On Friday the 13th (DUN DUN DUH! AHHHHHHHH!) President Bush signed the Safe Port Act into law and after 8 years of steady growth, online poker took it's first ever step back. So far there have been two fairly major developments that have affected me personally as well as a few secondary concerns.
The first major development is the declaration by firepay that they will no longer make transfers to and from gambling sites. Firepay is a third party company based outside the US that used to serve as an intermediary between your bank and gambling websites. While in most cases you could transfer money to and from your bank directly, this process took a few days if not a week. On the other hand, with firepay once they'd verified your identity and bank account info, you could make deposits that would get credited instantly (they made their money by charging $4 for every deposit). This was handy for me if I wanted to play at a new website for the first time or found a tournament that I wanted to play at a website where I had account with no money in it. Just a few clicks and in 90 seconds or so I could start playing on a new site.
I'm sorry to see them go, but there is another option - neteller. Neteller does exactly the same thing, but seems a little bit worse. For one thing, instead of charging you $4 on an instant deposit they charge you 8%! They do allow free deposits and withdrawals, but it seems like they take about a week in either direction. I imagine they keep this process as slow as they can to encourage the instant deposits. 8% is a prohibitive amount for me so I'll no longer be able to do instant deposits. Instead I'll probably be forced to keep some sizeable chunk of money in there at all times. This really isn't that big of a deal, but it is a minor inconvenience.
The second development, which is much more significant, is the total demise of party poker. As soon as Bush signed the bill party poker voluntarily blocked all US users from playing in their games. This is big news since party poker was the biggest poker website out there. They were just a shade behind pokerstars in terms of multi table tournaments but they had at least twice as many cash games running at any given time as their closest competitor. Furthermore once you got above the low limits (maybe above $5/$10) they had as many games running as ALL of the other websites in existence put together.
When I first started playing online poker, party poker was the place I started. Every time they deal a hand it gets a number. The first hand they ever dealt in 1999 was hand #1. By the time I started in January 2004 they'd made it to hand number 240,000,000 after 5 years of operation. In the two and a half years since they've dealt over FIVE BILLION more hands. The reason I chose them to start with was they advertised up to 25,000+ simultaneous users. This kind of thing would happen about 8 p.m. pacific on a Friday or Saturday night. Coming from a card room with 25 tables that would have 250 players playing at once, this was totally insane. A few years later, before the shutdown you could find 25,000 players playing at 5 a.m. on a Tuesday and at peak hours you'd find 100,000.
The good thing is about 10 months ago I pretty much jumped ship from party poker. While I spent the first year and a half or so of my online career playing 95% on party poker, on January 1st of this year pokerstars introduced a rewards system that is worth $1,000-$2,000 a month to me for doing the same stuff. It makes sense for them because they're making 3 or 4 times that amount from me and they wouldn't have gotten anything at all without it. Actually, even if they totally cancelled the rewards system I'd still stick with pokerstars because I like their software and service much better than any other site I've played on.
The good news is I didn't lose any money and Jen and I actually MADE a few dollars off the deal. How the hell did we manage that? We're f-ing geniuses that's how! In all seriousness it came from the party poker Monster series of tournaments. They had close to $15,000,000 accumulated for the final tournament and were forced to totally dissolve the entire system of weekly and monthly tournaments. As a result for every weekly entry a player had, he or she was credited with $125 dollars. Every monthly entry was now worth $350 and every final entry was worth $1,500. Sadly we didn't have any final entries, but I did have two monthly entries and Jen had three! This means party poker dumped $1,750 into the Huff coffers as a little going away present.
A few of the other publicly traded and maybe one or two privately owned websites have stopped serving US customers. From what I understand US customers make up 80% of the market so I would assume that some of the smallest websites may be forced to close up shop without US dollars coming in. On the other hand the websites that do stay in operation should get a nice boost.
I already posted the e-mail that I got from Full Tilt Poker and here is the core of the message I got from another website:
"I want to confirm to all existing and potential poker players that itÂ’s business as usual here at DoyleÂ’s Room and we continue to accept players from all over the world including the United States of America. We at DoyleÂ’s Room have taken extensive legal advice and believe that it is far too early to fully understand the implications of this bill on our industry. Based on the legal advice we have received, the new bill does not make internet poker expressly illegal nor does it take aim at players who enjoy online poker. However, there are some U.S. States that have existing regulations in place that may prohibit online gaming, so we encourage all of our U.S. players to review the laws of the State in which they reside. Until such time as the law becomes clearer, DoyleÂ’s Room will operate as normal with our full exciting range of games and tournaments at all limits."
Pokerstars has yet to make any kind of formal declaration, but I hear that if you send them an e-mail asking what's going on they'll send you a pretty similar response.
Another interesting result of the bill is a few of websitesstes are offering major bonuses for depositing money into your account. I kept a fair amount of money in pokerstars, but took everything out of all of the otwebsitesstes. I'm sure most players took almost all of their money out and the websites have to do something to encourage people to put that money back in. What they do is offer you a deposit bonus that is only released after you play some insane number of hands. The more you deposit, the bigger bonus you get, but you have to play more hands to get it. For example, Jen just deposited $550 into Doyle's Room. After she earns 165,000 "action points" they are going to match her deposit and give her another $550 which she can leave in her account or take out or whatever. Sounds great right? The rub is that it takes a long time to earn all those action points. I think she gets 750 for every $55 single table tournament and the number of action points she gets for playing cash games depends on how much money she puts into the pot (this is kind of a wacky way of doing it - mwebsitesstes look at how many hands you play or how much money they take in rakecalculatealte how many points you earn). It would be easy for someone like me to earn the points in a timely manner on pokerstars, but the problem is these smaller sites don't run very many SNG's. They just don't have the customer base. So instead of a $55 SNG going off every 2 minutes, they start every 30 minutes or so. I may just bite the bullet and play some cash games. I have to do the math and estimate how long it will take me to earn the points and if my time might be better spent just winning money doing what I do best.
The government has given themselves 270 days to come up with ways to enforce the provisions of the new bill. I figure things will stay the way they are today until at least next summer. At that time there is a chance that nothing will happen and there is a chance that the government will really go after the websites. I don't think any poker players are going to be arrested and I suspect that the movement to fully legalize online poker will grow by leaps and bounds in the coming months. If it does get fully legalized I'll be lighting up cigars with $100 bills on the balcony of my Tuscan Villa, but I only give that about a 10% chance of happening in the next 5 years.
I'll keep you posted on what I hear and what happens.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Saturday, October 07, 2006
A Splash of Good News
As some of you know, my good friend from high school, Brian (the one who was a groomsman at my wedding) has been in town for the past few days with his girlfriend Andrea. We spent a good part of Friday on the golf course and spent all day Saturday, wine tasting in Napa. As a result I've been a little out of the loop and will probably remain so until Tuesday. But, I did get some good news today in the form of an e-mail from Fulltiltpoker.com. This is what it said:
Dear wes1279,
Full Tilt Poker is here to stay!
As an online poker player, you have probably heard about the new legislation passed by the U.S. Congress earlier this week that attempts to prevent you from being able to transfer money to online gaming sites.
While this new law has prompted some sites to announce plans to abandon the U.S. market in coming days, we assure you that Full Tilt Poker will continue to provide all of its players - both inside and outside of the United States - with a full complement of real money ring games and tournaments for their enjoyment.
After consultation with numerous legal experts in this field, we want to make you aware of the following:
* Legal
The new U.S. legislation does not in any way attempt to criminalize the act of you playing online poker. By playing online at Full Tilt Poker, you are not breaking any U.S. Federal laws.
* Full Access
The passage of the new Internet Gaming law will not have any impact on your day-to-day experience at Full Tilt Poker. We will provide all of our players, everywhere in the world, with full access to all of our games and tournaments.
* Easy Deposits and Withdrawals
We will continue to provide our players with all of the safe, secure and convenient methods for transferring money to and from the site. In fact, in recent discussions with our payment processors, we have been assured that this new law will have no immediate impact on their day-to-day business. And as always, any monies that you have on deposit with Full Tilt Poker remain completely safe and secure.
Furthermore, we firmly believe that online poker is not encompassed by this new legislation. In any event, we will continue to lobby for an express carve-out for online poker and for your right to play a truly American game from the privacy of your own home and computer.
We are excited about the future here at Full Tilt Poker and in the coming weeks and months, we plan to roll out many new features designed to enhance your online poker experience.
We appreciate your loyalty to our site and, in turn, want you to know that we will remain loyal to our valued players in the United States and throughout the world.
We look forward to seeing you at the table.
Sincerely,
Full Tilt Poker
This is good news for me. The biggest danger with the recent law was that the websites would block US users of their own volition. Full Tilt is one of the 5 biggest websites and probably my third favorite. Furthermore, a group of about 10 of the top 100 poker players in the world own a big piece of this website (apparently they own the software and marketing company that the website uses, but effectively they own it). One of the reasons why this website is good is they have all these great players to consult with about the best way to opperate. Along those lines, I'm sure these insanely smart people will figure out a way around the law if it is possible (if that's even necessary). Most importantly, I could easily continue to earn my living online playing soley on Full Tilt.
Dear wes1279,
Full Tilt Poker is here to stay!
As an online poker player, you have probably heard about the new legislation passed by the U.S. Congress earlier this week that attempts to prevent you from being able to transfer money to online gaming sites.
While this new law has prompted some sites to announce plans to abandon the U.S. market in coming days, we assure you that Full Tilt Poker will continue to provide all of its players - both inside and outside of the United States - with a full complement of real money ring games and tournaments for their enjoyment.
After consultation with numerous legal experts in this field, we want to make you aware of the following:
* Legal
The new U.S. legislation does not in any way attempt to criminalize the act of you playing online poker. By playing online at Full Tilt Poker, you are not breaking any U.S. Federal laws.
* Full Access
The passage of the new Internet Gaming law will not have any impact on your day-to-day experience at Full Tilt Poker. We will provide all of our players, everywhere in the world, with full access to all of our games and tournaments.
* Easy Deposits and Withdrawals
We will continue to provide our players with all of the safe, secure and convenient methods for transferring money to and from the site. In fact, in recent discussions with our payment processors, we have been assured that this new law will have no immediate impact on their day-to-day business. And as always, any monies that you have on deposit with Full Tilt Poker remain completely safe and secure.
Furthermore, we firmly believe that online poker is not encompassed by this new legislation. In any event, we will continue to lobby for an express carve-out for online poker and for your right to play a truly American game from the privacy of your own home and computer.
We are excited about the future here at Full Tilt Poker and in the coming weeks and months, we plan to roll out many new features designed to enhance your online poker experience.
We appreciate your loyalty to our site and, in turn, want you to know that we will remain loyal to our valued players in the United States and throughout the world.
We look forward to seeing you at the table.
Sincerely,
Full Tilt Poker
This is good news for me. The biggest danger with the recent law was that the websites would block US users of their own volition. Full Tilt is one of the 5 biggest websites and probably my third favorite. Furthermore, a group of about 10 of the top 100 poker players in the world own a big piece of this website (apparently they own the software and marketing company that the website uses, but effectively they own it). One of the reasons why this website is good is they have all these great players to consult with about the best way to opperate. Along those lines, I'm sure these insanely smart people will figure out a way around the law if it is possible (if that's even necessary). Most importantly, I could easily continue to earn my living online playing soley on Full Tilt.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
The Legality of Poker Skill vs Luck
There is some hope that poker will be saved while sports betting and other games may vanish because poker is a skill game. If you're interested in a boring, but elaborate article about this topic, check this out.
I've also read some conflicting reports about the legality of playing skill games for money. It seems that there is some precident for making it legal to wager on games where skill predominates. Whether or not poker can legally be defined as a game of skill is a bit up in the air.
The first thing I heard on this topic was several years ago in an article in Cardplayer magazine. The article talked about a tax case where one poker pro argued that poker was a game of skill. As a result, he wanted to pay regular income tax on the money he made instead of the higher tax that he'd be forced to pay if his earnings were considered gambling winnings. He won the case and was allowed to pay the lesser rate.
But I've also read that poker is legally considered a game of chance. One definition says that in order to be a "game of skill" the elements of skill must predominate over those of chance in determining the outcome. The problem with using the definition on poker is in the short run luck dominates, while in the long run skill dominates. If you play one hand, the outcome is 95% luck, while if you play 100,000 hands the outcome is 95% skill. If you play an infinite number of hands the outcome is 100% skill.
One of the most interesting sections from the super boring article I mentioned above is this:
"I suggest that those interested in improving the law on skill v. chance work on expanding that definition to better specify the principal elements that constitute skill and chance. A weighing mechanism that could be considered by a judge or jury should also be set forth. A few states have passed so-called Chuck E. Cheese laws to allow businesses to legally offer low-cost arcade games with prizes of a low value. That law in Georgia includes a definition of "some skill" that is of interest even though it does not cover the real question, which is what does it take for skill to be predominate. Here is the definition from the Georgia statute:
"[S]ome skill" means any presence of the following factors, alone or in combination with one another:
(1) A learned power of doing a thing competently;
(2) A particular craft, art, ability, strategy, or tactic;
(3) A developed or acquired aptitude or ability;
(4) A coordinated set of actions, including, but not limited to, eye-hand coordination;
(5) Dexterity, fluency, or coordination in the execution of learned physical or mental tasks or both;
(6) Technical proficiency or expertise;
(7) Development or implementation of strategy or tactics in order to achieve a goal; or
(8) Knowledge of the means or methods of accomplishing a task.
The term some skill refers to a particular craft, coordinated effort, art, ability, strategy, or tactic employed by the player to affect in some way the outcome of the game played... If a player can take no action to affect the outcome of the game, the bona fide coin operated amusement machine does not meet the 'some skill' requirement of this Code section."
Clearly using the above criterion poker is a game of skill. But, the main thrust of this poorly written piece is that the precident says that poker is a game of chance. In fact the author goes on to say:
"Consider that on any one hand of poker it cannot seriously be contended that skill outweighs chance. Also, the results of any given session of poker (one night, one tournament, etc.) are not likely to be determined based on the preponderant skill of any given player. Perhaps the result of playing many sessions for a whole year is indicative of skill predominating over chance. But, perhaps not. Poker "player of the year" awards have become popular over the past few years. No one has ever repeated as the winner from one year to the next. Indeed few repeat in the top ten of those lists from one year to the next."
While the author says "few" repeat in the top ten from one year to the next, NONE would repeat if it was determined by chance. Also if you look at the top 50 (or the top 100) instead of the top 10 it's mostly populated by the same names year after year. Is it just chance that the same 50 people manage to make a million dollars a year, every year? Are they the luckiest people in the world? Did they all make it to the end of the rainbow and get a shamrock from a leprechaun that allows them to get luckier than their opponents?
What this fellow doesn't mention is that unlike MVPs in major sports where you're dealing with at most a few hundred players, in poker there are at least 10,000 players in the pool for player of the year. Also note that he says "in the past few years" poker player of the year awards have become popular and no one has won twice. How many years is a few? Ten at the most and probably more like 5. Since when does five trials constitute a significant number? Just because no one has proven themselves to be the best in a given year two years out of 5 we're supposed to believe that this is evidence that poker is not a game of skill? In the many decades of the NFL, only one player has repeated as MVP two years in a row. Does that mean that football is all luck? It must be all luck, after all only one team in NFL history has won all of their games. Surely if it were based on skill, the best team would win all their games every year. What about golf? Maybe Tiger Woods is just the luckiest player. After all he's only won 25% of the tournaments he's entered (which all have less than 150 entrants)in his career. Sure, the top 50 players on the PGA tour (and the cardplayer poker rankings) stay MOSTLY the same from year to year, but the order shuffles around and players come and go from that list. It's clearly all luck.
What about bridge? Or all other card games? Are they all just luck?
How about trading in stocks? Some stocks go up and others go down. Is it just the luckiest people who tend to pick the ones that go up? If that's a skill based process then why hasn't one trader proven himself to be the best two out of the last five years?
When you get down to the core of the issue, the key isn't history or "these people have done this, while these other people have done this". The fact of the matter is that poker is a game of decisions and these decision affect the outcome of the game. Any time you have a game that involves a complex decision making process some people are going to make better decisions using the same information than others. It's this abliltiy that seperates the good players from the bad.
If you want to read more about what I have to say regarding luck vs skill in poker in general you can read my post from July 20th titled "What makes a good poker player."
I've also read some conflicting reports about the legality of playing skill games for money. It seems that there is some precident for making it legal to wager on games where skill predominates. Whether or not poker can legally be defined as a game of skill is a bit up in the air.
The first thing I heard on this topic was several years ago in an article in Cardplayer magazine. The article talked about a tax case where one poker pro argued that poker was a game of skill. As a result, he wanted to pay regular income tax on the money he made instead of the higher tax that he'd be forced to pay if his earnings were considered gambling winnings. He won the case and was allowed to pay the lesser rate.
But I've also read that poker is legally considered a game of chance. One definition says that in order to be a "game of skill" the elements of skill must predominate over those of chance in determining the outcome. The problem with using the definition on poker is in the short run luck dominates, while in the long run skill dominates. If you play one hand, the outcome is 95% luck, while if you play 100,000 hands the outcome is 95% skill. If you play an infinite number of hands the outcome is 100% skill.
One of the most interesting sections from the super boring article I mentioned above is this:
"I suggest that those interested in improving the law on skill v. chance work on expanding that definition to better specify the principal elements that constitute skill and chance. A weighing mechanism that could be considered by a judge or jury should also be set forth. A few states have passed so-called Chuck E. Cheese laws to allow businesses to legally offer low-cost arcade games with prizes of a low value. That law in Georgia includes a definition of "some skill" that is of interest even though it does not cover the real question, which is what does it take for skill to be predominate. Here is the definition from the Georgia statute:
"[S]ome skill" means any presence of the following factors, alone or in combination with one another:
(1) A learned power of doing a thing competently;
(2) A particular craft, art, ability, strategy, or tactic;
(3) A developed or acquired aptitude or ability;
(4) A coordinated set of actions, including, but not limited to, eye-hand coordination;
(5) Dexterity, fluency, or coordination in the execution of learned physical or mental tasks or both;
(6) Technical proficiency or expertise;
(7) Development or implementation of strategy or tactics in order to achieve a goal; or
(8) Knowledge of the means or methods of accomplishing a task.
The term some skill refers to a particular craft, coordinated effort, art, ability, strategy, or tactic employed by the player to affect in some way the outcome of the game played... If a player can take no action to affect the outcome of the game, the bona fide coin operated amusement machine does not meet the 'some skill' requirement of this Code section."
Clearly using the above criterion poker is a game of skill. But, the main thrust of this poorly written piece is that the precident says that poker is a game of chance. In fact the author goes on to say:
"Consider that on any one hand of poker it cannot seriously be contended that skill outweighs chance. Also, the results of any given session of poker (one night, one tournament, etc.) are not likely to be determined based on the preponderant skill of any given player. Perhaps the result of playing many sessions for a whole year is indicative of skill predominating over chance. But, perhaps not. Poker "player of the year" awards have become popular over the past few years. No one has ever repeated as the winner from one year to the next. Indeed few repeat in the top ten of those lists from one year to the next."
While the author says "few" repeat in the top ten from one year to the next, NONE would repeat if it was determined by chance. Also if you look at the top 50 (or the top 100) instead of the top 10 it's mostly populated by the same names year after year. Is it just chance that the same 50 people manage to make a million dollars a year, every year? Are they the luckiest people in the world? Did they all make it to the end of the rainbow and get a shamrock from a leprechaun that allows them to get luckier than their opponents?
What this fellow doesn't mention is that unlike MVPs in major sports where you're dealing with at most a few hundred players, in poker there are at least 10,000 players in the pool for player of the year. Also note that he says "in the past few years" poker player of the year awards have become popular and no one has won twice. How many years is a few? Ten at the most and probably more like 5. Since when does five trials constitute a significant number? Just because no one has proven themselves to be the best in a given year two years out of 5 we're supposed to believe that this is evidence that poker is not a game of skill? In the many decades of the NFL, only one player has repeated as MVP two years in a row. Does that mean that football is all luck? It must be all luck, after all only one team in NFL history has won all of their games. Surely if it were based on skill, the best team would win all their games every year. What about golf? Maybe Tiger Woods is just the luckiest player. After all he's only won 25% of the tournaments he's entered (which all have less than 150 entrants)in his career. Sure, the top 50 players on the PGA tour (and the cardplayer poker rankings) stay MOSTLY the same from year to year, but the order shuffles around and players come and go from that list. It's clearly all luck.
What about bridge? Or all other card games? Are they all just luck?
How about trading in stocks? Some stocks go up and others go down. Is it just the luckiest people who tend to pick the ones that go up? If that's a skill based process then why hasn't one trader proven himself to be the best two out of the last five years?
When you get down to the core of the issue, the key isn't history or "these people have done this, while these other people have done this". The fact of the matter is that poker is a game of decisions and these decision affect the outcome of the game. Any time you have a game that involves a complex decision making process some people are going to make better decisions using the same information than others. It's this abliltiy that seperates the good players from the bad.
If you want to read more about what I have to say regarding luck vs skill in poker in general you can read my post from July 20th titled "What makes a good poker player."
The Latest on the Internet Gaming Ban
It's amazing to me how my feelings about the significance of this bill passing have changed over a three day period. On Monday, it was like being hit on the head with an acorn. On Tuesday I was sure the sky was falling. And, by Thursday, it was like being hit on the head with an apple. The sources I've used to come up with this latest analysis are: An e-mail discussion group that I belong to who's main purpose in the past has been to analyze sports betting (this group is filled with smart guys who are in the know, including WSOP Media Director Nolan Dalla), an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, a 3 minute piece on CNN, and various online articles that have come my way.
First to clear up a few vague points that I made in my original post. The bill that contains the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006" is the "Safe Port Act of 2006" in case anyone wanted to look for more info on it. The person who is most directly responsible for this act is Republican senator Bill Frist. The Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System have 270 days (after the bill is signed by the president) to come up with enforcement policies and procedures. Apparently there are 23 million online poker players in the US and in every place that I've heard about this bill I haven't heard one person interviewed or quoted as saying they were for this bill (with the exception of the people who wrote it). Furthermore according to Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), no one on the Senate-House Conference Committee had even seen the final language of the bill before it passed.
So what's the latest news? Well it looks like the publicly traded websites (party, paradise and pacific which is also know as 888) will probably jump ship on the US market when Bush signs the bill. But Fulltilt, Bodog, and most importantly Pokerstars are all private companies and could very well continue normal operating procedures.
Apparently there are going to be plenty of challenges to this bill in the courts. I could see websites using the angle that they'll keep the status quo while there are active challenges to the bill in the court system. If this is the case I won't have anything to worry about because I'll be long dead by the time the case and all of the appeals get resolved.
I've read conflicting reports about this but Allyn Jaffrey Shulman says in an article published yesterday (you can read the whole article here) "Do not panic. First and foremost, this bill does not criminalize playing poker. In fact, the bill does not speak to the poker player at all." While I wasn't going to stop until people started getting arrested or the websites blocked me from playing, this can't be bad news if this is true.
Another interesting angle I've read is that as a way of pulling out of the US market the websites (even the publicly traded ones) will stop accepting "payments" from US players. While this might dry up the supply of weak players from the US, there are plenty of worldwide players who will be free to keep pumping their money into the system. What about me? I've made one "payment" and that was $500 in January of 2004. Since then it's been all withdrawals. Of course, the amount that I would think of as a safe bankroll would probably go up, but I'd be able to keep playing indefinitely.
There is some hope that poker will be saved while sports betting and other games may vanish because poker is a skill game. I've created another post discussing the merits of this angle.
I'm sure I'll have more to say about the online gaming ban in the coming days as more info comes my way.
First to clear up a few vague points that I made in my original post. The bill that contains the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006" is the "Safe Port Act of 2006" in case anyone wanted to look for more info on it. The person who is most directly responsible for this act is Republican senator Bill Frist. The Secretary and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System have 270 days (after the bill is signed by the president) to come up with enforcement policies and procedures. Apparently there are 23 million online poker players in the US and in every place that I've heard about this bill I haven't heard one person interviewed or quoted as saying they were for this bill (with the exception of the people who wrote it). Furthermore according to Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ), no one on the Senate-House Conference Committee had even seen the final language of the bill before it passed.
So what's the latest news? Well it looks like the publicly traded websites (party, paradise and pacific which is also know as 888) will probably jump ship on the US market when Bush signs the bill. But Fulltilt, Bodog, and most importantly Pokerstars are all private companies and could very well continue normal operating procedures.
Apparently there are going to be plenty of challenges to this bill in the courts. I could see websites using the angle that they'll keep the status quo while there are active challenges to the bill in the court system. If this is the case I won't have anything to worry about because I'll be long dead by the time the case and all of the appeals get resolved.
I've read conflicting reports about this but Allyn Jaffrey Shulman says in an article published yesterday (you can read the whole article here) "Do not panic. First and foremost, this bill does not criminalize playing poker. In fact, the bill does not speak to the poker player at all." While I wasn't going to stop until people started getting arrested or the websites blocked me from playing, this can't be bad news if this is true.
Another interesting angle I've read is that as a way of pulling out of the US market the websites (even the publicly traded ones) will stop accepting "payments" from US players. While this might dry up the supply of weak players from the US, there are plenty of worldwide players who will be free to keep pumping their money into the system. What about me? I've made one "payment" and that was $500 in January of 2004. Since then it's been all withdrawals. Of course, the amount that I would think of as a safe bankroll would probably go up, but I'd be able to keep playing indefinitely.
There is some hope that poker will be saved while sports betting and other games may vanish because poker is a skill game. I've created another post discussing the merits of this angle.
I'm sure I'll have more to say about the online gaming ban in the coming days as more info comes my way.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
More on the internet gaming ban
I'll have plenty more to say tomorrow I'm sure, but for now
here
is a LONG and detailed article written by one of the leading experts regarding gambling and the law.
The more I hear the less dire things seem.
here
is a LONG and detailed article written by one of the leading experts regarding gambling and the law.
The more I hear the less dire things seem.
A Comment Response
In response to my most recent post Tim commented "My cynical take is that some of these folks are less worried about Mrs. Jones gambling away all her savings and leaving the family on the street, and more worried about the effect the growth of online gambling is having on the casinos in their own jurisdictions."
First of all let me say thanks for your comment. I LOVE COMMENTS! It lets me know that people are actually reading. I have a few responses. First of all, in an interview I saw with one of the bill's architects he spun it as an attempt to protect America's youth from the dangers of gambling addiction. He even compared gambling addition to drug addiction. I've been around my share of gambling addicts and while it can be a problem ALMOST ALL people who enjoy gambling are NOT addicts. A much larger percentage of drug users are addicts and the addiction as well as the effects of said addiction are MUCH more severe. Comparing gambling addiction to drug addiction is like comparing a cold to Ebola.
As far as casinos being for or against online gambling (especially poker) I would say they are for it. There is nothing more boring than playing regular casino games (blackjack, craps, roulette etc) online and very few people actually engage in this dark side of online wagering so there really isn't much competition there. Casino sports books might be taking a small hit, but the only place they are legal is in Nevada.
When it comes to poker I think the casinos have to be all in favor of online play. From a first person perspective I can tell you that every poker room in every casino I've been in is MUCH busier now that it was before 2003 when online poker started getting big. Furthermore a shitload of new poker rooms have been opening in casinos in Las Vegas that didn't offer poker in the past. I'm certain that the Harrah's corporation, which is the largest casino chain in the world, is really pissed about the ban, because they own the WSOP and that's going to suffer substantially without online qualifiers. Also I'm sure the big casinos would like online gambling to be fully legalized so they could get in on the action.
Thanks again for your comment.
First of all let me say thanks for your comment. I LOVE COMMENTS! It lets me know that people are actually reading. I have a few responses. First of all, in an interview I saw with one of the bill's architects he spun it as an attempt to protect America's youth from the dangers of gambling addiction. He even compared gambling addition to drug addiction. I've been around my share of gambling addicts and while it can be a problem ALMOST ALL people who enjoy gambling are NOT addicts. A much larger percentage of drug users are addicts and the addiction as well as the effects of said addiction are MUCH more severe. Comparing gambling addiction to drug addiction is like comparing a cold to Ebola.
As far as casinos being for or against online gambling (especially poker) I would say they are for it. There is nothing more boring than playing regular casino games (blackjack, craps, roulette etc) online and very few people actually engage in this dark side of online wagering so there really isn't much competition there. Casino sports books might be taking a small hit, but the only place they are legal is in Nevada.
When it comes to poker I think the casinos have to be all in favor of online play. From a first person perspective I can tell you that every poker room in every casino I've been in is MUCH busier now that it was before 2003 when online poker started getting big. Furthermore a shitload of new poker rooms have been opening in casinos in Las Vegas that didn't offer poker in the past. I'm certain that the Harrah's corporation, which is the largest casino chain in the world, is really pissed about the ban, because they own the WSOP and that's going to suffer substantially without online qualifiers. Also I'm sure the big casinos would like online gambling to be fully legalized so they could get in on the action.
Thanks again for your comment.
Online Gaming Ban (BOOOOO!)
While there have been whispers of an online gaming ban for the past few months, one passed last week. This ban applies to all online wagering including regular casino games like blackjack and craps (yes they have online craps), sports betting and poker. It was attached to the port security bill. I can't think of too many things that are as unrelated as online poker and port security. It's never made sense to me that our law makers should be allowed to get pet projects squeezed through congress by sneaking them into important legislation. This is clearly a dishonest and virtually fraudulent practice that wouldn't fly in any other business or social setting.
I don't know how the gaming regulations would have done on their own, but I know none of the members of congress want to have the fact that they shot down a port security bill on their record. I'm sure they're all envisioning an opponent's ad during their next campaign. "Steve Johnson opened the door to terrorists! He invited them into your living room and told them to sit on your couch and drink your beer! The terrorists want to blow up everything from your house to your little dog Fluffy. Steve Johnson voted against the port security bill which could have stopped the terrorists from getting near Fluffy. Do you hate Fluffy? If not, vote against Steve Johnson. Steve Johnson - terrorist loving, dog hating, stink factory. Is that who you want representing you?"
So what are the implications of this bill? Basically it makes it illegal for banks and credit card companies to transfer money directly to and from gambling sites. This in and of itself is not a big deal. With most credit cards in the U.S., the issuing banks have blocked these type of transactions for years. And while it's convenient to transfer directly to and from your checking account, there are several intermediaries already in place that make it easy to circumvent this process. In fact, I've used a company called Firepay (which is just like neteller and similar to pay pal) for about half of my online transactions, because in many cases it's quicker and easier than direct transfers.
The bill stipulates that whoever is supposed to take care of this stuff has 270 days (people I've talked to seem to think this is about a third of the time it would actually take) to put in place the means to enforce these new rules. The banks are going apeshit because it means they have to sort through billions of transactions to weed out the ones that aren't kosher. This is going to cost them an insane amount of money. In fact, I've heard that it might not be possible in the sense that it would cost so much to do it, that it would put the banks that tried out of business. While it seems to me that they could come up with some cost effective way to do it using technology, they are not happy about it and may be the biggest ally of the poker community.
The real problem is that the bill takes what was a grey area before and explicitly says that placing any type of wager over the internet is against the law. As a result, many of the websites have said that they're going to pull out of the U.S. market when the bill gets signed into law. CNN says that should happen sometime in the next two weeks.
Needless to say, I'm not happy about these developments, but it's not the end of the world. I'm going to keep playing online as long as I can, and I think the chances of losing any money that I have deposited online is remote. But, just in case I've withdrawn a good chunk of the money I had in my online accounts. I suspect that some of the websites will remain in operation in the U.S. and all of them will remain up and running for worldwide customers. I am also betting that there will be some kind of grace period where I'll be able to remove any remaining dollars. Although I suspect that the few hundred dollars I have in season long football wagers (i.e. will the Colts win more than 11.5 games this year) may be gone forever. Now I hope they all lose! HA!
If it turns out I can't make my living online anymore, it will be back to the brick and mortar casinos for me. Luckily, I live in an area where I can still make my living playing poker. Of course, I won't be able to play 6 games at a time anymore, but I'm almost certain I can make just as much money. The main downside is I won't be able to work from home anymore. But, I'll still be able to work whenever I want.
There is some chance that this could prompt Jen and I to move to the LA area. There's always been some chance that we'd end up down there since Jen grew up in Orange County and her family still lives there. But, more to the point, that area is home to 3 or 4 of the largest card rooms in the world. Even though I've had mixed luck in the few times I've played at The Commerce and The Bike, it's clear that the games are EXTREMELY soft.
The best possible outcome here is for the bill to bring online poker out into the open. Apparently there are fifty million poker players in the US and while only a small fraction of those are online players we are still a force to be reckoned with. Along with the banks, the poker players, anyone affilitated with the WSOP or ESPN, and the poker publishing industry, I'm sure any groups with the goal of protecting our civil liberties would be against this bill. This seems like a clear case of right wing nut jobs trying to regulate our morality, instead of protecting out freedom. I'm hoping enough people get outraged, that online poker makes a resurgence in some new fully legal and regulated form. I've always said that full blown legal online poker would be worth at least $100,000 more a year to me, so if this is what it takes to make it happen down the road, then so be it.
I'm going to make sort of a game time decision about whether or not to keep playing online once the ban goes through and I'll keep the blog posted with whatever developments come my way. But, you should all get ready for some tearful phone calls where I put my wife on the phone and make her ask to borrow money so we can pay our gas bill (it's just so tough now that pokerstars closed down..sob..sob). We'll then use this money to buy expensive bottles of wine and cigars, which we'll then light with more money that we've squeezed out of you saps! HA HA HA!
I don't know how the gaming regulations would have done on their own, but I know none of the members of congress want to have the fact that they shot down a port security bill on their record. I'm sure they're all envisioning an opponent's ad during their next campaign. "Steve Johnson opened the door to terrorists! He invited them into your living room and told them to sit on your couch and drink your beer! The terrorists want to blow up everything from your house to your little dog Fluffy. Steve Johnson voted against the port security bill which could have stopped the terrorists from getting near Fluffy. Do you hate Fluffy? If not, vote against Steve Johnson. Steve Johnson - terrorist loving, dog hating, stink factory. Is that who you want representing you?"
So what are the implications of this bill? Basically it makes it illegal for banks and credit card companies to transfer money directly to and from gambling sites. This in and of itself is not a big deal. With most credit cards in the U.S., the issuing banks have blocked these type of transactions for years. And while it's convenient to transfer directly to and from your checking account, there are several intermediaries already in place that make it easy to circumvent this process. In fact, I've used a company called Firepay (which is just like neteller and similar to pay pal) for about half of my online transactions, because in many cases it's quicker and easier than direct transfers.
The bill stipulates that whoever is supposed to take care of this stuff has 270 days (people I've talked to seem to think this is about a third of the time it would actually take) to put in place the means to enforce these new rules. The banks are going apeshit because it means they have to sort through billions of transactions to weed out the ones that aren't kosher. This is going to cost them an insane amount of money. In fact, I've heard that it might not be possible in the sense that it would cost so much to do it, that it would put the banks that tried out of business. While it seems to me that they could come up with some cost effective way to do it using technology, they are not happy about it and may be the biggest ally of the poker community.
The real problem is that the bill takes what was a grey area before and explicitly says that placing any type of wager over the internet is against the law. As a result, many of the websites have said that they're going to pull out of the U.S. market when the bill gets signed into law. CNN says that should happen sometime in the next two weeks.
Needless to say, I'm not happy about these developments, but it's not the end of the world. I'm going to keep playing online as long as I can, and I think the chances of losing any money that I have deposited online is remote. But, just in case I've withdrawn a good chunk of the money I had in my online accounts. I suspect that some of the websites will remain in operation in the U.S. and all of them will remain up and running for worldwide customers. I am also betting that there will be some kind of grace period where I'll be able to remove any remaining dollars. Although I suspect that the few hundred dollars I have in season long football wagers (i.e. will the Colts win more than 11.5 games this year) may be gone forever. Now I hope they all lose! HA!
If it turns out I can't make my living online anymore, it will be back to the brick and mortar casinos for me. Luckily, I live in an area where I can still make my living playing poker. Of course, I won't be able to play 6 games at a time anymore, but I'm almost certain I can make just as much money. The main downside is I won't be able to work from home anymore. But, I'll still be able to work whenever I want.
There is some chance that this could prompt Jen and I to move to the LA area. There's always been some chance that we'd end up down there since Jen grew up in Orange County and her family still lives there. But, more to the point, that area is home to 3 or 4 of the largest card rooms in the world. Even though I've had mixed luck in the few times I've played at The Commerce and The Bike, it's clear that the games are EXTREMELY soft.
The best possible outcome here is for the bill to bring online poker out into the open. Apparently there are fifty million poker players in the US and while only a small fraction of those are online players we are still a force to be reckoned with. Along with the banks, the poker players, anyone affilitated with the WSOP or ESPN, and the poker publishing industry, I'm sure any groups with the goal of protecting our civil liberties would be against this bill. This seems like a clear case of right wing nut jobs trying to regulate our morality, instead of protecting out freedom. I'm hoping enough people get outraged, that online poker makes a resurgence in some new fully legal and regulated form. I've always said that full blown legal online poker would be worth at least $100,000 more a year to me, so if this is what it takes to make it happen down the road, then so be it.
I'm going to make sort of a game time decision about whether or not to keep playing online once the ban goes through and I'll keep the blog posted with whatever developments come my way. But, you should all get ready for some tearful phone calls where I put my wife on the phone and make her ask to borrow money so we can pay our gas bill (it's just so tough now that pokerstars closed down..sob..sob). We'll then use this money to buy expensive bottles of wine and cigars, which we'll then light with more money that we've squeezed out of you saps! HA HA HA!
Monday, October 02, 2006
WCOOP Final Thoughts
While the WCOOP wasn't a financial success it also wasn't a failure. I played in 51 statellites with buy-in's ranging from $16 to $280 and lost a total of $451. I played 10 of the WCOOP events with buy-ins totaling $5,355. I finished in the money in 3 of the 10 and lost a total of $302.
If I'd had one or two hands go differently I could have shown a solid profit instead of a small loss.
In the heads up matches, needing to win 3 matches to make the money I had my opponent out chipped 5,500 to 500 in the second match. I put him all in 5 times and was unable to win any of the five. While there were no guarentees that I'd have won the third match I was close to advancing.
In the NL hold'em with rebuys I finished 363 out of 2,081 and if I could have made it to 270, I would have picked up another $1,184.
In the $530 pot limit event I finished 198 out of 1095 needing to get to 150 to pick up $876.
And of course in the $1,050 limit event if I would have been able to move up 3 more spots from 21 to 18, I would have made another $2,400.
The point is, I was close. I could have made the money in an insane 6 out of the 10 events. I'm really happy with how I played and I'm already looking forward to my next series of big tournaments. For now it's back to the unglamorous, but profitable world of $100 single table tournaments.
I'm sure some of you have heard about the anti internet gambling legislation that got tacked on to the port security bill and cleared the senate a few days ago. I have plenty of comments about what I think it means and my expectations for the future of internet poker. But, you'll have to wait for my next post which will be coming in a day or two.
Thanks again to my backers and everyone reading this blog.
If I'd had one or two hands go differently I could have shown a solid profit instead of a small loss.
In the heads up matches, needing to win 3 matches to make the money I had my opponent out chipped 5,500 to 500 in the second match. I put him all in 5 times and was unable to win any of the five. While there were no guarentees that I'd have won the third match I was close to advancing.
In the NL hold'em with rebuys I finished 363 out of 2,081 and if I could have made it to 270, I would have picked up another $1,184.
In the $530 pot limit event I finished 198 out of 1095 needing to get to 150 to pick up $876.
And of course in the $1,050 limit event if I would have been able to move up 3 more spots from 21 to 18, I would have made another $2,400.
The point is, I was close. I could have made the money in an insane 6 out of the 10 events. I'm really happy with how I played and I'm already looking forward to my next series of big tournaments. For now it's back to the unglamorous, but profitable world of $100 single table tournaments.
I'm sure some of you have heard about the anti internet gambling legislation that got tacked on to the port security bill and cleared the senate a few days ago. I have plenty of comments about what I think it means and my expectations for the future of internet poker. But, you'll have to wait for my next post which will be coming in a day or two.
Thanks again to my backers and everyone reading this blog.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Congrats to Matt!
My good friend Matt Lessinger had a great poker day today and I thought I'd wish him congratulations and tell you a little about it. Today Matt played a $1,200 buy-in poorly run NL hold 'em tournament in Fresno, CA. The main benefit of the event was the final 6 would be on TV. ESPN? No. Fox Sports? No. Bravo? No. I'm not sure how you pronounce it, but I think the official name is "Central California Backwards Ass Hillbilly Network" or CCBAHN. TV is TV, and I've never made it to a televised final table, so maybe I should shut it...no...that's crazy.
Anyway the tournament started with 90 players, 10,000 chips per player and 40 minute limits. Sounds o.k. right? The problem is $200 of the $1200 buy in went to the house! This is an unheard of, insane, ridiculous percentage. Also whoever came up with the way the limits increased was also a total nut job. When I first heard from Matt there were 28 players left (sweet), he had 57,000 chips (sounds good), average was 32,000 (o.k.) and when he got back to the table the blinds were going to be 2,000/5,000 (WHAT!?!?). Never, ever, ever should the big blind be 1/6th of the average stack. This is just bonkers.
When they made it to the top 10, Matt had turbo-ed up to 210,000 and was in first place. The blinds were at 10,000/20,000, but once they got down to the top 6, the blinds would drop back down to 1,000/2,000 to make the TV coverage more interesting.
The next time I heard from Matt, they were down to 3 players and he was in first with 500,000 playing against a 300,000 chip stack and a 100,000 chip stack. It seemed like 10 seconds later he called back and told me he's won!
This was clearly a strong performace and while I'm happy for Matt who won over $31,000 for this effort, I'm also happy that I took 5% of his action. As a result I picked up $1,500 while sitting on my ass watching football today. SWEET! What have your friends done for you lately?
In all seriousness, congratualtions to a good friend on a fantastic victory.
Anyway the tournament started with 90 players, 10,000 chips per player and 40 minute limits. Sounds o.k. right? The problem is $200 of the $1200 buy in went to the house! This is an unheard of, insane, ridiculous percentage. Also whoever came up with the way the limits increased was also a total nut job. When I first heard from Matt there were 28 players left (sweet), he had 57,000 chips (sounds good), average was 32,000 (o.k.) and when he got back to the table the blinds were going to be 2,000/5,000 (WHAT!?!?). Never, ever, ever should the big blind be 1/6th of the average stack. This is just bonkers.
When they made it to the top 10, Matt had turbo-ed up to 210,000 and was in first place. The blinds were at 10,000/20,000, but once they got down to the top 6, the blinds would drop back down to 1,000/2,000 to make the TV coverage more interesting.
The next time I heard from Matt, they were down to 3 players and he was in first with 500,000 playing against a 300,000 chip stack and a 100,000 chip stack. It seemed like 10 seconds later he called back and told me he's won!
This was clearly a strong performace and while I'm happy for Matt who won over $31,000 for this effort, I'm also happy that I took 5% of his action. As a result I picked up $1,500 while sitting on my ass watching football today. SWEET! What have your friends done for you lately?
In all seriousness, congratualtions to a good friend on a fantastic victory.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Event #17 ($1050 Limit Hold'em) Recap
Event #17 was the penultimate event of the WCOOP and was my last event. With the big buy in and the fact that it was limit and not no limit, this event only drew 685 players. But, with 5,000 starting chips and 30 minute limits it was clear from the start that this would be a long event.
One of the biggest advantages limit has over no limit for a player like me is that you can't go broke (or even take much damage) on one hand in the early stages. This benefit came into play for me on the second hand of the whole tournament. I was in the small blind with 33 and after a few players called the 20 chip big blind the button raised. I called as did the big blind and all of the other callers. The flop came down 3 5 6 with 2 hearts. This was a sweet flop for me and I bet 20 hoping to get raised. Happily, I got two callers and the button raised. The pot was already big so I decided to keep my foot on the gas and I made it three bets. After a player in between us called, the button capped the betting at 4 bets (by rule there is a maximum of a bet and three raises in limit hold'em). The turn was another 5, we lost the other player, but the button and I got three 40 chip bets into the pot. I was sure he had a big pair and didn't want to see any aces or kings to show up. The river was the Q of hearts and after I bet, he raised me. I thought there was some chance he'd hit a flush, but I was pretty sure it was QQ so I just called. Sure enough, my opponent had made a full house on the river. In NL I easily could have gone broke on this hand and certainly would have lost a large percentage of my chips. But, we were playing limit so I only lost 280 chips and was left with 4,700 of my 5,000 starting chips. Yeah limit hold'em! Since it was only the second hand, however, I found myself in 681st out of 685 and my opponent found himself in 1st! HA!
The rest of the early levels were pretty uneventful. I won some pots here and there and managed to work my way up to about 8,000 by the end of round 4. Then I had a few hands go against me in round 5 and found myself down to 3,000. This was one of two times during the tournament where I was not feeling good about my chances. But then in round six I got a total gift.
With limits of 200/400 (note that in limit the "limits" and not the "blinds" are used to denote stakes - in this case the blinds are 100/200) I raised to 400 from first position with AQ. I got called by the big blind (who it turned out had 55) and the flop came down Q Q 2. BINGO! He checked, I bet, and after a short pause he called me. I was happy to get any action as I was almost certain to have the best hand here. The turn was a 7 and he check raised me! I reraised to 1200 and he called. He also checked and called a 400 chip bet on the end after a 9 came on the river. This guy way over played his hand and allowed me to pick up some stress free easy chips.
A few hands later I picked up some more chips when I busted a player who had around 1,800 chips. For some reason he decided to go nuts with J9 and I took him out with AQ. All of a sudden I was over 9,000.
During level 7 I came across maybe my favorite hand of the entire WCOOP. With limits at 300/600 I found myself with JJ on the button. A crazy player who'd been in almost every hand raised to 600 and got reraised to 900 by another player. I considered making it 1,200, but decided to just call instead. We took the flop three way and I did a double take as I saw J J K on the flop! I'd flopped quads! After a check from the crazy player and a bet of 300 from the other I decided to play it slow and just called. The crazy player folded and the turn was an 8. My opponent bet, I raised, he reraised and I capped it. The river was a 5, putting three spades on the board, and my opponent checked. I bet 600 and to my surprise he raised me! I made it 1,800, and he made it 2,400! I wished that I could have raised again. On the turn I suspected that he was holding KK and by the time the betting was over I was sure, so it was no surprise when that's exactly what he showed. This took me up to 16,700 and put me in 16th out of 460. Take that suckers.
During level 8 I moved up again when I flopped two pair with 63 after getting a look at a free flop in the big blind. I won another pot or two on level 8 and then on the 1st hand of level 9 I picked up AA! I raised and desperately hoped for callers, but found none. I was, however, now in 13th place out of 267 with 27,500 chips. I was starting to think a money finish was in the bag when it seemed like everything turned against me.
I lost AK to 66 when another player foolishly called a bet on the flop with a board of A J 4 and ended up making a flush with one of his 6's. Then I found myself in the big blind with KK and lost a big pot to A2. After those two I was down to 17,500 and not feeling great. By this time the limits were 800/1600 with blinds of 400/800 so every 9 hands I was losing 1,200 to the blinds. I got ground down to around 14,000 in this manner and then after a failed bluff, I found myself with 10,000. The limits went up again, this time to 1200/2400 and I was blinded off all the way down to 5,500 with about 150 players left. I kept thinking about how I'd had 27,000 not too much earlier and was kicking myself for not being able to hang on to them. I was also thinking about how pissed I was going to be to fall just short of the money...again.
Then I had a change of mind set. I started to think about all of the times that I've come back from nothing in other tournaments. I've done this kind of shit before. I'm not done yet. A couple of good hands and I'm right back in it.
Just like clock work, I started to make some head way. I stole the blinds once. And then I picked up AK and won a small pot with a bluff on the flop.
I was getting back into it when I picked up AQ during level 11 and raised to 2400. I got called by the big blind and the flop came down A 7 3. My opponent bet and I raised him. The turn was a K, I bet and he called. The river was another K, I bet my last 1,500 chips and he called with what turned out to be A5. This may not seem like heavy action, but this late in the tournament taking a hand all the way to the river and winning is a huge deal. I picked up almost 10,000 on this one pot and found myself in solid shape as we approached the money.
I managed to pick up enough blinds to keep me even during level 12 and sometime during that level we lost our 595th player. 90th place paid $1,668, so I was very happy to be in the money. I only had 20,000 chips, with the average stack being 38,000, but found myself in 63rd place. It took over 6 hours and I played over 500 hands(this is a much higher hand per hour rate than you'd normally expect) to get this far, but I was still hoping for more. The next money jump was up to $2,085 which would come when we made it under 60 players. In order to make it that far I knew I'd need to make some moves.
The blinds ate up a small chunk of my stack and I found myself with just under 16,000 at the beginning of level 13. With limits of 2,000/4,000 I picked up AK and made it 4,000 to go. I got called by the big blind and the flop came down K 4 2. This was a sweet flop for me and I was happy to see my opponent bet. I raised, and he reraised, and I raised again. We both knew I was going all in before the end of the hand so why wait to get it in there. On the turn I got my last 4,000 or so chips into the pot and when the cards were turned over I saw he had K8. When a harmless 9 fell on the river I was up over 32,000 chips.
A little later, after flopping a flush draw with K6 out of the big blind, I turned a 6 and rivered a K to win a small pot. I was up over 40,000 for a brief moment and then I made a second best hand that took half of my stack. Still in level 13, I raised to 4,000 with KQ of spades and got reraised by the big blind. I called and the flop came down Q 8 3 with one spade. He bet 2,000 and hoping top pair was good, I raised to 4,000. He paused for a moment and I thought that my hand must be good and he was going to fold. Then he made it 6,000. Uh oh. I figured I was behind, but there was already 23,000 in the pot so calling 2,000 more to see the turn was an easy decision. When it came out, the turn was the ace of spades. This was a great card for me since it meant I had 9 cards left in the deck that would make me the nuts (the nine remaining spades) and 5 cards (2 Q's and 3 K's) that might make me the best hand. So when my opponent bet 4,000, I called and hoped for a spade. The river was a disappointing 7 of hearts and after I called another 4,000 chips (this time just to make sure he wasn't getting out of line) he showed me AQ and took down a 41,000 chip pot.
Around this time we dropped under 60 players and I picked up another $400 in guaranteed money.
On level 14 with limits of 3,000/6,000 I picked up AK and raised to 6,000. I got called by the big blind and the flop came down J 10 6 all clubs. My opponent checked and even though I had no pairs and no clubs I had to bet. I got called and the turn was a red 4. Again my opponent checked. I only had 6,500 left so I wasn't happy when my 6,000 chip bet on the turn got called. The river was a red 3 and we both checked (I only had 500 left anyway so it really didn't matter). I was very happy to see my opponent turn up A7 with the A of clubs. If he'd had a pair instead of a flush draw I'd have been gone here.
Soon after, we dropped under 45 players and moved up another pay level, meaning I was guaranteed just over $2,700. After winning another baby pot I found myself in 30th of the 40 remaining players with 47,000 chips. I had my eye on the next pay level which would happen when we got under 30 players
On level 15 with the limits at 4,000/8,000 I reraised the tournament chip leader with 10 10. He just called and after I bet 4,000 into a 25,000 chip pot with a flop of K J 5, I was thrilled to see him fold. This pot took me up to 55,000 and is also an example of a "bluff" (I had 10 10 but it might as well have been 22 with a K and a J on the flop) that worked. I know I mention plenty of "failed bluffs" and few that work so I wanted to point this one out.
A few hands later I got AK again (I must have had AK 10-12 times during this tournament) and got some good action. After raising preflop, I bet and got called on a 10 7 2 flop. The turn was a beautiful A and I bet again, this time with confidence. I got called again, but after another 7 on the river my opponent folded to my bet. At this point I was up to 88,000.
We lost the 31st player and I moved up to the pay level where I was guaranteed $3,600.
I picked up another pot and found myself at 105,000. I started to look at moving up to the next pay level which would be with 18 players left, but this was still a mile away. Even though it was only 12 players, those 12 represented 40% of the remaining field. Sadly, I would stall at the $3,600 level.
When level 16 started with limits of 6,000/12,000 it meant that the big blind would be larger than the entire stack that we all started with. Clearly every hand was serious from this point on and I just didn't connect with some flops. First I lost 24 thousand with 88 and then another 18 thousand with AJ. Of course the blinds didn't stop chewing up my stack and soon I was running low again.
I lost both of my final 2 hands to the same guy who made a few weird plays that hurt me. First he raised with Q9 in first position and I made a loose call out of the big blind with K5 of clubs. The flop was K 9 4 and after I check raised him he was all in on the flop. I was in good shape and just needed to dodge a queen or a 9, but he got both when the turn was a 9 and the river was a queen.
After that hand, I was down to my last 15,000 chips, so when I picked up A3 it was a clear decision to raise with it. My friend from the last hand reraised with Q10 putting me all in. I was 60% to win before the flop, but he made a flush and I was eliminated in 21st place. It was 8 hours and 50 minutes after this tournament started when I got eliminated and 12 hours after I started playing that day so I was pretty tired.
I was 3 places away from another $2,500, 14 away from another $20,000 and 20 places away from another $150,000. While I was pleased to pick up a few grand, I was a little disappointed to be a few good hands away from a major pay day.
With that said, I was still very happy with how things went and it was nice to close out the WCOOP with a victory. I'll give some final thoughts in a recap of the WCOOP as a whole tomorrow.
One of the biggest advantages limit has over no limit for a player like me is that you can't go broke (or even take much damage) on one hand in the early stages. This benefit came into play for me on the second hand of the whole tournament. I was in the small blind with 33 and after a few players called the 20 chip big blind the button raised. I called as did the big blind and all of the other callers. The flop came down 3 5 6 with 2 hearts. This was a sweet flop for me and I bet 20 hoping to get raised. Happily, I got two callers and the button raised. The pot was already big so I decided to keep my foot on the gas and I made it three bets. After a player in between us called, the button capped the betting at 4 bets (by rule there is a maximum of a bet and three raises in limit hold'em). The turn was another 5, we lost the other player, but the button and I got three 40 chip bets into the pot. I was sure he had a big pair and didn't want to see any aces or kings to show up. The river was the Q of hearts and after I bet, he raised me. I thought there was some chance he'd hit a flush, but I was pretty sure it was QQ so I just called. Sure enough, my opponent had made a full house on the river. In NL I easily could have gone broke on this hand and certainly would have lost a large percentage of my chips. But, we were playing limit so I only lost 280 chips and was left with 4,700 of my 5,000 starting chips. Yeah limit hold'em! Since it was only the second hand, however, I found myself in 681st out of 685 and my opponent found himself in 1st! HA!
The rest of the early levels were pretty uneventful. I won some pots here and there and managed to work my way up to about 8,000 by the end of round 4. Then I had a few hands go against me in round 5 and found myself down to 3,000. This was one of two times during the tournament where I was not feeling good about my chances. But then in round six I got a total gift.
With limits of 200/400 (note that in limit the "limits" and not the "blinds" are used to denote stakes - in this case the blinds are 100/200) I raised to 400 from first position with AQ. I got called by the big blind (who it turned out had 55) and the flop came down Q Q 2. BINGO! He checked, I bet, and after a short pause he called me. I was happy to get any action as I was almost certain to have the best hand here. The turn was a 7 and he check raised me! I reraised to 1200 and he called. He also checked and called a 400 chip bet on the end after a 9 came on the river. This guy way over played his hand and allowed me to pick up some stress free easy chips.
A few hands later I picked up some more chips when I busted a player who had around 1,800 chips. For some reason he decided to go nuts with J9 and I took him out with AQ. All of a sudden I was over 9,000.
During level 7 I came across maybe my favorite hand of the entire WCOOP. With limits at 300/600 I found myself with JJ on the button. A crazy player who'd been in almost every hand raised to 600 and got reraised to 900 by another player. I considered making it 1,200, but decided to just call instead. We took the flop three way and I did a double take as I saw J J K on the flop! I'd flopped quads! After a check from the crazy player and a bet of 300 from the other I decided to play it slow and just called. The crazy player folded and the turn was an 8. My opponent bet, I raised, he reraised and I capped it. The river was a 5, putting three spades on the board, and my opponent checked. I bet 600 and to my surprise he raised me! I made it 1,800, and he made it 2,400! I wished that I could have raised again. On the turn I suspected that he was holding KK and by the time the betting was over I was sure, so it was no surprise when that's exactly what he showed. This took me up to 16,700 and put me in 16th out of 460. Take that suckers.
During level 8 I moved up again when I flopped two pair with 63 after getting a look at a free flop in the big blind. I won another pot or two on level 8 and then on the 1st hand of level 9 I picked up AA! I raised and desperately hoped for callers, but found none. I was, however, now in 13th place out of 267 with 27,500 chips. I was starting to think a money finish was in the bag when it seemed like everything turned against me.
I lost AK to 66 when another player foolishly called a bet on the flop with a board of A J 4 and ended up making a flush with one of his 6's. Then I found myself in the big blind with KK and lost a big pot to A2. After those two I was down to 17,500 and not feeling great. By this time the limits were 800/1600 with blinds of 400/800 so every 9 hands I was losing 1,200 to the blinds. I got ground down to around 14,000 in this manner and then after a failed bluff, I found myself with 10,000. The limits went up again, this time to 1200/2400 and I was blinded off all the way down to 5,500 with about 150 players left. I kept thinking about how I'd had 27,000 not too much earlier and was kicking myself for not being able to hang on to them. I was also thinking about how pissed I was going to be to fall just short of the money...again.
Then I had a change of mind set. I started to think about all of the times that I've come back from nothing in other tournaments. I've done this kind of shit before. I'm not done yet. A couple of good hands and I'm right back in it.
Just like clock work, I started to make some head way. I stole the blinds once. And then I picked up AK and won a small pot with a bluff on the flop.
I was getting back into it when I picked up AQ during level 11 and raised to 2400. I got called by the big blind and the flop came down A 7 3. My opponent bet and I raised him. The turn was a K, I bet and he called. The river was another K, I bet my last 1,500 chips and he called with what turned out to be A5. This may not seem like heavy action, but this late in the tournament taking a hand all the way to the river and winning is a huge deal. I picked up almost 10,000 on this one pot and found myself in solid shape as we approached the money.
I managed to pick up enough blinds to keep me even during level 12 and sometime during that level we lost our 595th player. 90th place paid $1,668, so I was very happy to be in the money. I only had 20,000 chips, with the average stack being 38,000, but found myself in 63rd place. It took over 6 hours and I played over 500 hands(this is a much higher hand per hour rate than you'd normally expect) to get this far, but I was still hoping for more. The next money jump was up to $2,085 which would come when we made it under 60 players. In order to make it that far I knew I'd need to make some moves.
The blinds ate up a small chunk of my stack and I found myself with just under 16,000 at the beginning of level 13. With limits of 2,000/4,000 I picked up AK and made it 4,000 to go. I got called by the big blind and the flop came down K 4 2. This was a sweet flop for me and I was happy to see my opponent bet. I raised, and he reraised, and I raised again. We both knew I was going all in before the end of the hand so why wait to get it in there. On the turn I got my last 4,000 or so chips into the pot and when the cards were turned over I saw he had K8. When a harmless 9 fell on the river I was up over 32,000 chips.
A little later, after flopping a flush draw with K6 out of the big blind, I turned a 6 and rivered a K to win a small pot. I was up over 40,000 for a brief moment and then I made a second best hand that took half of my stack. Still in level 13, I raised to 4,000 with KQ of spades and got reraised by the big blind. I called and the flop came down Q 8 3 with one spade. He bet 2,000 and hoping top pair was good, I raised to 4,000. He paused for a moment and I thought that my hand must be good and he was going to fold. Then he made it 6,000. Uh oh. I figured I was behind, but there was already 23,000 in the pot so calling 2,000 more to see the turn was an easy decision. When it came out, the turn was the ace of spades. This was a great card for me since it meant I had 9 cards left in the deck that would make me the nuts (the nine remaining spades) and 5 cards (2 Q's and 3 K's) that might make me the best hand. So when my opponent bet 4,000, I called and hoped for a spade. The river was a disappointing 7 of hearts and after I called another 4,000 chips (this time just to make sure he wasn't getting out of line) he showed me AQ and took down a 41,000 chip pot.
Around this time we dropped under 60 players and I picked up another $400 in guaranteed money.
On level 14 with limits of 3,000/6,000 I picked up AK and raised to 6,000. I got called by the big blind and the flop came down J 10 6 all clubs. My opponent checked and even though I had no pairs and no clubs I had to bet. I got called and the turn was a red 4. Again my opponent checked. I only had 6,500 left so I wasn't happy when my 6,000 chip bet on the turn got called. The river was a red 3 and we both checked (I only had 500 left anyway so it really didn't matter). I was very happy to see my opponent turn up A7 with the A of clubs. If he'd had a pair instead of a flush draw I'd have been gone here.
Soon after, we dropped under 45 players and moved up another pay level, meaning I was guaranteed just over $2,700. After winning another baby pot I found myself in 30th of the 40 remaining players with 47,000 chips. I had my eye on the next pay level which would happen when we got under 30 players
On level 15 with the limits at 4,000/8,000 I reraised the tournament chip leader with 10 10. He just called and after I bet 4,000 into a 25,000 chip pot with a flop of K J 5, I was thrilled to see him fold. This pot took me up to 55,000 and is also an example of a "bluff" (I had 10 10 but it might as well have been 22 with a K and a J on the flop) that worked. I know I mention plenty of "failed bluffs" and few that work so I wanted to point this one out.
A few hands later I got AK again (I must have had AK 10-12 times during this tournament) and got some good action. After raising preflop, I bet and got called on a 10 7 2 flop. The turn was a beautiful A and I bet again, this time with confidence. I got called again, but after another 7 on the river my opponent folded to my bet. At this point I was up to 88,000.
We lost the 31st player and I moved up to the pay level where I was guaranteed $3,600.
I picked up another pot and found myself at 105,000. I started to look at moving up to the next pay level which would be with 18 players left, but this was still a mile away. Even though it was only 12 players, those 12 represented 40% of the remaining field. Sadly, I would stall at the $3,600 level.
When level 16 started with limits of 6,000/12,000 it meant that the big blind would be larger than the entire stack that we all started with. Clearly every hand was serious from this point on and I just didn't connect with some flops. First I lost 24 thousand with 88 and then another 18 thousand with AJ. Of course the blinds didn't stop chewing up my stack and soon I was running low again.
I lost both of my final 2 hands to the same guy who made a few weird plays that hurt me. First he raised with Q9 in first position and I made a loose call out of the big blind with K5 of clubs. The flop was K 9 4 and after I check raised him he was all in on the flop. I was in good shape and just needed to dodge a queen or a 9, but he got both when the turn was a 9 and the river was a queen.
After that hand, I was down to my last 15,000 chips, so when I picked up A3 it was a clear decision to raise with it. My friend from the last hand reraised with Q10 putting me all in. I was 60% to win before the flop, but he made a flush and I was eliminated in 21st place. It was 8 hours and 50 minutes after this tournament started when I got eliminated and 12 hours after I started playing that day so I was pretty tired.
I was 3 places away from another $2,500, 14 away from another $20,000 and 20 places away from another $150,000. While I was pleased to pick up a few grand, I was a little disappointed to be a few good hands away from a major pay day.
With that said, I was still very happy with how things went and it was nice to close out the WCOOP with a victory. I'll give some final thoughts in a recap of the WCOOP as a whole tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My WSOP 2023 Plans and Missions
After four and a half years working for StubHub I wrapped up my time there in March. I've been at the poker tables 3-4 days a week since...
-
I know for a fact that the right thing to do when I'm winning in a given session is to play longer and press harder to capitalize on t... -
After four and a half years working for StubHub I wrapped up my time there in March. I've been at the poker tables 3-4 days a week since...
-
If you do a search for "open faced chinese poker payouts" you'll find my last post is the third hit on Google (it was second f...
