Standing in the Shadows
Oct. 2nd, 2006 10:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksThere seems to me to be a certain synchronicity to be sitting in Las Vegas, the home of b&m poker, when a law is passed that looks likely to debar US residents from games on Party, Paradise, and any other listed online poker operation. On the privately owned (i.e., riskier) sites, it will become difficult for losing US poker players to fund their habit, because you can expect most credit card operations to make desposits onto Antigua-or-wherever-based poker sites impossible. PokerStars is kind of "half-listed" (i.e., it planned to become listed), but henceforth will probably stay private. But its respectability makes it unliekly to cock a snook at the US regulators.
In other words, things seem to be turning to shit and I had better get used to Asian time rather than US time when it comes to playing poker online, because that is where any business that there is around is likely to be coming from.
The markets went predictably mad, hitting Party and SportingBet shares by more than 50%. I've cleaned up on Sporting twice this year when the markets have overreacted and I'm darned tempted to do so again, if it weren't for the fact that an attempt to buy SportingBet shares online through Barclays from a US Internet Protocol address (and a Las Vegas one to boot), would probably make me liable to arrest at any US airport and cause the Barclays Sharetrader software to crash and burn, taking my laptop with it.
We live in exciting times.
++++++++++++++
There is a particular type of Las Vegas poker player, usually elderly, female, Jewish and from New York or Florida (having retired there from New York), who I like to call "Mrs I'll-Take-That-Seat".
Mrs I'll-Take-That-Seat will never stop bemoaning her bad cards, and as soon as a winning player departs, she will shout "I'll take that seat!" Needless to say, her own abysmal play (which tends to consist of calling with anything pre-flop apart from Aces, which she raises, and then, on the flop, folding nothing, calling with anything else, except a nut flush, nut straight or top set, with which she raises) causes her stack (usually the minimum buy-in, rinsed and repeated five times) to continue to dwindle. And so she moans again, and a winner leaves, and she shouts "I'll take that seat!" again.
Now, my point here is, how far can you take "good" poker play, and still retain your soul? Because the correct metagame here is doubtless to lie through your teeth and to encourage this kind of behaviour, saying "yep, that guy sure was lucky -- I'd like that seat myself". However, this all feels a bit Faustian to me, particularly when what you want to say is "It's not the seat. Your play won't change". So you compromise, and remain quiet, even though the periodic musical chairs (is the amount the woman loses worth it for the aggravation, you ask yourself) drives you mental.
+++++++++++
I had a very entertaning $3-$6 game with a full kill this evening (Sunday). Entertaining, that is, apart from the fact that I did my bollocks, although I did recover from $280 down to $170 down at the end.
People think that sessions like this are bad beat after bad beat, but they aren't. It's more subtle than that. What tends to happen is that you start off with a minor losing hand (say, an AK hand that doesn't get there). Then you will have a bad beat, and then you will go card dead for a while. Then another raising hand will fail to get there, and then more card-deadness. Next thing you know, you have played for two hours, seen six flops, lost all of them, and you are over a hundred and fifty down. Then you might get Aces, put in a raise, get one caller, who then folds on the flop. Then it's back to card dead, and then you get another bad beat, and the next thing you know, the $150 has become $300 over a four-hour period, solely because you are not winning any pots.
It's at this point that Jack-eight suited begins to look like a raising hand, or you call a raise cold with Ten-Nine suited. And these don't work either, so the speed at which you are losing money gets ratcheted up a notch. If you aren't careful, 90 minutes later you are 100 big bets down and are on full-blown tilt.
Now, that kind of thing doesn't happen to me. I keep plodding along, knowing that I have little chance of being even for the session, but trying to salvage what I can. And, usually (like tonight) I succeed.
Figures for the trip so far. Slightly down, unless you count comps, in which case, slightly up.
+++++++++
Oh, and here's the bad beat tale (appended at the end), solely because in retrospect it is so funny and is a marvellous example of how the poker gods can conspire against you on a bad night.
I had raised in the BB with Black Aces, to be called in three places. The flop came Q52 rainbow. I bet and I am called in two places. The turn brings a Jack, putting two clubs on board.
I bet, and the player on my left, a Negreanu lookalike and chatalike, called. The third player thought for a couple of seconds and then folded. But his cards flipped over, showing Q3 suited.
The river brings ... a queen! Folding opponent curses. I bet, the Negreanu lookalike raises, and I call. He shows Queen-Ten for trip queens.
The hilarious part of this is that the folding opponent obviously thought that at least one of us had a better queen than he did. If he folds without exposing his hand, then I check-call the river. However, by exposing the Queen, I make Negreanu lookalike less likely to have a hand that beats me (he's in no position to flat-call flop and turn with a set of fives or a set of threes) and so I bet out. So, a bad beat (case queen coming on river) compounded by another bad beat (one opponent exposing his hand, thus costing me an extra bet).
Marvellous. The dealer and I had a good chuckle about that one.
Took some pictures this morning but I haven't uploaded them yet. More later.
____________________________________
Fatburger at 6.30am. Genuine Nighthawks at the Diner time. Be sure to order the "King Deal"!
________________________
A rare view of The Orleans from the Strip, courtesy of a demolished Boardwalk. Wish I'd bought (and brought) the Canon I've had my eye on -- a proper zoom would have ben great.
___________________________
The "Poker Room" at O'Shea's. And you thought that the Paris Poker Room was opportunistic. The manager and dealers are just ferried across from the Flamingo (Barry manages the day shift). It's $1-$5 spread with a single blind. Genuine 1970s downtown poker brought to within feet of the strip! Superb.
_________________
In other words, things seem to be turning to shit and I had better get used to Asian time rather than US time when it comes to playing poker online, because that is where any business that there is around is likely to be coming from.
The markets went predictably mad, hitting Party and SportingBet shares by more than 50%. I've cleaned up on Sporting twice this year when the markets have overreacted and I'm darned tempted to do so again, if it weren't for the fact that an attempt to buy SportingBet shares online through Barclays from a US Internet Protocol address (and a Las Vegas one to boot), would probably make me liable to arrest at any US airport and cause the Barclays Sharetrader software to crash and burn, taking my laptop with it.
We live in exciting times.
++++++++++++++
There is a particular type of Las Vegas poker player, usually elderly, female, Jewish and from New York or Florida (having retired there from New York), who I like to call "Mrs I'll-Take-That-Seat".
Mrs I'll-Take-That-Seat will never stop bemoaning her bad cards, and as soon as a winning player departs, she will shout "I'll take that seat!" Needless to say, her own abysmal play (which tends to consist of calling with anything pre-flop apart from Aces, which she raises, and then, on the flop, folding nothing, calling with anything else, except a nut flush, nut straight or top set, with which she raises) causes her stack (usually the minimum buy-in, rinsed and repeated five times) to continue to dwindle. And so she moans again, and a winner leaves, and she shouts "I'll take that seat!" again.
Now, my point here is, how far can you take "good" poker play, and still retain your soul? Because the correct metagame here is doubtless to lie through your teeth and to encourage this kind of behaviour, saying "yep, that guy sure was lucky -- I'd like that seat myself". However, this all feels a bit Faustian to me, particularly when what you want to say is "It's not the seat. Your play won't change". So you compromise, and remain quiet, even though the periodic musical chairs (is the amount the woman loses worth it for the aggravation, you ask yourself) drives you mental.
+++++++++++
I had a very entertaning $3-$6 game with a full kill this evening (Sunday). Entertaining, that is, apart from the fact that I did my bollocks, although I did recover from $280 down to $170 down at the end.
People think that sessions like this are bad beat after bad beat, but they aren't. It's more subtle than that. What tends to happen is that you start off with a minor losing hand (say, an AK hand that doesn't get there). Then you will have a bad beat, and then you will go card dead for a while. Then another raising hand will fail to get there, and then more card-deadness. Next thing you know, you have played for two hours, seen six flops, lost all of them, and you are over a hundred and fifty down. Then you might get Aces, put in a raise, get one caller, who then folds on the flop. Then it's back to card dead, and then you get another bad beat, and the next thing you know, the $150 has become $300 over a four-hour period, solely because you are not winning any pots.
It's at this point that Jack-eight suited begins to look like a raising hand, or you call a raise cold with Ten-Nine suited. And these don't work either, so the speed at which you are losing money gets ratcheted up a notch. If you aren't careful, 90 minutes later you are 100 big bets down and are on full-blown tilt.
Now, that kind of thing doesn't happen to me. I keep plodding along, knowing that I have little chance of being even for the session, but trying to salvage what I can. And, usually (like tonight) I succeed.
Figures for the trip so far. Slightly down, unless you count comps, in which case, slightly up.
+++++++++
Oh, and here's the bad beat tale (appended at the end), solely because in retrospect it is so funny and is a marvellous example of how the poker gods can conspire against you on a bad night.
I had raised in the BB with Black Aces, to be called in three places. The flop came Q52 rainbow. I bet and I am called in two places. The turn brings a Jack, putting two clubs on board.
I bet, and the player on my left, a Negreanu lookalike and chatalike, called. The third player thought for a couple of seconds and then folded. But his cards flipped over, showing Q3 suited.
The river brings ... a queen! Folding opponent curses. I bet, the Negreanu lookalike raises, and I call. He shows Queen-Ten for trip queens.
The hilarious part of this is that the folding opponent obviously thought that at least one of us had a better queen than he did. If he folds without exposing his hand, then I check-call the river. However, by exposing the Queen, I make Negreanu lookalike less likely to have a hand that beats me (he's in no position to flat-call flop and turn with a set of fives or a set of threes) and so I bet out. So, a bad beat (case queen coming on river) compounded by another bad beat (one opponent exposing his hand, thus costing me an extra bet).
Marvellous. The dealer and I had a good chuckle about that one.
Took some pictures this morning but I haven't uploaded them yet. More later.
____________________________________
Fatburger at 6.30am. Genuine Nighthawks at the Diner time. Be sure to order the "King Deal"!
________________________
A rare view of The Orleans from the Strip, courtesy of a demolished Boardwalk. Wish I'd bought (and brought) the Canon I've had my eye on -- a proper zoom would have ben great.
___________________________
The "Poker Room" at O'Shea's. And you thought that the Paris Poker Room was opportunistic. The manager and dealers are just ferried across from the Flamingo (Barry manages the day shift). It's $1-$5 spread with a single blind. Genuine 1970s downtown poker brought to within feet of the strip! Superb.
_________________
private sites
Date: 2006-10-02 01:08 pm (UTC)Do you have any insight into whether this internet poker law in actually enforceable? My understanding is that many of these sites are located outside of the US, and I'm not sure if the US government can control whether or not a US citizen deals with a foreign company or not. What do you think would happen to an account which is already in place, and does the law effect removing funds from an existing account? Thanks.
Scott
Re: private sites
Date: 2006-10-02 01:21 pm (UTC)cheers
dd
Re: private sites
Date: 2006-10-02 02:00 pm (UTC)Scott
Re: private sites
Date: 2006-10-02 03:03 pm (UTC)The technicalities involved are, in the main, irrelevant. Most of the major sites will just stop bothering with US customers and will try to compensate for this by increasing their share of a growing Asian market.
In online poker terms this will probably mean that Party, Paradise and Stars (assuming that it takes the "ban US players" route) will lose a significant lump of customers while the companies that tell the US to sod off, will experience a short-term gain.
However, and this is the big factor, even these companies will lose the less-than-committed US-based player, because funding an account from a US account and/or withdrawing to said accounts (see, for example, the already existing situation in Maryland, from which Neteller stays well away) will become harder. This will significantly change the structure of the poker economy, with less money coming in overall. That, inevitably, means that there is less money for the online sites to share as profits and less money for winning players to win.
This can only be compensated for by a large increase in the Asian market -- not impossible, by the way. For the dedicated US player, therefore, there should still be some sites available, while for the European player there will be a significant number of different sites available that are barred to US residents.
I would see the impact on European players as being negative in the short term and slightly negative/flat in the medium term, although the peak hours for play will move in favour of the early afternoon player in the UK (i.e., er, me!).
On the downside (for me), my accounts are mainly dollar-based, which might have to change. Much depends on how Neteller reacts; the overall agravation factor is huge. Without this bill passing, there would still have been an Asian market to tap and life would have been so much simpler.
A major impact will also be felt by the WSOP and any live tournaments that depended on online qualifiers from the US. This, indeed, could be the poker sites main hope, in that they could (and undoubtedly are) argue for some kind of executive exception being applied to online poker (it being representative of the American way of life, etc), even though the strict laws are applied to online sports wagering and online casinos.
The difficulty with this is that companies such as SportingBet have both intermingled. Stars is in the best position here, having no sports wagering interests, being privately owned, having an exceptional reputation (not something shared by the people at Paradise or Party), a long term track record and also having three of the last four WSOP champions on board. If they could get Chip Reese as well, it would be a clean sweep.
But that's all if they choose to fight.
My best guess is that US poker players will find online games tough to find and that we will enter some kind of "prohibition" era, where players who put their mind to it will be able to play, but casual online poker play for US residents will become (temporarily) a thing of the past.
If there is one plus that comes out of all of this it is that Harrah's gets royally screwed.
Also, what about the WSOP leaving the US for a year or two? That would make a lot of marketing sense for Harrah's and would enable it to sidestep a number of legal problems if there were online qualifiers from the US.
Remember, most of this legislation is aimed at casinos and sports wagering, not at online poker, which has just got caught up in the mess. That, in a way, might be online poker's best hope
Re: private sites
Date: 2006-10-03 02:01 am (UTC)Additionally, if the us market were to return in say 3-5 years then we could find it providing a much needed injection, a fresh boom. Giving the industry greater longevity - there's only so much benefit to be attained from large volumes on a site. For example 10 years of 25k volume, is much more preferable (& profitable) than 5 years 50k volume. Ideally we want growth phased in over a period of time - not a bubble - and, albeit at the americans's expense this bill might provide this assuming they come back in. As you say you'd expect the assiduous players to find a way, and if the bill survives only the good players then this will, naturally, have considerable downside.
chaos
Re: private sites
Date: 2006-10-03 10:56 am (UTC)what progress have the online sites made in getting Asian players onboard? From a personal point of view, I would love to be able to play people in Taiwan that Illinois, because of the time difference. But are the Japanese, Filipinos etc signing up?
David Young
Re: private sites
Date: 2006-10-03 11:03 am (UTC)Re: private sites
Date: 2006-10-03 11:09 pm (UTC)Betfair is pushing the Asian market the most and I think that there will definitely be some take-up. What concerns me is that it may hasten the shrinking proportion of limit games. I suspect that NL might be forced upon me.
PJ
Re: private sites
Date: 2006-10-03 01:21 pm (UTC)chaos
Re: private sites
Date: 2006-10-03 02:51 pm (UTC)Re: private sites
Date: 2006-10-03 11:12 pm (UTC)On the other hand, Party is run by tossbags, so perhaps they'll try to recoup the money by upping the rake to 10% with a cap at five quid, plus the introduction of "added realism" in the form of compulsory tipping of the "dealer".
crisis, what crisis?
Date: 2006-10-04 01:21 am (UTC)If they do, and the action is good, then stars and party will struggle to hold onto those they have in addition to those they've lost to the legislation. So they'll have to fight to keep 'em.
No more would party have their long term players over a barrel as they have shown by putting up rake, killing rakeback etc. That said, I'm not convinced the naive US poker player will typically startout/ transfer at/to full tilt for fear of breaking the law, even if they're not - but if word gets out, who knows.
Interesting you say since profits are down anyway they'll push the boat out - makes sense w.r.t. reference points - certainly how you'd expect a poker player to respond.
chaos
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 01:13 pm (UTC)Scott
site recommendations
Date: 2006-10-03 04:07 pm (UTC)Scott
Re: site recommendations
Date: 2006-10-03 04:24 pm (UTC)Re: site recommendations
Date: 2006-10-03 07:43 pm (UTC)Andy.
Re: site recommendations
Date: 2006-10-03 11:14 pm (UTC)PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-10-03 08:51 pm (UTC)Scott