, who must win every pot he is involved in.

· Far too often I see Phil playing a solid, tight,game and then suddenly his whole demeanor changes and you just know he is aboutto start playing 50%+ of his hands and three betting A7 and J6s; you canliterally see it on his face and in his body language that he is gettingfrustrated. With Phil it’s usually one extreme or the other.

· He just doesn’t know the “new” math of the game.His bet-sizing is bizarre and wrong at times, and he has no interest incontinuing his poker education. He is like the 70 year-old doctor who is not upon the latest advancements in his field.

Sodespite his 2011 WSOP success, including three runner-up finishes and likelythe POY award, I still can’t call Phil one of the best –you can read more of mythoughts on why here

Have I been wrong about Phil Hellmuth?

2011-07-08T10:22:00.000-07:00

So what do I see as Phil’s weaknesses? Here is a short-list:

Sodespite his 2011 WSOP success, including three runner-up finishes and likelythe POY award, I still can’t call Phil one of the best –you can read more of mythoughts on why here

3 reasons why electronic devices should be banned in poker

2011-07-07T06:13:00.001-07:00

We’ve officially entered the slippery slope phase of allowing electronic devices at a poker table. At the 2011 World Series of Poker there is a rule that says you cannot use an electronic device –cell phone, iPad, etc.—while you are involved in a hand. Which begs the two-part question of, how would you know, and can you enforce this rule? Another rule states that you cannot wear headphones if you are in the money at the WSOP. Really, why at this point of the tournament and not sooner or even later?

In my opinion there should be a zero-tolerance policy towards any electronic device being used at a poker table. No cell phones, no iPads, no smart phones, no iPods, not even a 1980’s Sony Walkman! Now let me explain why I am a technophobe/Luddite when it comes to poker.

#1: It slows down the game and causes mistakes

Live poker is slow enough as it is, and there are plenty of instances that necessitate the floor being called to make some marginal decision or enforce some obscure rule, so why add to the confusion at the table by allowing players to wear headphones, play Scrabble on their iPad, or text while they are playing???

Seriously, how many times have you been sitting at a poker table with a player that has not been paying attention, only to see them fire out an inadequate amount of chips to bet/raise/call, play out of turn, need to be reminded it’s their turn, or commit some other irritating offense? The chances of this rise exponentially when players have headphones on, or are otherwise distracted.

#2: It looks bad on TV and in Pictures

This goes more towards the perception of poker players, but how foolish do these kids/adults look fiddling with their iPads and listening to their iPods while they are playing for millions of dollars! Seriously, you need to at least look like you are not a degenerate who could care less.

If we want poker to be taken seriously we need to help with the perception of the game, and that means paying attention and looking professional –you don’t see the backup quarterback playing scrabble on the sideline, or the 12^th guy on the bench for the Celtics texting, even though they are bored out of their minds!

#3: It increases the potential for cheating

For me this is the most important reason of all, especially in the wake of the sophisticated/elaborate means a player like Ali Tekintamgac was willing to go through to get an edge. With an electronic device it’s simply easier to coordinate with other players and cheat. Here are a few examples:

Two players who know each other well are at the same table and of them folds A6 Under the Gun, and proceeds to text or call on silent-mode his friend across the table because the two of them have worked out a system that if they fold an Ace they call or text each other! Yes it’s a very rare occurrence, and a small advantage, but poker is a game of inches.

A player has his smart phone sitting behind his chips or on his lap with it open to an ICM calculator page, or on pokertableratings.com, Sharkscope.com, or some other tracking site looking up a player sitting at his table.

How about if a player’s headphones are actually a receiver for a friend looking at another player’s cards, or some other elaborate scheme to transfer information.

The point is, the potential to cheat is there, and as we’ve seen all too often in poker where there is a will there is often a way.

3 reasons why electronic devices should be banned in poker

2011-07-07T06:13:00.000-07:00

#1: It slows down the game and causes mistakes

#2: It looks bad on TV and in Pictures

#3: It increases the potential for cheating

Two players who know each other well are at the same table and of them folds A6 Under the Gun, and proceeds to text or call on silent-mode his friend across the table because the two of them have worked out a system that if they fold an Ace they call or text each other! Yes it’s a very rare occurrence, and a small advantage, but poker is a game of inches.

A player has his smart phone sitting behind his chips or on his lap with it open to an ICM calculator page, or on pokertableratings.com, Sharkscope.com, or some other tracking site looking up a player sitting at his table.

How about if a player’s headphones are actually a receiver for a friend looking at another player’s cards, or some other elaborate scheme to transfer information.

The point is, the potential to cheat is there, and as we’ve seen all too often in poker where there is a will there is often a way.

Thoughts on AGCC suspending Full Tilt Poker’s license and other musings

2011-07-01T06:08:00.001-07:00

This is going to be a Led Zeppelin post, where I basically Ramble On…

After Black Friday my only concern with online poker sites was to get as much of my money off of every online poker site as quickly as possible. I wasn’t interested in finding a new online poker site to play on, and I wasn’t concerned about frozen funds –but the second they were available I would get them the hell off the site. No, the only, ONLY, concern I had was retrieving as much of my scant online funds as possible.

So the Full Tilt shutdown on Wednesday didn’t surprise me all that much, considering after two months not a cent had been returned to US players. I feel bad for the people in the US who had substantial amounts of money on Full Tilt Poker prior to Black Friday since it was a blindside hit, but anyone that could have gotten their money out of the site after Black Friday was playing with fire.

Since Black Friday the online industry has dramatically changed; players need to realize that online poker sites can no longer be viewed as something of a bank, that holds there funds in a 0% interest account. Other than PokerStars –which was scary for a few weeks in and of itself—and Party Poker, no online poker room has proven themselves as a “Safe” place to play online poker, and there is no reason to think that either of these rooms are immune to the next crackdown, scandal, what have you.

I moved fast when I discovered what was happening on April 15, and on Black Friday I was able to transfer my Full Tilt Poker money to a trusted person in the UK before the ‘fit hit the shan’ big time, leaving about $50 in my account –this was the amount of money I didn’t care about losing and decided to leave on FT in case the seizure/indictments turned out to be a one-day thing and I wanted to play some small stakes poker.

So after a couple of Rakeback payments and tournament ticket conversions, I have about $100 on Full Tilt right now, and about another $100 worth of Full Tilt Points. If I had ANY chance to cash this money out from the site between April 16 and now, I would have. And even if I could return to Full Tilt Poker right now, there would be no way I would trust my money there after everything that has happened and come to light.

Having your online poker license pulled/suspended is akin to being asked to leave a dive bar: You have to do something REALLY wrong to reach that point. And now there is talk of Full Tilt switching to Kahnawake –the regulatory body that still, STILL, licenses UB and AP! Oh yeah they seem reputable…

Alright, rambling done. Basically until the online poker industry is legitimized, with these sites held accountable –and not a $10k fine to a billion dollar corporation accountable ARJEL!—you’d be crazy to play at any online site. Need more proof:

Prior to the Super-User scandal you were laughed out of forms if you suggested rigged games. What we’ve learned is that in addition to the insider cheating at some sites, there is also faulty encryption, shady payment processing procedures, and less than enthusiastic investigations into cheating allegations. Would it really surprise anyone to find out the sites used poker bots, or rigged the RNG, or flat out stole money a la UB/Absolute???

Since Black Friday the upper layer of the online industry has been laid bare, and so far it hasn’t been pretty. I can only imagine what is lurking even deeper in these companies. Hidden owners, shell companies, and all manner of shenanigans seem to be the SOP in the online poker world.

***Late Edit: It appears Full Tilt Poker might be sold to a group of European investors; a deal that would include the repayment of US player funds. So I may just get that $200 after all –BUT, I’m still not going to play there, now or in the future!

Thoughts on AGCC suspending Full Tilt Poker’s license and other musings

2011-07-01T06:08:00.000-07:00

This is going to be a Led Zeppelin post, where I basically Ramble On…

Prior to the Super-User scandal you were laughed out of forms if you suggested rigged games. What we’ve learned is that in addition to the insider cheating at some sites, there is also faulty encryption, shady payment processing procedures, and less than enthusiastic investigations into cheating allegations. Would it really surprise anyone to find out the sites used poker bots, or rigged the RNG, or flat out stole money a la UB/Absolute???

Since Black Friday the upper layer of the online industry has been laid bare, and so far it hasn’t been pretty. I can only imagine what is lurking even deeper in these companies. Hidden owners, shell companies, and all manner of shenanigans seem to be the SOP in the online poker world.

No online poker? Maybe I’ll just play Bingo

2011-06-29T07:10:00.001-07:00

Earlier this week I realized I hadn’t played online poker –or any poker for that matter—since Black Friday! That means it has been well over two months since I have sworn at my computer screen or hammer-fisted the top of my desk. Truthfully I haven’t missed it, so I’ve decided to make a pact not to play online poker until it is legalized and regulated in the US.

Now the question is what to do with myself to get my slight degenerate gambler fix? Since I know the odds of every casino game, and I can’t count cards at online blackjack, I’m thinking maybe online Bingo is a good choice –who knows, I might even be able to score a decent Bingo Port Bonus???

Here is what I’m thinking:

#1 -- It’s a mindless game

Mindless games are very good in that you don’t have to worry about any mental stresses or distractions while you are participating. I could probably make it even more mindless by multi-carding –who knows, maybe I could be the Randy “nanonoko” Lew of the Bingo world as I sit with my four monitors full of 20 Bingo Cards each!

#2 -- It’s not as fast-paced as other online gambling endeavors

When I’m planning on losing I at least want to get my money’s worth out of the activity! And I can’t think of a better game than Bingo; there is no way I could go on tilt as I mark off my Bingo Cards.

#3 -- Apparently the online bingo industry is a lot bigger than I imagined!

After I checked out Bingoport Online Bingo I was shocked at the amount of online bingo sites out there, and at how busy they were. You can even find Bingo Port Promotions! Apparently online bingo is an industry all to itself –I wonder if they need any writers in the industry… with a background in online poker???

<-------------------------------->

You see US government; this is what I have been reduced to!!!

No online poker? Maybe I’ll just play Bingo

2011-06-29T07:10:00.000-07:00

Here is what I’m thinking:

#1 -- It’s a mindless game

#2 -- It’s not as fast-paced as other online gambling endeavors

#3 -- Apparently the online bingo industry is a lot bigger than I imagined!

<-------------------------------->

You see US government; this is what I have been reduced to!!!

What the Barton bill could mean for US poker players

2011-06-28T08:55:00.001-07:00

The recent legislation introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) would be a poker advocate’s dream scenario considering the bill is balanced between benefitting government, provider, and consumer quite fairly. But beyond the matter of legalizing and regulating online poker there are a few other reasons poker players should be excited about this bill, which I’ll list below.

#1 – The bill would create competition between states to attract online poker rooms

This would disallow one or two states from monopolizing the market (or the federal government for that matter) and prevent them from gouging the online poker providers with exorbitant licensing fees and taxation, but it may also be the genesis of states passing some type of poker or gaming legislation in order to attract online poker sites –which in turn would mean the legalization of, at the very least, poker within their borders.

Of course, Nevada, California, New Jersey, and a few other locales are already ahead of the game, but if these states and their gaming commissions get greedy, don’t be surprised if a few other states try to lure online poker rooms to their borders. Whether this comes to pass or not is irrelevant since the possibility should be more than enough of a check and balance.

#2 – The distinction that poker is a game of skill

This is a hotly debated topic in many state courts, and with rulings coming down on both sides of the argument the fact that the Barton bill makes a clear distinction between poker and games like Roulette, Craps, Blackjack, and slot machines could set a strong precedent in future cases.

This could also get the ball rolling for states to at least legalize brick & mortar card-rooms in the future: How cool would it be if basically every town had its own legal poker club!

While neither of these points is definitive, the way the Barton bill is worded, and with what it’s trying to accomplish, it could wind up not only being a boon for online poker in the US, but the bill could also kick-off the live poker industry in the US.

What the Barton bill could mean for US poker players

2011-06-28T08:55:00.000-07:00

#1 – The bill would create competition between states to attract online poker rooms

#2 – The distinction that poker is a game of skill

This could also get the ball rolling for states to at least legalize brick & mortar card-rooms in the future: How cool would it be if basically every town had its own legal poker club!

More proof that Boston is the best sports town PERIOD!

2011-06-20T07:04:00.001-07:00

In November of 2009 I wrote a blog post called, Why Boston is the Best Sports Town PERIOD!, where I laid out a non-standard explanation for making this claim. In this post I want to make a second case for Boston as the best sports town, this time focusing on the more palatable metric of winning championships.

In a span of eight years, 2004 through 2011, all four major sports teams in Boston have hoisted a Championship Trophy; an unprecedented span for any city. Not only can we lay claim to utterly dominating the past decade, but a look at the numbers over the history of pro sports shows a similar dominance.

First off, only four cities can lay claim to a Championship in all four sports, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Of the other three, only New York is even in the conversation for best sports town when talking about championships.

While the New York teams have utterly dominated baseball: Yankees (27), Mets (2), Brooklyn Dodgers (1), and New York Giants (5) they have been nonexistent in basketball with just 2 NBA titles for the Knicks, and a total of 4 Championships in football (both teams play in New Jersey by the way), and 8 in Hockey. But, one thing to consider with New York teams is that they have multiple teams in every sport sans basketball, so the numbers are a bit inflated.

On the other hand the Boston sports teams have a fairly good track record in every sport: 17 Championships for the Celtics, 8 for the Boston Red Sox/Boston Braves combination, 6 for the Bruins, and 3 for the Patriots. So even though there are markedly fewer championships, the percentages are actually better!

So here are the Championship percentages for both cities (I rounded off in many spots –especially baseball and Hockey-- just to make the math a bit simpler).

Baseball: over 100 World Series played there were approximately 100 Yankees seasons, 50 seasons for the New York Giants, 50 seasons for the New York Mets, 50 seasons for the Brooklyn Dodgers –or about 250 team seasons. Boston has 100 seasons of Red Sox and 50 of the Braves for a total of 150 team seasons.

· The New York baseball teams are approximately 35 for 250 = 14% win rate

· The Boston baseball teams are approximately 8 for 150 = 5.3%

In basketball it’s not even close:

· New York Basketball teams are 2 for 55 = 3.6%

· Boston Basketball teams are 17 for 55 = 30.9%

Hockey:

· New York Hockey Teams are approximately 8 for 125 = 6.4%

· Boston Hockey Teams are approximately 6 for 85 = 7%

Football:

· New York Football Teams are 4 for 96 = 4.1%

· Boston Football Teams are 3 for 48 = 6.25%

NEW YORK TEAMS OVERALL chance of Championship = 8.5%

BOSTON TEAMS OVERALL chance of Championship = 10%

More proof that Boston is the best sports town PERIOD!

2011-06-20T07:04:00.000-07:00

So here are the Championship percentages for both cities (I rounded off in many spots –especially baseball and Hockey-- just to make the math a bit simpler).

· The New York baseball teams are approximately 35 for 250 = 14% win rate

· The Boston baseball teams are approximately 8 for 150 = 5.3%

In basketball it’s not even close:

· New York Basketball teams are 2 for 55 = 3.6%

· Boston Basketball teams are 17 for 55 = 30.9%

Hockey:

· New York Hockey Teams are approximately 8 for 125 = 6.4%

· Boston Hockey Teams are approximately 6 for 85 = 7%

Football:

· New York Football Teams are 4 for 96 = 4.1%

· Boston Football Teams are 3 for 48 = 6.25%

NEW YORK TEAMS OVERALL chance of Championship = 8.5%

BOSTON TEAMS OVERALL chance of Championship = 10%

Why Phil Hellmuth is NOT a poker king

2011-06-14T08:22:00.001-07:00

One of my favorite new poker writers, Chad Holloway, wrote a recent op-ed article at PokerNews.com on why he feels Phil Hellmuth is still a top dog in the poker world. In this blog post I’ll attempt to make sense of the numbers and achievements Holloway utilizes as a metric for Phil Hellmuth’s success, and also provide my own statistics on why this is only half the story.

First off, let me state that I think Hellmuth is a very good poker player comparatively speaking, but when it comes to comparing him to the top 500 players in the world there really is no comparison, he simply doesn’t belong in this conversation –in my estimation he is in the bottom of the top 1,000 players on a good day.

Perhaps the most telling statistics is the one below, which Holloway cites showing Hellmuth’s earnings each year since the poker boom:

· 2003 -- $1,160,832

· 2004 -- $96,441

· 2005 -- $845,810

· 2006 -- $1,271,502

· 2007 -- $932,324

· 2008 -- $1,156,544

· 2009 -- $177,243

· 2010 -- $427,656

At a cursory glance the numbers look pretty good for Phil, but what isn’t factored in is that Hellmuth is one of the game’s most prolific tournament players. Chances are that Phil is averaging $10k per week in buy-ins over the course of a year, and that doesn’t even factor in his travelling expenses. I remember a rumor –I wish I could find the exact figure but Google is not cooperating—of Hellmuth spending some ungodly sum of money to live at the Rio (some other casino) during a WSOP. If you stop and think about it he might be spending in the ballpark of $250,000 each WSOP!

Now I realize UB picked up most of this tab for many years, but this doesn’t mean these expenses should simply be overlooked or not taken into account when discussing poker ability –if we were talking about Hellmuth’s overall earnings than yes he does very well for himself thanks to his sponsorships and branding. So, if Phil was spending $750,000 a year than he was only about +$8,000/year over this time period at the poker tables! Hardly a world-beater.

The second statistics cited that I want to rebut are his career wins, and close calls as Holloway puts it. Basically, if you allow any very good poker player to play an unlimited number of WSOP tournaments over the past decade or so –on someone else’s dime, with no pressure to perform-- they are going to win a hell of a lot more bracelets than Phil has. Look at what Ivey has done in the few years he has dedicated himself to a full WSOP schedule.

If you enter virtually every WSOP event and every WPT tournament, plus a few other majors –Aussie Millions, PCA, EPT events—for the better part of a decade you are going to win your fair share. And if you look at his achievements pre-boom the same holds true. He played virtually every WSOP event since 1989 when the fields were much smaller, and the players were much weaker! Since the boom, Phil has four WSOP bracelets and no WPT, EPT, or other major wins, ZIP, ZERO, NADA.

To me Hellmuth is the Tracy McGrady/Steve Francis of poker, if he actually dedicated himself to the game and keeping up with the new trends he could be a superstar, but he is content to rest on his past accomplishments and drop in with an occasional 30-point game here and there (the poker equivalent of a 30-point game being a final table) and occasionally going off for 50 (actually winning), something he hasn’t done since 2007!

Why Phil Hellmuth is NOT a poker king

2011-06-14T08:22:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the most telling statistics is the one below, which Holloway cites showing Hellmuth’s earnings each year since the poker boom:

· 2003 -- $1,160,832

· 2004 -- $96,441

· 2005 -- $845,810

· 2006 -- $1,271,502

· 2007 -- $932,324

· 2008 -- $1,156,544

· 2009 -- $177,243

· 2010 -- $427,656

Review and thoughts on the Amazon Kindle

2011-06-09T06:54:00.001-07:00

My perfect wife –she truly knows me better than anyone—thought I would like a Kindle, and after hemming and hawing about how much I like paper books I gave in, and she bought me a Kindle for my birthday. Well, as usual she was right and I was wrong.

First off let me explain why I settled on the Kindle over the Nook and other E-Readers:

1. The E-ink or whatever they call it

2. 30-day battery life, enough said

3. Amazon bookstore

4. Lighter than a paperback

5. The F’ing thing is only $114!

Now, let me explain what I found to be the case with the Kindle:

1. The screen is amazing, it actually looks fake; so much so that I though the initial screen was one of those transparent stickers that needed to be peeled! Fortunately, there was no damage done to the screen by my idiotic attempt to peel it. The screen really does look like a print book and not a computer screen.

2. The Battery life is really solid.

3. A very good, but not great, selection of titles are available, all cheaper than the book itself costs.

4. Not only is it lighter than a paperback but you don’t have to worry about using two hands to hold the book open, or any other assorted “issues” that arise when reading a book –such as your 3 year-old deciding he likes your bookmark and pilfering it!

5. The thing is well worth $114 plus the $40 for a cover.

My guess is E-Readers will be one of those techie products that are constantly being upgraded, so I went with the lowest priced model. The $300+ touch-screen, 3-G/4-G, versions will likely be $100 in two years when the they add the newest latest advancements so why pay more now??? At $114 I can basically buy a completely new one in 2-years for another $100 and feel fine about it –which at that point will just be the cutting edge ones they offer now for $400 minus all the glitches and issues.

Not only have I had no problem reading on the Kindle, I find I focus on the text better than a “brick and mortar” book –a little joke for my poker playing readers. All in all I highly recommend any avid reader to pick up one of these.

Review and thoughts on the Amazon Kindle

2011-06-09T06:54:00.000-07:00

First off let me explain why I settled on the Kindle over the Nook and other E-Readers:

1. The E-ink or whatever they call it

2. 30-day battery life, enough said

3. Amazon bookstore

4. Lighter than a paperback

5. The F’ing thing is only $114!

Now, let me explain what I found to be the case with the Kindle:

2. The Battery life is really solid.

3. A very good, but not great, selection of titles are available, all cheaper than the book itself costs.

5. The thing is well worth $114 plus the $40 for a cover.

50 in 50 update: The reading challenge continues

2011-05-31T05:38:00.001-07:00

It’s been awhile since I updated my progress in my challenge to read 50 books in 50 weeks, so here we go! I’ve only managed to knock out 4 books in the last six weeks or so, so I have once again fallen a little behind schedule –but I did purposely take a full week off from reading to recharge myself recently.

So, roughly 29 weeks into the challenge I have 27 books under my belt:

1. No Limits: The Fundamentals of No-Limit Holdem by Chris “Fox” Wallace and Adam Stemple

2. Around the World in 80 Days by Jules Verne

3. Poker Nation by Andy Bellin

4. What the Dog Saw by Malcolm Gladwell

5. Me of Little Faith by Lewis Black

6. Titanic Thompson: The Man Who Bet on Everything by Kevin Cook

7. S**T My Dad Says by Justin Halpern

8. Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man by Christopher Hitchens

9. Secrets of Sit & Go by Phil Shaw

10. 5 Stars Wars E-Books, Lost Tribe of the Sith by John Jackson Miller that I’m only counting as one book due to their brevity

11. Star Wars Old Republic Fatal Alliance, by Sean Williams

12. Star Wars Crosscurrent, by Paul Kemp

13. The Book of Fate, by Brad Meltzer

14. Advanced Pot Limit Omaha, by Jeff Hwang

15. The Wit & Wisdom of Mark Twain, by Mark Twain

16. Star Wars Fate of the Jedi Outcast, by Aaron Allston

17. Star Wars Fate of the Jedi Omen, by Christie Golden

18. Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

19. Star Wars Fate of the Jedi Abyss, by Troy Denning

20. Star Wars Fate of the Jedi Backlash, by Aaron Alston

21. The Plot to Seize the White House, by Jules Archer

22. Star Wars Fate of the Jedi Allies, by Christie Golden

23. Star Wars Fate of the Jedi Vortex, by Troy Denning

24. Super Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

25. Star Wars Old Republic: Deceived

26. Star Wars Knight Errant

27. The Book of Lies, by Brad Meltzer

One note I want to make is that The Book of Lies by Brad Meltzer is one of the best fiction novels I have ever read, definitely pick up this book.

I’m currently reading The Road to Serfdom, by F.A. Hayek, and still in the queue are a couple of Christopher Hitchens books, and despite the dominance of my above list, I still have a few Star Wars novels to get through. I also just got a Kindle for my birthday and have started reading the very fascinating The Psychopath Test, by Jon Ronson.