Damning the River

Online Poker Playing Halved in October

Derek Slater — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:27:28 +0000

Whatever you think
of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act’s (UIGEA)
medium-to-long run impacts, the short run effects are clear. WaPo’s
blog reports, “According to Nielsen/NetRatings, which tracks Web use, traffic to the top 10 Internet gambling sites dropped a staggering 56 percent in October” (via Iggy).
PartyPoker, which promptly banned US players, apparently dropped from
7.5 million unique users in September to 2.5 million in October.

In time, many players will likely turn to various work-arounds or switch to sites like FullTilt and PokerStars so long as
they accept US players. But the switching costs aren’t solely
responsible for the decrease in online poker playing. With online poker
and casino gambling booming before, sites like Party Poker were able to
liberally hand out bonuses to customers — free money just for signing
up or making a new deposit. These bonuses helped lure in new players or
bring back existing ones, and a larger playerbase meant they could
spread more games and increase the value of the site overall.

Given the current uncertainty,
I doubt these businesses can hand out large bonuses — at least, I
don’t see any sites providing bonuses comparable to PartyPoker’s past
offers. In the short run, that’s also going to hurt businesses’ ability
to bring in players.

See also: this interesting post at 2+2, also via Iggy.

Could Online Poker Law Raise The Stakes on Free Linking?

Derek Slater — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:49:46 +0000

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act rocked the online casino industry mere days after its passage this month, and, with the president expected to sign the bill on Friday, most commentary has focused on how it will impact
the millions of Americans who enjoy playing poker and placing bets
online. As in many other instances, this attempt to stamp out an online
activity could also impact anyone who wants to link to or help you
access sites online.

Blocking unlawful gambling-related activities shouldn’t mean
censoring people who simply reference the existence of gambling sites.
Linking, like publishing a phone number or street address, is a form of
expression protected by the First Amendment, and this bill raises some
subtle free speech concerns.

Instead of changing how federal law treats the individuals who
place bets, this bill prohibits businesses from receiving certain types
of wagers and puts restrictions on financial service providers, like
banks and PayPal, that help transfer money to gambling sites.

In so doing, the bill also singles out “interactive computer services”
(ICS) like ISPs or website hosting services and then defines what a
court can force them to do under this law. So long as an ICS is not
running an unlawful gambling site itself, a court can at most require
the service provider to remove hyperlinks or block access to sites
hosted on their servers. The bill states that ICSs need not any take
action before receiving proper notice from federal or state Attorneys
General, and they’re under no obligation to actively monitor their
systems.

That’s a good start, but the door to such legal responsibility
could have been more firmly shut. The law has often recognized that
Internet intermediaries and users shouldn’t be held to account for
someone else’s bad deeds, and this bill could have made that crystal
clear with respect to gambling-related activities. Absent other acts
that are themselves violations of the law, those who merely link to or
host someone else’s content shouldn’t be responsible for that site’s
activity. You shouldn’t have to check with a lawyer any time you simply
want to point people to someone else’s site.

Sustaining the Internet’s vibrant, free flow of information
depends on appropriately limiting liability for search engines, ISPs,
bloggers, and other information-middlemen who help you discover sites
and go where you want online. When trying to stop any unlawful online
activity via regulation of such middlemen, it’s extremely difficult to
ensure that lawful activity is not incidentally blocked in the process.

For instance, despite the DMCA’s “safe harbors” for service providers that host or link to materials that infringe copyright, providers have sometimes censored non-infringing content in order to avoid the possibility of costly copyright lawsuits. Google is currently fending off a lawsuit
from porn vendor Perfect 10 alleging that linking amounts to
infringement. Meanwhile, the chilling effects on lawful speech would be
quite severe if bloggers were responsible for all unlawful speech that
other people posted as comments. After receiving even the hint that a
link may lead to expensive lawsuits and perhaps liabilty, bloggers
would have strong incentives to remove the commenters’ material in
order to stay on the safe side of the law. Fortunately, Section 230 of Title 47 offers broad protection for bloggers, bulletin board creators, and other service providers that qualify as ICSs.

The new gambling bill does offer fairly broad protection for
services that qualify as ICSs. If an ICS receives proper notice but
still refuses to take down a link or block access to an unlawful
gambling site, federal or state Attorneys General still can’t get any
monetary damages in court. However, for those who don’t qualify as an
ICS, this limitation doesn’t apply.

Regardless, this bill shouldn’t be seen as a concession that
the acts of linking or hosting can, by themselves, violate the law.
That would be a dangerous precedent for regulation of Internet
activities far beyond gambling.

Instead, legislators and courts should clarify protections for
intermediaries and users who help you locate information online. After
all, we don’t send the feds after phone book authors — why should we
sick them on the online equivalent?

[edited slightly 10/17]

(Cross-posted at DeepLinks)

Whither Online Poker? PokerStars Says Business to Continue as Usual

Derek Slater — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:49:19 +0000

Cyberscholar Tom Bell argues
that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act won’t stop most Americans from
playing poker and placing bets as they did before. He makes a solid
argument, but color me skeptical
in light of PartyGaming’s and 888’s massive stock price drops and
public statements about blocking US customers. At the very least,
investors think the future is highly uncertain, and that will impact
the trajectory of online poker and betting.

But here’s one more reason to believe Bell — PokerStars will,
at least for the moment, continue business as usual. The way I read it,
they’re waiting to see how the financial transaction regs play out, and
that will take many months. Stay tuned…

Hat tip: Iggy.

Congress Sneaks Through Online Gambling Restrictions

Tue, 03 Oct 2006 07:58:48 +0000

Last week, Congress dead-locked on many dangerous surveillance, IP, and other cyberlaw-related bills. But they did manage to sneak a new online gambling ban
[PDF] into the port security bill — it’s an embarrassing,
disappointing instance of our country throwing its weight around
online, crippling a burgeoning industry and taking away a favorite
hobby of millions of ordinary Americans.

For
those who needed a wake-up call that the Internet is indeed regulable,
this ought to do it. Sure, some people will be able to work around the regs, but many won’t, particularly in the near term. Three days after the bill passed, the stock prices of major online gaming companies crashed, and major companies like Party Gaming and 888 vowed to ban all US customers.

The
online gaming business is still rather young, yet it was already
roughly as big as the US record industry — around 12 billion dollars.
While the gaming industry was cut off at the knees, online payment
companies like Neteller also took a nose dive.

The
bill doesn’t impact all gambling — it exempts fantasy sports,
lotteries, horse racing, and purely intrastate gambling. Domestic
gaming companies were either indifferent to the bill or happy to be rid of foreign competitors. The US has ignored WTO rulings against this protectionism before, and it could very well do so again.

But
forget about the companies — what about the ordinary people that
Congress is ostensibly trying to “save?” What evidence is there that “we’re addicted to online poker as a people?” Addiction implies disease.

Let
me make my bias here clear: I play online poker for about 5 hours a
month and head to Vegas with friends to play about twice a year. I make
a tiny — but, for me, quite significant — amount of spending money
that way. And I have a ton of fun doing it. My poker blog is now defunct, but it should give you a sense of how much and why I love this hobby.

Sample my blogroll, and you’ll find many others like me. Some have even make their whole income from playing poker — it’s their livelihood.

Like
the many people who flock to local cardrooms, Vegas, and Atlantic City
every year, most people don’t win money, but they do have a lot of fun.
The Internet brought to the fore ordinary Americans’ desire to play
poker — it’s no coincidence that poker on TV has grown in parallel,
and, at least in California, local cardrooms are sprouting up.

And,
yes, some people do get addicted. My point is not to marshall a
complete argument against this paternalist policy-making in general or
this policy in particular, as distasteful as I find both to be. Rather, I want to highlight that there are millions of ordinary Americans just like me who didn’t ask for this ban, who don’t want this ban, and will be harmed by it. The industry invited regulation and taxation, and yet poker players are now facing an outright ban.

Congress completely sold us out — if you care about this issue, head over to the Poker Players Alliance site.

[Note: as usual, this blog represents my views and not necessarily those of my employers past or present.]

High Time for a Post

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:34:24 +0000

Sorry to all of you who expected more from this blog. It’s been far too
long. My poker playing slowed over the last six
months. I was playing party poker bonuses at .50/1, but
there wasn’t much to report. In fact, I think during that time I
was regressing, only playing to get through the bonuses and thus not
really enjoying the poker. it wasn’t because of my last Vegas
experience in Jan., in which I booked my first major win. For
many reasons, my passion just got
sucked out of it. Last summer, poker was exciting - it was
a meaningful hobby. But other things began to take it’s place.

Well a few things have brought the fun back recently. First, the
last two weeks have featured a no limit ring game among friends here in
San Francisco. Last week I was up, this week I was even, but both
were great learning experiences. I haven’t played much no
limit overall, and it really brought some excitement back into poker
for me. We’re not playing for a lot of money, we’re drinking plenty,
and having fun.

From tonight, two hands stick with me. We’re 5 handed.
Playing .10/.20, I called a pre-flop raise of .30 with QTo from the big
blind. The flop comes 56T, with the 56 of spades. Three players.
One checks, I bet out 1.50, get raised by math-smart, somewhat unpredictable
player to 3.00. He had initially made the .30 raise and had position on
me. I call the additional 1.50, hoping for a blank and thinking
he might have been trying to push his straight or flush draw. The
next card is the 2 of clubs, a seeming blank. I then put him all
in for 8 bucks, about the size of the pot, he calls, shows me ATo.

Now I don’t know if I played this right. I felt like he could have been
pushing a draw or a weaker high pair, because he could make a move like
that and had position me. I figured that making a pot sized bet was my
only chance to win it and in fact 5 handed top pair solid kicker is not
a bad shot. I was worried about ATo or KTo because he made the
initial raise, but he could have had spades or a mid-pair like 88 and
made the raise. Still, perhaps because he made that raise I
should have been able to narrow his hand down further. He didn’t have
T9 or T8 because he wouldn’t have raised there, nor did he probably
have lucky two pair. Maybe JT, but probably not. With that in
mind, he either had a mid pair or he had me out-kicked. If that’s
the case, was my move right? I dunno.

Later on that night, we faced a similar situation but with more money
on the line. I had KJs in the big, called the pre-flop raise to
.50. Flop comes KQ4, rainbow. I check, gets bet to 1.50,
not by the raiser but by the same smart-unpredictable player, I put in
4, he calls. The turn is a 4, still rainbow, I bet 5, he goes all
in for 12 more. I call, he had K8o, hits the 8 on the river. My
call of 12 into the 39 dollar pot seems right. He didn’t raise
pre-flop, so I didn’t put him on KQ or AK. Unlikely for him to
have K4, even though he was in the big, and he wouldn’t have called my
bets on the flop with just a 4 or J4. He could have KT, KQ or K8, or just be on a bluff. But I felt I had it right.

An important point though: his outs weren’t just the 8s. The
remaining K, 4, or Aces would have split the pot - that’s 8 extra outs
for him. I’m still ahead by a decent margin with one to come, but it
still makes my decision a bit closer.

Both those losses felt terrible, but overall the fun was back in
poker. I still feel like I’m a shitty no limit player - I had great cards tonight and didn’t make a damn dime. I won a no
limit tournament among friends the other night, and I can only remember
two things from it. One, how shitty I played (how could I call with
second pair medium kicker with 2 to 1? what kind of hubris led me to do
that?). Second, and much more importantly, how much fun I’ve made
playing among friends for meager amounts.

And with that, I go to Vegas to play some more low limit among actual
human beings. Among a host of friends attending Defcon, I go with Doc Riley, the smart-unpredictable poker
buddy of mine, who I need to train to play low limit. I’ve reread
SSHE. I’m playing around with my simulator. I’m ready to hit the town, put on my table persona, and have a good time.

I hope I have half as much fun as Iggy,
Pauly, and Wil, among many others, have been having. Even though I haven’t been posting,
you bet I’ve still been reading. I was never really a full member of the poker
blogging community, devoting much more of my time to the copyfighters.
But I still get a kick out of the poker bloggers and wish I could put
my energy into hanging out with y’all too. You’re all
terrific and deserve all the attention you’re getting.

Finals and Vegas

Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:41:05 +0000

Tests up the wazoo here, but I’m in preparation next weekend in Vegas. News to follow…

Really, I’m just posting to make sure you see AlCantHang’s recent classic line:

“And of course I’ll continue to play the 5 player SnG’s where 3 people get paid. It’s almost like the Special Olympics where everyone gets a trophy.”

Breaking Even

Tue, 04 Jan 2005 05:48:17 +0000

I had my first significant winning session in B&M at a 2/4 table at the Borgata on New Years Eve. With my showing there, I have now basically broken even after the terrible start to my poker playing in Vegas during August. Aside from this playing in AC, I made it up entirely in .5/1.

Not only was dropping down in stakes important from a bankroll perspective, but it probably helped mentally, too. Somewhat paradoxically, it minimized the gravity of my mistakes, without really diminishing my ability to learn from them. I feel like playing so many thousand hands at this level online has really helped my game, though it’s still nice to be able to go have some fun with friends in brick and mortar at slightly higher limits.

And how great is it to play with random strangers on a night like New Years EVe. My table persona is somewhere around happy-go-lucky and total moron. It seems to play rather well with just about anyone - they end up laughing with me or hating me, either way it can lead them to bleed away some chips. But, for the most part, this is insignificant - it’s all about the fish. The guy who plays his hands in the dark. The old guy who doesn’t know how to play but keeps pulling out hundreds. The guy who calls down with any ace. God bless them.

Of course, I still find myself making mistakes. Less than before, and less egregious ones, but mistakes nonetheless - playing too aggressively in small pots and making calls with draws in pots that weren’t quite big enough. Indeed, afterwards, I found myself going back over Miller’s book and finding examples that precisely matched hands I had played and clearly explained the ways in which I played it wrong. For instance, I came in from BB with T3o, board was QJ9 rainbow, with 7 players, checked to mid-position where it’s bet, called around, I figure the pot is big enough that it’s appropriate to call here. I think Miller’s example on p. 141 basically agrees here because the pot is so big, but the turn call was wrong. With everyone still calling, there’s too much of a chance that even if I hit my straight, I’ll just be splitting. Moreover, I could be beat by a higher straight, and, though the board was still a rainbow on 4th street, it also paired the board, giving another way for me to lose.

One thing I did better was pushing my big draws. For instance, I came in from late position with A4s, around 6 players i think. Flop comes 53X, with two hearts. A bet from EP and three callers, I am last to act and raise. Miller describes a hand quite like this on p. 143: “You have twelve outs to a straight or flush and three more to top pair. However, your ace outs are vulnerable to anyone else hanging around with a bigger ace, so if the pot is large you should try to induce any such player to fold (while building the pot that you will often win).” The card on turn was not that scary, so I decided not to take a free card, knocked two out with two remaining.

Then, I made an impatient mistake, betting the river when I didn’t hit but sensed weakness - I’d seen these two players in particular call down with essentially nothing, but really, who was I kidding? - I wasn’t going to win this pot with ace high. It was just one of those situations where I just unthinkingly threw chips in there, betting on the miniscule chance that they were on draws too and would fold - I should know better than to do such silly things.

Luckily, this is the only time I remember doing such a bonehead mistake in a long time. Nevertheless, in both online play and b&m, I do find myself sometimes making a play too quickly, and that causes mistakes. In b&m play, though, it’s more likely to be out of frustration, though I’m pretty good with that aspect of my game. In any case, I need to focus on slowing down and being more patient with tricky decisions, particularly in medium-to-large pots.

In general, I feel like I’ve improved a ton since my Vegas play. My losses weren’t all due to variance, nor am I playing mistake free now, but I feel like this upswing isn’t just plain luck either. I’m getting better, slowly but surely.

New Years in Atlantic City

Wed, 29 Dec 2004 03:28:34 +0000

Time for some live action: my bro, his wife, and I are heading down to AC for New Years Eve to play poker at the Borgata. Hm, Sir will be around there Wed, AlCantHang will be there Wednesday - what about Friday? Anyone else?

Short Report Post-DECBONUS

Tue, 28 Dec 2004 03:26:54 +0000

The Party Poker bonus was a perfect way to launch my winter un-break (at Harvard, we have fall semester finals after a two week “vacation” - ugh). At the end of the 1400 raked hands, I was up about 110 BB at .5/1. Not AMAZING, but not too shabby either. This session, along with the 140 I made in profit playing off and on over the last several months, are nice signs that I am becoming a profitable player, if not yet a crushing player, and that the early losses I took in Vegas can at least in part be attributed to variance.

The more I play, the more I come back to the same problems, though. I feel like I move back and forth in a spectrum of weaknesses. For instance, I started off by betting the river too much and getting raised/check-raised. Then got too weak, folding in big pots on the flop and river when I should have stayed in. The latter mistake is easier to recognize and rid myself of quickly, which is good since it’s generally the bigger mistake. But, if not paid attention to, the former mistake can add up over time.

Over time, I feel like I’m slowly making my way to the middle of the spectrum. That is, each time I swing from too weak to too aggressive, I hope I’m not just ending up at the extremes and am instead making my way to the optimum.

Two other complex situations have also been problematic. First, how do you play AK or AQ when you miss the flop after raising? You have to consider how many players are in, whether you might be able to knock anyone out, what the board looks like, whether hitting your pair will be worth it, your back door draws, etc. I feel like, right now, I’m basically following up my raise with a bet every time (though less often when there’s a bet into me though), and that’s too aggressive. Here, if the pot is big and there are several in, counting on knocking anyone out isn’t possible. But you still might want to bet to hide your A/K/Q if it comes on the turn, since the bet on the flop might signal that you don’t have a pocket pair, and waking up when the A/K/Q will give away your hand.

Second, how about playing top pair weak kicker (particularly K or A pair) in heads-up v. multiway? For example, I have A2s, limp from the cutoff, 5 players. Flop comes with two clubs and a diamond, misses me entirely, but gets checked around. Turn comes with the Aces of clubs, check, check, bet, and call into me. It’s a small to medium sized pot, they could have flush, but they could just be bluffing on the ace, or assuming that their second pair is best. Here’s a variant on that situation: same but I have top pair with a T holding JT. Heads-up these situations can be very different, but the more players you add to the mix, the worse it gets for the top pair. Diffentiating between when the pot is too small to call can be tricky.

What’s great is that every time I run into one of these situations or make a clear mistake, I remember: Ed Miller has something to say about this. If you haven’t done so already, buy this book. Recently, when I made a horrible fold in a large pot on the river, and I immediately sat down and read ”Playing the River When the Pot is Big.” I’ve slipped back to too aggressive again, but I feel like I’m overall in better shape. I really must go back and reread this whole book.