Poker Finance: Behind the Scenes (A Comment)

[Jimbo]

I appreciate all the thought by Jed in his article but i don't think any formal agreements are practical, at least for the investor.

I suspect Jed has never backed anyone who has sold 500% of himself and cannot afford to cash in a tournament. As long as enforcement is done by the threat of physical violence or being blackballed in the poker community backing deals are feasible. If a true marketplace existed I believe more chip dumping is bound to occur. This would be worse for poker than the fairly recent mutual fund scandals were to the financial marketplace.

Jimbo

At the risk of discussing a topic that so far appears to have generated little interest, I'll take the plunge: I have not (yet) backed anyone who has sold 500% of himself, but I do think formal agreements have some benefits for the reasons I mentioned as well as my belief that the threat of physical violence is inconsistent with the notion that poker is emerging (or has emerged) from some sort of Wild West ancestry--it is an increasingly legitimate industry that is sponsored and hosted by major corporations, legally enjoyed by many around the world, and spawning numerous entrepneurial offshoots--all of which argue in favor of persuasive business tools such as reputation and contract over the baseball bat. I am not denying the persuasive power of the baseball bat, but the power of violence grows less attractive when sufficient legal remedies exist. Today, poker and the associated Wild West imagery are useful for selling advertising on television broadcasts, but the blood lines are just that thin. I'm also doubtful that more chip dumping would occur in a competitive marketplace simply because a marketplace exists. Collusion and a variety of unethical practices seem to thrive without regard to highly regulated markets, free marketplaces, or anything in between.

[MEbenhoe]

the question i have is how any of this would even work, as gambling contracts aren't enforcable by law?