NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

Not sure how interested people are in this, viewing requires an account/password, so I pasted article here. I, for one, would like to thank Mr. Eliot Spitzer for his noble work in protecting me from myself. (Notice that every story like this always does at least a couple paragraphs on the addicted gambler who maxed out five
credit cards and lost his wife and kids..)

- MAC

-----------------------------------------------------
Online Poker: Hold 'Em and Hide 'Em

Ben sleeps five hours a night; the rest of the time he sits at his desk in his Brooklyn apartment playing online poker. He won $55,000 one recent evening, but in his tireless ambition for the $2.5 million world championship, this mild-mannered college graduate has become an outlaw in hiding and a twisting thorn in the side of Eliot Spitzer, the New York attorney general.

Ben quit his teaching job five months ago and now makes around $100 an hour. Five days a week, he clocks 10-hour shifts of Texas Hold 'Em on his Dell laptop computer. With reggae in the background and coffee mug in hand, he studies his competitors who sit in London, Copenhagen, Los Angeles and elsewhere, while the dealer in Costa Rica tosses cards.

A couple of blocks away, a slightly less-skilled friend of Ben's named Jimmy also works busily. While Ben plays high-stakes tournaments with pots topping $70,000, Jimmy is what is known as a "grinder" - he works the smaller virtual tables, specializing in cheaper and less risky play, but keeping three games going at all times, nickel and diming his way to decent earnings. In the past four months, Jimmy says that he made $30,000.

Ben and Jimmy would only speak to a reporter if their last names stayed out of the newspaper. That's not surprising, because they are the human faces on the wrong end of Mr. Spitzer's public campaign to shut down the hugely profitable online gambling industry.

Although they asked for anonymity, the two men say they are not hugely worried about Mr. Spitzer's campaign, despite the attorney general's relative success.

To spend the afternoon with these players is to enter a world where, at any hour and with a little luck and a touch of skill, decent wages can be had without ever changing out of one's pajamas or leaving the comfort of one's own couch. But to get there means venturing just across the border of legality. Since 2002, Mr. Spitzer has succeeded in getting more than 10 major financial institutions, including Citibank and PayPal, one of the largest Internet money transfer companies, to stop processing gambling transactions. But he has been unable to prosecute the Web site operators, most of whom are offshore, and hard pressed to arrest online gamblers because they are dispersed all over. Instead, he has tried to seal off the financial pipeline connecting the two.

In recent months, federal prosecutors from around the country have joined the effort by threatening to prosecute on charges of aiding and abetting any businesses in the United States that provide advertising and financial services to illegal Internet casinos. As a result of the pressure, several large media operations - including Infinity Broadcasting, Clear Channel Communications and the Discovery Networks - have stopped running advertisements for offshore Internet casinos.

Jimmy said the attorney general's efforts have made his life a tiny bit more complicated. "It used to take me one mouse click; now it takes two," he said. He simply shifted to Net Teller, a Canadian equivalent of PayPal, to buy chips. Ben mails a cashier's check to his poker Web site in Antigua.

Lee Jones, online manager of one of the most popular sites, Pokerstars .com, says 10,000 players can be found on the site at any given time. "Our players tend to be a pretty loyal bunch," he said.

Some are more addicted than loyal. Steve, a Long Island lawyer who like the others did not want to give his last name, said he still owed a $15,000 credit-card debt to an online poker site. Having already kicked a 10-year gambling habit, Steve fell back into poker after his wife bought a computer.

"It's not a temptation you want in my living room," he said.

Willie J., a Manhattan businessman, began attending Gamblers Anonymous meetings two years ago, after finding himself $45,000 in the red. "I had 12 credit cards and had memorized all their numbers and expiration dates," he said. "That's when I knew I was in serious trouble."

As an industry, online gambling has obvious profit potential. While casinos in Las Vegas pour hundreds of millions of dollars into show-stopping hotels, Web sites require not a drop of mortar nor one cent for lounge acts and cheap buffets. What Web sites lack in pizazz, they make up in convenience, as customers can play a quick round of $100 blackjack seconds after rolling out of bed.

Mr. Spitzer decided to clamp down on the industry in 1999 after his office won a precedent-setting case involving an Internet casino. The Web site's operators, World Interactive Gaming Corporation, based in Suffolk County, claimed they should not be subject to New York gambling laws, since their Internet servers were licensed in Antigua. However, the State Supreme Court ruled that the Caribbean location was irrelevant, since the actual transmission of information from New York via the Internet constituted gambling activity within the state.

This ruling may, in the long run, doom New York online bettors, said Ken Dreifach, chief of the state attorney general's Internet bureau.

On the federal level, online gambling remains uncharted legal territory. Many legal scholars point to the 1961 Wire Act, which makes it a crime to use a wire for transmitting betting information across state or national boundaries. But it makes no mention of the Internet and is typically viewed as being limited to sports betting. Legislation pending before Congress could amend the Wire Act to include restrictions on Internet gambling, said I. Nelson Rose, a law professor at Whittier Law School in California.

Historically, gambling regulation has fallen to the states, but few besides New York have aggressively confronted its online form, perhaps because of enforcement difficulties. Bradley J. Gibbs, a lawyer with Heller Erhman, a law firm that has handled online gambling litigation, said "arresting grandmothers and 12-year-old computer users is a sure public-relations disaster."

Mr. Dreifach says his office found an effective weak spot when it focused on the flow of online funds. The tactic also made sense, he said, because most credit-card companies processing these transactions are in New York City.

By reprogramming a couple of lines of software, Mr. Dreifach said, the code corresponding to these sites was blocked. But the effectiveness of such blocks remains to be seen. "If money is flowing, tunnels dig themselves," Professor Rose said.

Mr. Dreifach is confident his work has made its mark. In 1999 profits from online gambling were estimated at $3 billion, with indications that the number would double within three years, Mr. Dreifach said. The estimate still lingers around $3 billion, he said.

"I think we had a big part in cutting off the growth," he said.

Some poker players actually support the idea of making online gambling illegal. But they do not believe poker is a form of gambling.

"It's a game of skill, not of chance," Jimmy said.But in the eyes of the law, Mr. Dreifach said, gambling includes all games in which chance outweighs skill. "I don't know about you," he said, "but for most of us, poker is certainly a game of chance."

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"It's a game of skill, not of chance," Jimmy said.But in the eyes of the law, Mr. Dreifach said, gambling includes all games in which chance outweighs skill. "I don't know about you," he said, "but for most of us, poker is certainly a game of chance."

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, Dreifach is just jealous because he is a fish.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
But in the eyes of the law, Mr. Dreifach said, gambling includes all games in which chance outweighs skill.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is commonly stated but does not make sense. If there is any skill element at all in the game, it will always outweigh chance in the long run. The only question is how long the long run needs to be.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is commonly stated but does not make sense. If there is any skill element at all in the game, it will always outweigh chance in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with this, even though it doesn't make any difference in poker. Blackjack is usually -EV (depending on rules) but requires skill. A better BJ player will only lose less.

Even slot machines can be considered to have skill since a 'skilled' slots player will always play the max coins to get the big jackpot if it hits.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

I think it would be better to say that any amount of "skill" that trumps the house edge (in the case of blackjack, the actual house edge, but in the case of poker, the rake) should make it a game of skill in the long run.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

"I think it would be better to say that any amount of "skill" that trumps the house edge (in the case of blackjack, the actual house edge, but in the case of poker, the rake) should make it a game of skill in the long run."

indeed. if it is even remotely possible to have enough skill to beat the game then it becomes a game of skill.
if an infinite amount of skill still makes it a losing game then it is merely a game of luck.

all games and sports have a certain amount of luck involved....
if someone banks in a 3-point shot at the buzzer to win...and did not intend to bank it.....then it is viewed as a 'lucky shot' and a 'lucky win'. however, basketball is not viewed as a game of 'luck'.

if a foul-out is deflected away by a fan allowing another team to make the world series....oh never mind.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

thanks for posting the article by the way....i haven't had a chance to read the online NYT lately and missed this.

i think it's a reasonably fair assessment of the situation...although i wouldn't have minded some quotes from the successful poker players along the lines of "it's great....i choose my oown hours....i make more than i do at my own job....i get to be my own boss."
they didn't really have this...they just pointed out that they are making decent money.


channel-surfing on the radio while driving yesterday i heard an extremely pompous and negative story about online gambling on a Christian-Radio-News segment and the glorious fight to 'ban these illegal off-shore sites'. hmmmm.


betonsports.com now has a pop-up window for an online petition you can sign to support the right to place a wager on the internet.
i think the only reason the poker sites WOULDN'T want to do this is because they don't want to draw any attention the fact that there is some debate regarding the legality.
lets face it....there are a number of fish who are playing right now who have no idea it is with an off-shore site or that there is any potential legal cloud surrounding it.
the negative publicity surrounding online-gambling may temper the growth of the business some.....i understand this kind of legal-cloud publicity had a similar effect on downloading CD's on napster and the like.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

The players referred to as Ben and Jimmy are close friends of mine, and those are not real names.
The reporter has no idea what hes talking about calling Jimmy a grinder (he is constantly playing 3-4 tables of 15-30)...not really what I'd consider a grinder.
Also "Jimmy" is a bit upset at being called slightly less skilled than Ben, by a reporter who doesnt even know the rules of poker. I think he was basing it on the fact that "Ben" won 55K in one tournament.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

thanks for posting this.. glad i'm in canada [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

thanks curtains....i'll take your word for it because i know you can kick my ass in both poker and chess (i'm about 1400 USCF, but i never studied like i should/could have).

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
that there is any potential legal cloud surrounding it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If so it is time for the sites to turn their heads to other markets (read Asia), Japan is one hell of a market, they are almost as crazy in gambling as we are and they have both internet and funds, how come none of the big sites is available in asian languages?

sure, party have their "home" front in, japanese, chinese and korean, but still that aint enough (thats just 1 singel page) havent found any of the other big ones in any translated mode, have you?

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
The players referred to as Ben and Jimmy are close friends of mine, and those are not real names.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone I know from the chess world?

(TimM from ICC) [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Definition of gambling? (X posted)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"It's a game of skill, not of chance," Jimmy said.But in the eyes of the law, Mr. Dreifach said, gambling includes all games in which chance outweighs skill. "I don't know about you," he said, "but for most of us, poker is certainly a game of chance."

[/ QUOTE ]

When exactly does chance outweigh skill? What about baseball for example? Only a few teams a year win more than 60% of their games. Doesn't this mean chance outweighs skill in baseball? Or could I argue that after 100,000,000 hands of poker, there is virtually no fluctuation based on chance, but a huge fluctuation based on skill?

I'm not arguing that poker is or isn't gambling. This just seems like a horrendous definition to me.

Does anyone know exactly what the government does define gambling as?

Re: Definition of gambling? (X posted)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know exactly what the government does define gambling as?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same as they define pornography, apparently (I know it when I see it).

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's a game of skill, not of chance," Jimmy said.But in the eyes of the law, Mr. Dreifach said, gambling includes all games in which chance outweighs skill. "I don't know about you," he said, "but for most of us, poker is certainly a game of chance."


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that using this definition of gambling is what allowed the poker rooms in CA to open. I thought that the state of CA determined that poker was a game of skill not chance. CA law stated that games of chance were illegal which is what prevented open gambling ala NV, NJ, etc.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]

"It's a game of skill, not of chance," Jimmy said.But in the eyes of the law, Mr. Dreifach said, gambling includes all games in which chance outweighs skill.


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess they should go arrest everybody with stock shares as well.

eastbay

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I think it would be better to say that any amount of "skill" that trumps the house edge (in the case of blackjack, the actual house edge, but in the case of poker, the rake) should make it a game of skill in the long run."

indeed. if it is even remotely possible to have enough skill to beat the game then it becomes a game of skill.
if an infinite amount of skill still makes it a losing game then it is merely a game of luck.

all games and sports have a certain amount of luck involved....
if someone banks in a 3-point shot at the buzzer to win...and did not intend to bank it.....then it is viewed as a 'lucky shot' and a 'lucky win'. however, basketball is not viewed as a game of 'luck'.

if a foul-out is deflected away by a fan allowing another team to make the world series....oh never mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the way a football bounces...

eastbay

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]

The players referred to as Ben and Jimmy are close friends of mine, and those are not real names.
The reporter has no idea what hes talking about calling Jimmy a grinder (he is constantly playing 3-4 tables of 15-30)...not really what I'd consider a grinder.
Also "Jimmy" is a bit upset at being called slightly less skilled than Ben, by a reporter who doesnt even know the rules of poker. I think he was basing it on the fact that "Ben" won 55K in one tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]
Jimmy plays 3-4 tables of 15-30 and has made $30k in 4 months... ($30k / 17.3 = $1734 per week).

I realize 4 months is not "long-term".... but I know 5-10 players playing only 3 tables (not short-handed either) making more than that. I know 3-6 players playing only 3-tables making that much, but playing 60 hours/week.

Maybe Jimmy is having a sub-par 4-months, or only plays 15-20 hours a week.... otherwise he's a pretty bad 15-30 player.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

yes hes obviously a beginner

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
gambling includes all games in which chance outweighs skill

[/ QUOTE ] That means poker is in the clear. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Dreifach said, gambling includes all games in which chance outweighs skill. "I don't know about you," he said, "but for most of us, poker is certainly a game of chance."

[/ QUOTE ] Playing poker, without knowlegde, is no more a game of chance than is playing the stock market, without knowledge. Hard work and research in both can lead to profits. After all Ben is clocking 10 hour shifts in order to make his money, and sleeping 5 hours a night. That doesn't describe a profitable life due to dumb luck. In fact Ben's life sounds a lot like the lives of Internet stock traders.

[ QUOTE ]
Some poker players actually support the idea of making online gambling illegal. But they do not believe poker is a form of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ] However, I agree with other poker players that games such as Roulette, Blackjack, Video Poker, etc are a form of gambling. I absolutely NEVER have played any of these online. However, if I did, I would know fully well this would be a losing proposition. I think a very high majority of people know this.


I feel sorry for Steve. He obviously has a problem with gambling. However, he is an educated man (I assume this due to him being a lawyer), and if he worked on improving his poker skills, I don't think he would have lost this much money. I think he can't control what level stakes he wants to play at, because it's very difficult to lose that much money playing ($15k+) for low stakes. I don't think the mass poker players should be punished for the lack of self-control a few people.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
if a foul-out is deflected away by a fan allowing another team to make the world series....oh never mind.


[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
gambling includes all games in which chance outweighs skill

[/ QUOTE ] That means poker is in the clear. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Dreifach said, gambling includes all games in which chance outweighs skill. "I don't know about you," he said, "but for most of us, poker is certainly a game of chance."

[/ QUOTE ] Playing poker, without knowlegde, is no more a game of chance than is playing the stock market, without knowledge. Hard work and research in both can lead to profits. After all Ben is clocking 10 hour shifts in order to make his money, and sleeping 5 hours a night. That doesn't describe a profitable life due to dumb luck. In fact Ben's life sounds a lot like the lives of Internet stock traders.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the mass poker players should be punished for the lack of self-control a few people.

[/ QUOTE ]

*COUGH* Prohibition *COUGH* Lawsuits against McDonalds because of Supersize *COUGH*

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

It's only a 25 cents more for twice as many fries and more soda than I can drink? I'LL TAKE IT!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Who can resist a deal like that? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

"As a result of the pressure, several large media operations - including Infinity Broadcasting, Clear Channel Communications and the Discovery Networks - have stopped running advertisements for offshore Internet casinos."

I've seen adds on Fox Sports for Party Poker.

Good work.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

Thanks for posting this article MAC.

Is there anybody on this site with a legal backround that can offer any insight on what the chances are that legislation banning on-line gambling (specifically poker) will get passed any time soon?

Thank again.

Bubbagump

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

Game Show Network's airing Golden Palace ads, so yes as soon as one says no another says yes ;-)

Re: Definition of gambling? (X posted)
 

[ QUOTE ]
What about baseball for example? Only a few teams a year win more than 60% of their games. Doesn't this mean chance outweighs skill in baseball?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a saying in baseball that you're going to win 1/3 of the games and lose 1/3 of the games. It's the 1/3 of the games in the middle that determine your season. So there's an element of "luck" (or more likely variance because the highest skilled players in general are playing), but it's the element of skill which really determines how the season will wind up.

Re: Definition of gambling? (X posted)
 

What you guys are saying though is there is some element of luck when athletic teams are of similar skills. Even the D-Rays beat the Yankees sometimes since they are close skill-wise. It's the 162-game schedule that pushes the more-skilled teams ahead.

But try to get 24 of your friends together to take on either of these teams. You will go 0-162 no matter how lucky you are.

That's why sports like this are clearly games of skill. It's a lot harder to explain to the moron politicians how poker is skill when the Varkonyis and Moneymakers can beat the best in the world in poker's biggest tourney.

Re: Definition of gambling? (X posted)
 

Once again, I know the people involved in the article and most of the information depicted is simply false. Ben does NOT play 10 hours a day or anything remotely close to it. Jimmy and Ben play almost exactly the same limits, although sometimes Ben plays 30-60.
Ben is also upset that the article depicts him as some sort of criminal. Anyway Id say that the both of them don't play more than 5 hours a day, on average, if that much.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

"Game Show Network's airing Golden Palace ads, so yes as soon as one says no another says yes ;-)"

in the NVG forum another poster and i commented on these ads that ran during the WSO-BJ and we both notived that they never mentioned 'real money' or anything like that in the ads. it was just an ad for 'i learned to play BJ like a pro at goden palace'.
obviously the golden palace people are hoping anyone who goes to the site will consider playing for real dough.....but they make absolutely no mention of that option in the ad.

kind of a fine-line....but an interesting one nonetheless.

many of the ads on tv for party and stars would say things like 'win real money and seats to the WSOP' or stuff like that.


my dad knows virtually nothing about poker but has become interested in my success in it.
here are his comments:

"Thanks for the article. If Spitzer wants to shut down something that is truly a game of chance he should start with the various lotteries. Clearly many poor people play the lottery and the odds of winning of course are outlandish."

at the casino where i work i had a player recently who said he used to drive 8 hours to a state where the lottery was legal and buy $1000 worth of scratch-offs.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

I'm sick and tired of being denied freedoms because some people are too stupid to handle the freedoms given to them. F*ck stupid people, let them ruin themselves and die, its called evolution.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

"I'm sick and tired of being denied freedoms because some people are too stupid to handle the freedoms given to them. F*ck stupid people, let them ruin themselves and die, its called evolution. "

...but will you back up that opinion by voting Libertarian?
If enough people did, we Libertarians/Objectivists would be a powerful political block to be taken seriously, just like the religious right or minority ethnic groups.

Re: Definition of gambling? (X posted)
 

[ QUOTE ]

Once again, I know the people involved in the article and most of the information depicted is simply false. Ben does NOT play 10 hours a day or anything remotely close to it. Jimmy and Ben play almost exactly the same limits, although sometimes Ben plays 30-60.
Ben is also upset that the article depicts him as some sort of criminal. Anyway Id say that the both of them don't play more than 5 hours a day, on average, if that much.

[/ QUOTE ]
Curtains,

I'll take your word for it b/c you are close to the individuals. My only skeptisicm is why we often here of great players who can crush the game but only play 10-15 hours a week or so.

While I don't "crush" the game, I do very well and I try to get as many hours in as possible, 60-80 hours. Yes, I understand about quality of life, family, etc... I'm just saying if someone has a very strong edge, the bank roll, and the discipline & skill to make it happen, why not milk that +EV?

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

I'm not very political but from what I have read I think that I would definitely be a Libertarian, I was actually even thinking that as I was posting this.

I read a book called "The 10 Things You Can't Say in America" by Larry Elder and I liked it a lot. He is a well known Libertarian.

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

Always good to see people who agree with my political views. My favorite book of all time is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Her philosophy (Objectivism) isn't exactly Libertarianism, but was clearly one of the building blocks of Libertarian philosophy.

Re: Definition of gambling? (X posted)
 

Youd have to shoot me in the head before Id play limit holdem for 60 hours in one week. I cant even play 5 hours of limit in one day (well sometimes but very rarely).
We are all young, have no family, no financial responsibilities, thus there is really no pressure to play a lot. I feel that I'm doing just fine moneywise with how much I play now, and Im sure Ben+Jimmy feel the same also.
Also I won a seat to WSOP yesterday - YAY

Re: NY Times Article - Online Poker (very long)
 

Does anyone know the best way to protest the actions of our government on banning online gaming? I would write an email to my congress representatives but I am also afraid they could use that information to track me down as someone doing something illegal on the internet ala the folks who got busted downloading music.

I emailed Sklansky with this question and I have yet to hear back.

I am really disappointed since the main guy pushing this through is from my home state of Arizona (Jon Kyl)