Here I was going on and on about the court case in Pennsylvania that may have qualified Texas Hold’em Poker as a game of skill, when it was finally ruled in Kentucky that online poker rooms are not gambling devices.
And that means that there won’t be any seizing of internet poker rooms. In the words of Nelson Muntz, “haha!” And might I also add: Microgaming, you’re idiots. You pulled out way too soon, now they have given no clout to that case, and you’re out thousands of customers.
Tsk tsk and for shame abandoning all of your U.S. players. And not just the players, but the affiliates too.
And as for Kentucky! You should have known better! You can’t seize anything on the internet! You certainly cannot expect to go up against iMEGA, the Poker Players Alliance, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, GoDaddy AND 141 domain owners! Especially when the governor that filed this lawsuit is lobbying for more gambling in the state. Are you NUTS? Kentucky is home to one of the biggest gambling events EVER in the WORLD! If that doesn’t make you look like you’re playing favorites, I don’t know what WILL!
Well, at any rate, this is a HUGE precedent for the online poker industry. Because in this case, internet gambling sites were found not to be “gambling devices,” if the UIGEA is reviewed this year we can pretty much expect that it will be thrown out. Or at least I am hoping.
I think to celebrate, we should all have a class of wine and hit up whatever website is Microgaming’s closest competitor that caters to the U.S. and bet like a bunch of Big Business types. No, scratch that. We should all go to and offshore gambling site and bet on the horses to ensure that no gambling proceeds go to Kentucky. HA!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Follow the Queen!
I love Paddy Power. I haven’t had a whole lot of experience with its online poker room, but I love how balls to the wall these guys are. Is it any wonder that they’re Irish?
Paddy Power is notorious for its unique and sometimes controversial wagering themes. It’s Back That Ace Up promo is no exception. Although, I have to say, I’d like there to be some sort of ace-driven winning stipulation – with its title as the simple reasoning for this.
Maybe something like Follow the Ace, or Ace’s Wild or something. For those of you who have never played the Follow-the-Queen format of poker, try it! It’s super fun, although you rarely see it in online poker.
This is the kind of poker that I started out playing. Essentially, whatever you decided is the followed card (usually a Queen) is a wild card. So, if it were an Ace, any card that was immediately dealt after an ace becomes a wild card. If the final card dealt is an ace, then all aces are wild. If no aces are dealt, there are no wild cards for that particular hand. The Queen usually comes up more times than you would expect, and it makes for a slew of wild card throughout the game, and it makes you think and exercises those memory muscles.
But what really makes this game fun is that if you have an amazing hand due to a wild card – if another ace were to come up, it will totally screw you! AND! If you have a crappy crap hand, you can turn it around with one card.
You know what? I’m going to go e-mail some online poker rooms and request that they start offering a follow-the-Queen game. It’s nostalgic for me, but I think a lot of people haven’t heard of it, so it would add a good mixture to players that are gradually becoming bored with the Texas Hold’em and Omaha formats.
Paddy Power is notorious for its unique and sometimes controversial wagering themes. It’s Back That Ace Up promo is no exception. Although, I have to say, I’d like there to be some sort of ace-driven winning stipulation – with its title as the simple reasoning for this.
Maybe something like Follow the Ace, or Ace’s Wild or something. For those of you who have never played the Follow-the-Queen format of poker, try it! It’s super fun, although you rarely see it in online poker.
This is the kind of poker that I started out playing. Essentially, whatever you decided is the followed card (usually a Queen) is a wild card. So, if it were an Ace, any card that was immediately dealt after an ace becomes a wild card. If the final card dealt is an ace, then all aces are wild. If no aces are dealt, there are no wild cards for that particular hand. The Queen usually comes up more times than you would expect, and it makes for a slew of wild card throughout the game, and it makes you think and exercises those memory muscles.
But what really makes this game fun is that if you have an amazing hand due to a wild card – if another ace were to come up, it will totally screw you! AND! If you have a crappy crap hand, you can turn it around with one card.
You know what? I’m going to go e-mail some online poker rooms and request that they start offering a follow-the-Queen game. It’s nostalgic for me, but I think a lot of people haven’t heard of it, so it would add a good mixture to players that are gradually becoming bored with the Texas Hold’em and Omaha formats.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Poker on the Stock Market
It has just dawned on me why online poker sites rarely become a topic of controversy – and rarely are put under litigation by the U.S. (compared to casinos anyway). I was just reading about Playboy Poker having closed its doors forever – may it rest in peace – and how, as a member of the Cryptologic poker network, it is traded in the U.S. stock market.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but I am one for calling B.S. on the U.S. when I see it! I am not saying that I WANT online poker rooms to be prosecuted. I’m saying that I want the U.S. to open its mouth and insert its foot!
You can’t really chastise online gambling sites when you profit from it on the stock market. This is my opinion, anyway. Not to mention, many government officials gamble every day – the stock market in itself is a form of gambling. It takes skill, however, just like poker!
If you really wanted to, you could consider everything that you do gambling. You could gamble on the outcome of Candyland if you really wanted to so no amount of anti-gaming legislation is going to prevent people from developing gambling addictions if they are prone to it. Let’s give it a rest already.
You know how well legalized online poker and casino gambling could stimulate the economy? Not just in taxing gambling winnings, but on the stock market. There are thousands of gambling websites out there and new ones coming into the market EVERY day. Some are really profitable when their shares are sold, and some are in their infancy. Buy when they’re young, promote the living hell out of them, and then sell sell sell! It’s a win-win situation.
And with U.S. players having the ability to legally gamble online, the sites that already do exist are going to become worth more. So people that already have stock in Cryptologic’s poker network would probably be able to sell shares for a pretty penny, I’d imagine.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but I am one for calling B.S. on the U.S. when I see it! I am not saying that I WANT online poker rooms to be prosecuted. I’m saying that I want the U.S. to open its mouth and insert its foot!
You can’t really chastise online gambling sites when you profit from it on the stock market. This is my opinion, anyway. Not to mention, many government officials gamble every day – the stock market in itself is a form of gambling. It takes skill, however, just like poker!
If you really wanted to, you could consider everything that you do gambling. You could gamble on the outcome of Candyland if you really wanted to so no amount of anti-gaming legislation is going to prevent people from developing gambling addictions if they are prone to it. Let’s give it a rest already.
You know how well legalized online poker and casino gambling could stimulate the economy? Not just in taxing gambling winnings, but on the stock market. There are thousands of gambling websites out there and new ones coming into the market EVERY day. Some are really profitable when their shares are sold, and some are in their infancy. Buy when they’re young, promote the living hell out of them, and then sell sell sell! It’s a win-win situation.
And with U.S. players having the ability to legally gamble online, the sites that already do exist are going to become worth more. So people that already have stock in Cryptologic’s poker network would probably be able to sell shares for a pretty penny, I’d imagine.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Party Gaming Pulls Through
Despite everything that has happened with Party Gaming in the last month or so, the online poker room continues to provide the very best to its customers. Kudos to them I say.
The U.S. Department of Justice went after Anurag Dikshit (who is appropriately named according to Doyle Brunson) because as one of the founders of Party Gaming, or Party Poker, he was accused of having accepted U.S. wagers. This was of course, when internet gambling was not prohibited by U.S. federal law. Can we do that? Yes we can, apparently.
Well needless to say, his peers were none too happy with him, and neither was the online poker community. He sold us out, plain and simple. He agreed to a settlement and pled guilty to…being completely within his legal rights? So while he set some dangerous precedents for the industry in future litigation, we got one up on him when a Pennsylvania judge ruled that Texas Hold’em was a game of skill and not one of chance. So there’s prior legislation to refer to on both ends.
I guess my question is, after hearing about this, what about other popular forms of poker that are played online? You know, Omaha? Stud? Will it eventually come down to online poker rooms only being able to offer U.S. players Texas Hold’em? I don’t think most of us would be overly opposed to this, as it is obvious the game of choice for most – and any tournament worth its weight in salt is played in this style.
At any rate, Party Poker, despite the $300 million settlement, is offering a monthly million-dollar guaranteed tournament, so I can’t imagine that they’re doing too poorly. In fact, they are the fourth most popular site, second to Poker Stars, Full Tilt and the iPoker Network. And of course the iPoker Network is going to be ahead, they’ve only got twenty seven card rooms to compete. Shame on you, Dikshit, but congrats Party Gaming!
The U.S. Department of Justice went after Anurag Dikshit (who is appropriately named according to Doyle Brunson) because as one of the founders of Party Gaming, or Party Poker, he was accused of having accepted U.S. wagers. This was of course, when internet gambling was not prohibited by U.S. federal law. Can we do that? Yes we can, apparently.
Well needless to say, his peers were none too happy with him, and neither was the online poker community. He sold us out, plain and simple. He agreed to a settlement and pled guilty to…being completely within his legal rights? So while he set some dangerous precedents for the industry in future litigation, we got one up on him when a Pennsylvania judge ruled that Texas Hold’em was a game of skill and not one of chance. So there’s prior legislation to refer to on both ends.
I guess my question is, after hearing about this, what about other popular forms of poker that are played online? You know, Omaha? Stud? Will it eventually come down to online poker rooms only being able to offer U.S. players Texas Hold’em? I don’t think most of us would be overly opposed to this, as it is obvious the game of choice for most – and any tournament worth its weight in salt is played in this style.
At any rate, Party Poker, despite the $300 million settlement, is offering a monthly million-dollar guaranteed tournament, so I can’t imagine that they’re doing too poorly. In fact, they are the fourth most popular site, second to Poker Stars, Full Tilt and the iPoker Network. And of course the iPoker Network is going to be ahead, they’ve only got twenty seven card rooms to compete. Shame on you, Dikshit, but congrats Party Gaming!
Having a Law Overturned
U.S. legislation can always be overturned no matter how old, which is sort of the beauty of this country - if of course the people care enough. If public interest drops on any subject then a stupid law will be passed by some fanatic of whatever affiliation. How do you think the UIGEA got passed in the first place? Some fanatical jerk tacked it onto a bill that nobody was going to not vote for. There’s hope for online poker, because it happened to be the subject of such circumstance in Phildelphia.
North Carolina is another example, as recently a judge had to throw out a law that was 201 years old. The law stated that it was illegal for unmarried couples to live together. The case was brought up against a 911 emergency operator, when a sheriff learned that she and her boyfriend were living together. The woman was given an ultimatum, she could either marry, move, or she would have to leave her job. After she would be forced to marry her boyfriend or move out she was forced to leave her job. The woman was Debora Lynn Hobbs and she filed a constitutional challenge, she didn’t want her old job back (who would after that) she just wanted the law changed so nobody else would have to face the same BS as her.
Now as crazy as that law sounded to everyone with brain cells left in their head, there was a fanatic who opposed it’s removal. "I think it's terrible," said the Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina. "It was simply judicial activism at its best. That knocked down the law that is a cornerstone of state marriage policy. The law emphasizes that marriage is the family structure that ought to be encouraged because that is the best institution for family, children and society. What the judge actually did was undermine marriage," said Creech,
So you see no matter what law passes or doesn’t pass, no matter how stupid it is, there will be someone who will defend it with all they have for some moronic reason. Such is the case with live in boyfriends, and such is the case with online poker.
North Carolina is another example, as recently a judge had to throw out a law that was 201 years old. The law stated that it was illegal for unmarried couples to live together. The case was brought up against a 911 emergency operator, when a sheriff learned that she and her boyfriend were living together. The woman was given an ultimatum, she could either marry, move, or she would have to leave her job. After she would be forced to marry her boyfriend or move out she was forced to leave her job. The woman was Debora Lynn Hobbs and she filed a constitutional challenge, she didn’t want her old job back (who would after that) she just wanted the law changed so nobody else would have to face the same BS as her.
Now as crazy as that law sounded to everyone with brain cells left in their head, there was a fanatic who opposed it’s removal. "I think it's terrible," said the Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina. "It was simply judicial activism at its best. That knocked down the law that is a cornerstone of state marriage policy. The law emphasizes that marriage is the family structure that ought to be encouraged because that is the best institution for family, children and society. What the judge actually did was undermine marriage," said Creech,
So you see no matter what law passes or doesn’t pass, no matter how stupid it is, there will be someone who will defend it with all they have for some moronic reason. Such is the case with live in boyfriends, and such is the case with online poker.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The Future of Online Poker?
February is a very important month for online poker players. There’s a court date set for Friday the 13th which may change the way we view that date. In fact, 13 could be a lucky number! If we can’t rely on the Obama administration to alter anti-gambling laws, we may be able to attribute a change to a South Carolina state court, where a judge is willing to consider that poker is more of a game of skill than chance.
I don’t know why this argument has gone contested for as long as it has. You would think that with a legislative body compiled mostly of men, poker would have been one of the first activities legalized. Poker has for decades been viewed a sporting activity that men use to get away from their wives for a night. Congressmen play poker, poker is broadcast on ESPN, for all of its “shortcomings,” and anyone who has ever played it, or watched it be played, knows that it takes skill. That’s common sense. To me, poker is no different than football or baseball. It may require less physical activity, but it certainly entails more psychological activity.
So for the first time in the U.S., someone in the judiciary system is willing to consider that it may require some skill. I’m very hopeful for the ruling in this case, because I really don’t think it’s hard to prove that point. Aside from the fact that there are college professors who have come up with actual mathematical formulas to prove so, you can take into account online poker rooms like PokerTwin, where the site has complete OMITTED the element of chance.
In this poker room, players were each assigned a seat at one of two tables, where each table was dealt the same hands. I think that because this site was legalized because there was no element of chance, it does show that there is obviously skill involved, and as such will be a valuable tool in the court battle.
I don’t know why this argument has gone contested for as long as it has. You would think that with a legislative body compiled mostly of men, poker would have been one of the first activities legalized. Poker has for decades been viewed a sporting activity that men use to get away from their wives for a night. Congressmen play poker, poker is broadcast on ESPN, for all of its “shortcomings,” and anyone who has ever played it, or watched it be played, knows that it takes skill. That’s common sense. To me, poker is no different than football or baseball. It may require less physical activity, but it certainly entails more psychological activity.
So for the first time in the U.S., someone in the judiciary system is willing to consider that it may require some skill. I’m very hopeful for the ruling in this case, because I really don’t think it’s hard to prove that point. Aside from the fact that there are college professors who have come up with actual mathematical formulas to prove so, you can take into account online poker rooms like PokerTwin, where the site has complete OMITTED the element of chance.
In this poker room, players were each assigned a seat at one of two tables, where each table was dealt the same hands. I think that because this site was legalized because there was no element of chance, it does show that there is obviously skill involved, and as such will be a valuable tool in the court battle.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Affiliate Advertising
It seems that online poker affiliates have caught a break of sorts – if you live in the UK. Google is allowing gambling affiliates to advertise for their sites as long as they target a UK audience. I don’t understand why then, you have to live in the UK to advertise to just gamblers there. If you use adwords, you can target a specific audience. So even if you live in the U.S., your ads will only go out to UK residents.
Still, Google says that if you live outside of the UK, you can still advertise there if you obtain a license to do so. So I guess it’s not all that bad. In fact, this will open up a new door for online poker players, because now we will be able to search for affiliate websites that provide honest reviews of internet poker rooms. And that is a very handy tool to have.
There are officials in the UK that chastise Google for allowing this, under the assumption that it will contribute to problem gambling in young people. I don’t agree with this, nor the hoopla that advertising for gambling has caused.
If you get an online poker advertisement on Google, it means you were searching for it in the first place. These ads don’t pop up when you’re looking for a good cookie recipe, they relate to the original search. So it would seem that the youth are looking to gamble before the affiliates poison their young minds.
Not to mention, there’s a parental control setting that will ban gambling advertisements from being viewed, so what’s the big deal? Kids search for way more detrimental content on the internet – pornography, firearms, etc. None of this content gets anywhere near the attention that gambling does.
The taboo connotations that have been placed on internet poker are really inaccurate. If you can’t handle monitoring your child’s internet activity, don’t blame the gambling site. One of the arguments is that the financial crisis is going to drive people to gamble. I think anyone in financial ruin at this time has a little bit higher priorities.
Still, Google says that if you live outside of the UK, you can still advertise there if you obtain a license to do so. So I guess it’s not all that bad. In fact, this will open up a new door for online poker players, because now we will be able to search for affiliate websites that provide honest reviews of internet poker rooms. And that is a very handy tool to have.
There are officials in the UK that chastise Google for allowing this, under the assumption that it will contribute to problem gambling in young people. I don’t agree with this, nor the hoopla that advertising for gambling has caused.
If you get an online poker advertisement on Google, it means you were searching for it in the first place. These ads don’t pop up when you’re looking for a good cookie recipe, they relate to the original search. So it would seem that the youth are looking to gamble before the affiliates poison their young minds.
Not to mention, there’s a parental control setting that will ban gambling advertisements from being viewed, so what’s the big deal? Kids search for way more detrimental content on the internet – pornography, firearms, etc. None of this content gets anywhere near the attention that gambling does.
The taboo connotations that have been placed on internet poker are really inaccurate. If you can’t handle monitoring your child’s internet activity, don’t blame the gambling site. One of the arguments is that the financial crisis is going to drive people to gamble. I think anyone in financial ruin at this time has a little bit higher priorities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
