$33 Million In Poker Winnings Seized By US Govt 465
An anonymous reader writes "A New York Times story reports that, 'Opening a new front in the government's battle against Internet gambling, federal prosecutors have asked four American banks to freeze tens of millions of dollars in payments owed to people who play poker online. ... "It's very aggressive, and I think it's a gamble on the part of the prosecutors," Mr. Rose said. He added that it was not clear what law would cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players, as opposed to the money of the companies involved.' Many players are reporting that their cashout checks have bounced."
Lame Gov (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you have more important things to be thinking about than `internet poker`?
Like an economy on the rocks?
or maybe nearly 10% of the folks in this nation who have no source of income?
Honestly, I'll never understand who goes through our governments minds... they do nothing but waste time, thus waste money... and people wonder why this nation is on the verge of collapse...
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no more important government function that getting their hands on someone else's money.
Brett
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. Change we can believe in. It's disgusting, now the government is robbing people of gaming winnings. They have nothing better to do, than make sure it's citizens are taxed and robbed to death. I guess they forgot how America was "discovered" in the first place... to escape an oppressive and over size government that is at it's heart, was hypocritical, much like today. We have tax cheats and frauds in financial institutions running this country. It's just sickening. The uprising is coming, and
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that the politicians forgot this. It's that the American population did.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you addressing me? Where did I differentially bash anyone?
Brett
Re:Lame Gov (Score:4, Informative)
Since when is "But the Republicans were doing it to!" a defense of the Democratic party? If anything, they should be doing absolutely nothing the Republicans were doing, but unfortunately we're just getting more of the same."
Well, let's see....the Republicans started it...so we shouldn't bitch about it when the Dems do it??
Geez, after only a few months into the new admin, they seem to be willing and anxious to run roughshod over more of the constitution than the previous admin, of whom I was angry at too. I mean, the current ones don't even make the pretense to care about the consitution or rule of law. The latest instance in the Chrysler and soon to be GM 'bankruptcy' cases...where they bypassed the laws that have been in place for hundreds of years of who should be paid off first. They screwed over the bond holders, and in lieu of paying them off first like they should they handed the company over to the Unions, that didn't have secured claims to monies....
And from the article:
" He added that it was not clear what law would cover the seizure of money belonging to poker players, "
IF they're easy to throw away the laws regulating contracts and investmens in the US, what makes you think they have any reservations about taking any monies from individual citizens. Hell, what scares me...this is just the start.
Apparently laws mean nothing anymore to the govt....it is a huge power and money grab, and we're just pawns in the game.
I'm afraid America as we knew it, is going away fast...and by the time the general populace notices it....will be too late to turn it around.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, let's see....the Republicans started it...so we shouldn't bitch about it when the Dems do it??
Maybe this guy was right.
20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
-George Washington's Farewell Address, paragraph 20-25
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Funny)
The government is a jealous lover.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Funny)
The government hates competition.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's like kicking someone trying to commit suicide in the shin.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Interesting)
Dude, this is just change you can believe in.
Seriously, the thought of winning is what drives most gamblers who are out of control. Almost everyone I know who does online gambling says they do it "to win" and not for "entertainment" or "to pass the time". Of course I know a lot of people who will brag about spending $200 to win $50 and think they are getting somewhere. It's like another guy I know who used to spend his entire paycheck on instant lottery tickets. He would toss $400-500 to the state and average about $300 in winnings. Every once in a while, he would win big but I think he still broke even in the long run. If there is no collecting of the winnings, then a lot of the gamblers move on or stop.
Think of it like removing all the food and furniture in the house to get your in laws (or grown kids) to move to somewhere else. As long as they're happy they will stay forever, but as soon as they get uncomfortable, they hightail it to somewhere else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody is suggesting stopping gambling, just non-state sponsored gambling where taxes aren't being paid. All your moralizing about gambling is totally irrelevant here because the US Gov would be really happy if the addicts would ruin their lives in approved casinos.
It's absolute theft to take this money. It belonged to one person, he gave it to another, they gave some back. Now the government decides that like the "house" in a crooked casino we can't leave, we owe a percentage of each transaction to them. F
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is the government ruining drug users' lives by arresting them and leaving them with criminal records?
The point of drug laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's obvious that the government itself would see increased revenue by regulating marijuana. We'd save a lot of money not trying and imprisoning people, who would then continue to contribute to the economy, paying the taxes we all do, AND a considerable excise tax on their government approved marijuana.
The problem is that legislators don't do what's in the governments best interest, but what's in their own best interest. As long as the pharmaceutical industry, and the alcohol/tobacco industry keep getting
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'+5, Insightful'? Really?
Care to propose a government that can function without taxation? The Nobel Prize committee would love to hear about it.
If the government is unable to enforce its laws (tax evasion being among those laws), it becomes completely ineffective. Many consider the ability to systematically and consistently collect a tax to be one of the cornerstones of a stable government. The fact that the economy is fux0red has absolutely nothing to do with the government's enforcement of the tax cod
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you put a proposition to the vote that would eliminate all taxes and double all government services, I bet that a freakishly large number of people would vote for it. Much of the /. membership takes no responsibility for governmental actions--they're just passive whiners.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. While speeds below the speed limit may still be considered unsafe and attract a summons, any speed over the posted limit is prima facie evidence of unreasonable speed and is illegal on that basis alone.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:4, Insightful)
a pay-per-use government with only one tax mandatory (for defense)
So why is defense the special case in this pay-as-you-go libertopia? Why can't we all just defend our own homes and communities, as the Framers intended? ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...") Once you admit that one particular function is too big a problem for individuals to handle on their own, you pretty much open the door to all the others.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like the 1880s, right? Sure, you can live free if you're the upper crust. Otherwise, your life will be nasty, brutish, and short, and spent toiling away and never seeing more of your proceeds than you need to stay alive, barely.
Please elaborate. With the decline of government comes the decline of patents, therefore medicine would be cheaper than ever before and would only be limited by the materials needed to manufacture it. And how won't you see any more of your proceeds? Today we can import almost anything we need for cheap, with the sharp reduction in tariffs expected with a decline in government, goods become cheaper.
This isn't a nightmare scenario. It actually happened. It was called the Gilded Age, and we should be glad it ended. Why do extreme libertarians like you consistently deny the logical implications of your policies?
Again, elaborate, the Gilded Age was plagued with lack of information, government policies (such as giving land away to the railroad companies), a lack of a global economy to export to and import from and a lack of (today) basic technology. Suffice to say that the Gilded Age could not be recreated with A) A weaker government and B) 21st century technology/world economy.
I can't eat a Youtube video. How do you think all the thousands of people who are paid to create internet content get paid? With currency only good on the internet? The Internet isn't some isolated bubble divorced from the real economy. It's enmeshed quite heavily: people order real, hard goods through it, put real capital derived from conventional industry into it, and spend the real money generated from it on tangible products.
Your point holds true to a point, but look at Google, their entire business is intangible and works on choice. Plus even though there are thousands getting paid for internet content there are untold millions making no profit whatsoever on internet content. If you don't believe me simply look at your post, you posted a comment with a 0% chance that you could use that comment to make a profit.
The internet though is different than the traditional government controlled economy because you have absolute freedom of choice. Where in the USA you are penalized for choosing a provider in a certain area (either by taxes or by tariffs) it makes no difference where the site is you are accessing on the internet. If I want to go to www.nicovideo.jp rather than YouTube for my online video, that makes no difference. Whereas if I choose to get a Japanese car rather than an American car I would be paying more to the government for doing absolutely nothing.
I suppose I'm dealing with a true believer here. Of course there's a recession "in the internet": it makes as much sense to say "no recession in the internet" as it does to say "no recession on the telephone network".
The difference is there are entire industries not based off the network of the internet but rather the internet as a whole. The phone network functions, well, as a phone network. Other than perhaps a few phone-based services, there is no business using the phone system to really function like Google has for the internet. Then there is the internet community, the phone network has no real community.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who don't remember history are doomed to buy Dr. Brush's Magic Tonsil Tonic.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Insightful)
Please elaborate. With the decline of government comes the decline of patents, therefore medicine would be cheaper than ever before and would only be limited by the materials needed to manufacture it. And how won't you see any more of your proceeds? Today we can import almost anything we need for cheap, with the sharp reduction in tariffs expected with a decline in government, goods become cheaper.
And where is the incentive to create new medications? I, for one, am awaiting for the creation of a few new medical treatments [a pill, say, to replace the three times a week injections I have to give myself; or a cure, perhaps to the underlying condition, not that it's in the pharmaceutical companies interest to actually cure anything ]. The value of something is not simply the material costs. Research costs time and money, that cost has to be a) recouped, and b) incentivized. While I'm a huge proponent of the open-source, work on what you believe in, approach to development, it's not enough. There are not enough independently wealthy, selfless, do-gooders [in the best sense of the word] in the world to rely on for advancement in technologies.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes the government is just one big agency that only does one thing at a time~
The nation is on the verge of collapse(it's actually not) due to libertarian shifts in the banking industry.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Informative)
Libertarian shift in the banking industry o_O ?
The libertarians have been the most rabid opponent of the banking system for decades. The banking system is basically a franchise system by the state controlled central bank. The most important factor in banking, the short term interest rate is set by a group of technocrats and politicians, much like the gosplan. Banking is the least libertarian sector in the economy, it is a pillar of the government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Libertarian and banking do not, and most likely never will be, associated in the same sentence.
Go look at the Federal Reserve. How fucked would they be if we subjected them to a standard audit?
THERE lies your answer. The government is the problem. Bye, libertarians, bye democrats, bye greens, bye republicans - you're all at fault.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Go look at the Federal Reserve. How fucked would they be if we subjected them to a standard audit?
Probably not fucked at all. You don't know much about audits. The Fed probably has scrupulously kept books, which accurately record the amount of funds that they are adding to the money supply. You're confusing auditability with fiscal prudence. Audits don't purport to measure whether a business or organization is healthy or behaving wisely. They attest as to whether the books are kept accurately with rega
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, let's see, you seem to be thinking the Government is one monolithic entity, that can only process one thing at a time. In reality, it's multi-taking, multi-processing, and otherwise engaged in doing a lot of things at once. More than likely, none of the people involved in this situation have anything to do with the economy in any meaningful decision-making way. Their concern is elsewhere.
So yeah, you're just making a joke, but it's not funny, because it's simply not true. Don't go on the White-C
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So in your world, nothing not urgent should be worked on? I take it you're not a fan of preventative maintenance then.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Honestly, I'll never understand who goes through our governments minds...
The last person to go through my mind was Jessica Biel...maybe it's the same for them.
Re:Lame Gov (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, the best part of the joke is that these people are still liable for taxes on these winnings. You don't escape tax liability on illegal earnings just because the government snagged the cash. Cf. Al Capone.
Arrest the prosecutor (Score:5, Funny)
The prosecution should be brought up on illegal gambling charges.
Re: (Score:2)
Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this you are right and this is all setting up the future, specifically the regulation of online gambling and taxation of it. These are not easy topics considering no country owns it. But you better believe Uncle Sam wants his cut. IMO that's what this is about. That and the lobbying efforts of various casino industry groups and both right and left leaning anti-gambling groups. One hates gambling because Jesus would hate it. The other hates gambling because it provides pleasure, and leftists hate any
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who Trusts Online Gambling Anyways? (Score:5, Informative)
I work on one of the largest wagering sites in Australia, and a lot of thought and effort is put in to protect the sites against money laundering and other nefarious uses.
Our site is heavily regulated and audited by the Australian state governments, and our system already supports geographic distribution of taxes, based on the location of the account holder. The location of the account holder is verifiable, because we require a 100 point ID check to fully activate an account.
Through proper regulation, and well built systems, issues such as "who gets the tax" and "how can the site be trusted" are solvable, and have already been solved in many countries.
Wont work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think we'll do our best to hassle foreign banks into compliance?
Re:Wont work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments, however, do. And are able to monitor such activity. Having your house seized as 'proceeds of illegal activity' is something that would very utterly negate the benefit of using offshore banks.
Saw it Coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I wondered why this hadn't happen sooner.
Now, instead of the people taking a risk of getting cheated out of their money, they 100% did get cheated out of their money.
The companies should be allowed to pay-out what has already been accumulated, but no more after that. There's no guarantee whatsoever that the gamblers themselves weren't going to pay taxes on the money that they won.
Re: (Score:2)
Guilty until proven innocent?
And why the fuck should they have to any more than they should pay money to Tony Soprano?
Let's push poker underground too! (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like a great idea to me to push poker off of a safe online format and into illegal and sometimes dangerous poker rooms. Sure many people will choose not to gamble - but what exactly is the cost in lives that justifies that?
I play on FullTiltPoker all the time. It's safe and I can play for literally as little as 10 cents for a full tournament. How is that worse than having some of the same people venture into big games that aren't legal, they can't afford? You think gambling is a problem? Wait until those same people with gambling problems get in front of a loan shark, or shot because they can't pay.
Great move.
Re:Let's push poker underground too! (Score:4, Insightful)
So, prior to the 'net, how many people were shot in the D.C. area per annum because they couldn't pay?
Re:Let's push poker underground too! (Score:4, Interesting)
DC used to have the highest gun violence and murder rates in the country. The decline does seem to have some correlation with the widespread-ed-ness of the internet...
Laws, schmores (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, you're missing the big picture...
Since the laws against internet gambling are themselves illegal [slashdot.org], it's important to put the casinos out of business so that they can't keep on embarrassing the government and claiming compensation year on year.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Laws, schmores (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
'Cause THIS is clearly the highest priority (Score:2)
I've got a great idea. How about the government makes a list of the most important issues facing the United States today. Hell, I'll even be happy to let the party in power at the moment dictate the order of this list.
Where do you all think internet poker falls on that list? Is it even in the top thousand?!?!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's pretty high on some of the special-interest-groups' lists [ncalg.org].
The number of anti-gaming [cagnyinf.org] groups is obscene.
And apparently their voices are heard louder than most.
Also, they have a lot of ammunition to use against "online poker" sites, partly because politicans can easily be made suspicious of online services...
There are lots of negative connotations about "online gambling" sites
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just splendid... (Score:5, Interesting)
I happen to be a better than average poker player. Just today, I played in the $60 Freezeout at a local casino (died pushing an 18 outer), came home, played some low-limit NLHE and Omaha H/L PL on PokerStars and Full Tilt.
Joined the PPA - Poker Players Alliance - when it formed and hoped the UIGEA would get some attention. Well, not the way we hoped!
Since I make the vast majority of my poker money from live games in brick and mortar casinos, this newest stupidity doesn't hurt my bankroll directly. It does however, limit what I use online poker for...practice. I can play 4-6 tables at one time online, so I can see many, many more hands per hour than live at a single table.
I do own poker simulation software, so I can use that for a similar purpose. The issue is that the software AI is nothing like a human opponent.
I don't know the numbers the PPA is telling Congress, but I recall reading that if internet poker were taxed, the annual nut was over $10 billion. That's not small change.
This is a prime example of solving a problem that doesn't exist in the most ignorant way possible. Give me a freaking break.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I make a LOT more now playing full time than I did working as a software engineer. I would not say I am a great player but I am a sh!tload better than average. Yes everyone gets an equal distribution of the same cards and same situations. It is the ones who have a higher understanding of the underlying statistical probabilities of those situations that will profit from the ones who don't. The University of Alberta has an entire team devoted to trying to solve poker. The best bot they could produce can
This should be interesting (Score:3)
It will be fun to see how American conservatives respond to this, seeing how they balance their desire to purge us of our moral evils with the desire to scream that Obama is a communist for seizing people's hard-earned property.
US v. $124,700 (Score:3, Informative)
They probably sued the money first.
US v $124,700
Civil forfeiture is nothing more than an end run around the 4th and 14th amendments.
Besides, if money can be sued by the government, and thus deprived of its liberty, doesn't the money have the right to legal counsel?
What about the money's right to 5th amendment protection against self incrimination? ...need I go on?
Re:US v. $124,700 (Score:4, Informative)
The owner of the property still maintains Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizure. Seizing illegally obtained property is not unreasonable, and thus the Fourth Amendment isn't violated.
Also, you might want to reread the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments; the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination do not apply in civil trials. Further, the Fifth Amendment attaches only to persons, and the Seventh Amendment applies only to suits under the common law, which does not include the statutory basis of civil forfeiture of illegally obtained assets.
Sure, there are problems with civil forfeiture, but if you want to oppose the practice, it'd be helpful if you had even an inkling of an idea what the hell you were talking about.
Re:US v. $124,700 (Score:5, Insightful)
Your morals already have a poor reflection. You've spent your time going over the pedantics of civil vs criminal and spouting latin terms that you've completely set aside the fact that peoples property is being taken from them, by force, without fair trial or just compensation.
I don't care if they're drug dealers. I really don't. I don't care if they're murdering peodophile terrorists. A court should not be able to take away their property with proving that it was ill gotten. Currently, the owners have to prove it wasn't, if they even get a chance to do that.
What's the logic behind this? To win the War on Drugs? Boo hoo. I'm a teetotaler and I don't give a flying fig whether people get high on alcohol, cannabis, cocaine or heroin. It's all the one to me. But so are all defendants. I don't care how evil anyone thinks they are. Justice for all means justice for all, not for people you think deserve it.
Will the WTO give Antigua and Barbuda 33M more now (Score:2)
Will the WTO give Antigua and Barbuda 33M more.
Will us gov be able to hit a over seas bank that you have money at?>
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're playing with a real deck, at a real casino.
Who knows whats in the virtual deck you're playing with?
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:5, Informative)
If you're playing with a real deck, at a real casino. Who knows whats in the virtual deck you're playing with?
Doesn't matter. Your opponents are still other players. Someone always wins every hand - the house never "wins". The house just takes a rake out of every pot.
Now, you could theorize that the house occasionally might grab more rake than it is due, but that would be easy to determine. The only other means of obvious fraud would be for the house to create a 'shill' player.
Your real fear should be collusion between multiple accounts created by the same person or a group of people acting together. That happens all the time.
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:5, Insightful)
Employees on the other hand have been caught scamming, I remember a while back that an employee was fixing games by revealing the opponents hands to his friends. That went on for a while until the house took notice of the unusual winning streak and figured out what was going on.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, I think that case was detected by outsiders who noticed a statistical anomaly when analyzing the performance of the top players on the site in question. It only happened because there was enough publicly available data to spot something suspicious.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't matter. Your opponents are still other players. Someone always wins every hand - the house never "wins". The house just takes a rake out of every pot.
I used to work as a programmer in a large Nevada casino.
The house regularly hires "shills" with good poker playing skills to sit at the table. The shills get a salary and the casino gets their winnings. That is how the house increases it's take
I see no reason why online casinos would not do the same thing.
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:5, Informative)
I used to work as a programmer in a large Nevada casino.
The house regularly hires "shills" with good poker playing skills to sit at the table. The shills get a salary and the casino gets their winnings. That is how the house increases it's take
I see no reason why online casinos would not do the same thing.
You are just wrong about this. First, when the poker room hires someone to play to fill tables they are called props, not shills. Anyone familiar with poker would know this. Second, props are paid a small salary from the casino and play with their own money. They keep their winnings and eat their losses. Props have to start games and have to get up when the table is full so that a customer can sit.
The use of props is controlled by the state gaming commissions. You can always ask the dealer if their is a prop at the table.
Some on line poker rooms use props. I know some of the props and can tell you they play with their own money, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When I played on Party Poker they used to give a prop offer about once a week. "Play at this table for $x/hour". You played with your own money, and the payment wouldn't even cover the blinds. It was an incentive to get more people to the table, not to increase their own take (the rake is always limited).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
shills is the common name in Nevada for anyone who fills a spot at a table.
"Second, props are paid a small salary from the casino and play with their own money."
Yes, but SHILLS bet payed and play with casino money.
"..when the table is full so that a customer can sit."
Shills may or may not depending on the skill of the players.
"The use of props is controlled by the state gaming commissions. You can always ask the dealer if their is a prop at the table."
Same with shills. In fact there has to be a clean sign i
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this insightful? This makes no sense. Do you understand the rules of poker? There is no house, hence there can be no house odds. The house does not play in the hand, any hand. It gets no simpler than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about?
You are not playing against the house - therefore THERE IS NO HOUSE ODDS. It is totally irrelevant if the dec is real or virtual - both real and online casinos make a fixed percentage of money based on the size of the pot - they don't care at all who walks away with it.
Re: (Score:2)
But they'd prefer big pots to small pots.
So action flops are better for the house.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no house odds in poker.
Sure there is. There is a 100% chance the house will take a rake. Those are pretty favorable odds if you ask me.
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:5, Insightful)
It's poker, you're not playing against the house. There's no reason to skew the odds.
(Before somebody else says it, yeah, they could try to generate "action" hands to increase the rake. They could make weaker hands win more often to keep the fish around. This is a much harder thing to do undetectably than have the house win 10% more often in blackjack... with all the software available to keep track of and analyze all hands played, it's easy to spot any irregularities in randomness. I doubt that it's worth the effort to try to develop an undetectable skew in probabilities... Not to mention that if you screw up and get detected, your gold mine will be deserted the next day).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's poker, you're not playing against the house. There's no reason to skew the odds.
For all one knows, one could very well be playing against the house. Any guarantee that one or more of the other players aren't automated agents there to pull in winnings for the casino?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering they can't even prevent former employees from doing it, I'd say yeah, you're right. (Google NioNio if you don't know the story.)
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike homeowner's insurance, where you ARE playing against the house. Or car insurance. Or the state lottery. Or mutual funds. Or health insurance.
We manage risk all the time, and happily pay people for the privilege. I've never understood why poker got such a bad rep.
Re: (Score:2)
People gets a bad wrap because it's both misundedrstood, as we see in examples above, and the history of the game is dubious in general. That's not today's modern poker operation, but it does have the historical image of an "outlaw" game that is hard to shake.
All Gambling is risk management. That same risk management pervades our lives, we just don't recognize it.
Myself, I got half a million hands at 100NL that say online poker is worth the risk. But freezing accounts? Yikes. I don't like to take that kind
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:5, Funny)
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Nor the latency. And in some tragic cases, the packet loss.
Re: (Score:3)
As an online and real life poker player I can safely say that the cards that are dealt in most online poker sites are certainly not "random".
If you don't want to research this yourself, there are certainly many others online that have done it. The cards are, in fact, random. It is indeed poker as we know it.
You simply play a lot more hands online, and therefore see a lot more happen. The 4-1 odds might seem huge when you play 10-15 hands per hour in real life, but when you're playing 200/hr in a 4-table ses
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:5, Informative)
The persistence of these myths is quite remarkable, and may have something to do with the current legal situation.
As others have pointed out, poker is not a game which is skewed in the house's favor. The house takes a percentage of every pot, called the rake. In poker players play against one another, and while there is a chance element, chance does not favor anyone in the long run. In the long run, the difference in earnings between two players can be attributed to the choices they make. That is why poker is considered a game of skill and many governments have recognized this distinction. Poker is legal in California, for example, because the courts have ruled it to be a game of skill.
What is especially silly about this new legal move is that it rests on very shaky legal ground. The prosecutor has cited the Wire Act [wikipedia.org], but federal courts have already ruled that the wire act only applies to sports betting. It's also strange timing since the UIGEA which attempts to prevent gambling-related money transfers is scheduled to begin being enforced later this year.
As to the fairness of the games, that could only be ensured and improved with proper regulation. Hopefully the attention brought to this situation by this case will ultimately result in the legality of online poker being clarified. Barney Frank has introduced a bill to legalize and regulate online poker. If this is an issue you support, I urge you to let your congressperson know [capwiz.com].
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
In traditional poker, yes. Where none of the players see each other, one could be playing for the house; wouldn't they rather make the entire pot rather than a small percentage of it?
Or, you could just rely on the honesty of a fly-by-n
Re: (Score:2)
Cheating is another issue, and it's true the we need better regulations on this -- which is part of the reason the law should be changed or clarified. That said, what has kept things above water so far (with a few notable exceptions like the scandal at Absolute Poker) is that the money these sites make from rake is
Re:Another reason not to gamble online (Score:5, Informative)
Ah yes, th fly-by-night internet companies that are listed on the London stock exchange like Party Poker and Poker Stars.
Re: (Score:2)
And because you can see the guy across the table at the casino means he can't be playing for the house?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you care who another player is playing for? Unless that player's contributions to the pot are not honored when you win, what difference does it make where his money comes from? What difference does it make where the money you throw in the pot goes, if it isn't going to you after you lose?
If the dealer can be made to unfairly favor the house's agents, then you should care. But I'm fairly confident that such behavior would be discovered. I say this because players of video games have determined detaile
These comments are just stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading through this it is amazing the ignorance shown in a lot of the comments.
To elaborate - I will come out and say it. I play poker professionally online. Mid stakes limit hold em to be precise. Firstly, I have been paid in full every time I have made a withdrawal. There are PokerStars offices (yes, real offices, with people working in them) in many countries around the world. I have bought many items, including cash bonuses, through the site store. I have received every single one (including the cash) in a timely manner and have not once had an issue. International freight is via DHL and usually arrives within a week (with no charge on shipping to me). The statement that you will not get paid just shows pure ignorance of the subject. I am sure there are some dodgy sites out there, but there are many dodgy sites out there in other activities too. I suppose you should never buy anything off a site because there are some dodgy sites?
As for fair or not, let me continue...
You can purchase quite sophisticated statistical analysis software for poker. Most (possibly all) professional and serious amateur players use it. It will break down every single part of all the games you have played and you can pull numbers on almost any conceivable situation you have ever been in to find flaws in your game ("leaks" in poker jargon). The data is stored in a PostgreSQL database for you to access if you care to write your own front end. This software stores every single hand I have ever played in. Included is analysis that shows if you are running "lucky" - you can prove mathematically if you have been "lucky" or "unlucky" with how the cards have come out - that is - if your results are skewed due to the cards being dealt giving you statistically more or less wins than you should have on average. There are some VERY smart guys playing (as one would imagine with the money that is at stake) including pros who have post grads in statistics, finance etc. I personally studied electrical engineering and am currently doing some stats study on my own to improve my game and move my play towards the holy grail that is Game Theory Optimal (which may not even exist in multi-handed poker due to incomplete information). These guys are not some country yokels who have no idea if they are being duped or not.
As for bots...
Firstly, I invite you to put your money where your mouth is, get a bot and play some mid stakes or higher multi-way poker (6-max or full ring). Your bot will be crushed. Period. Yes I know about Polaris (the University of Alberta bot which can match it with the best heads up limit players in the world). A few points to note. This is for heads up limit - more players than 2 and the game becomes exponentially more difficult for a bot to play. Bots are not all conquering in the poker world as some assume, a good player will crush almost any bot. Unlike other games poker is a loooooong way from being solved (if it can be). As for collusion, this happens unfortunately from time to time (as it does in a real casino) but there are protection mechanisms in place against it. Firstly, the sites employ poker and statistical specialists who have no other job than to keep the games honest. You can see if someone is playing statistically better than they should. Added to that, as a professional player many can quite easily spot when people are colluding on the table. If someone is caught cheating they have their entire playing account funds frozen and anybody who has played against them has their money refunded.
I have played pro live and online. I play online as I can get multiples more hands per hour against weak player in than I can in a live game. Also the rake is a small fraction of what I pay live. The only ones who say "omgz online is rigged" either have no idea what they are talking about, or are players who just suck at poker and instead of working on their game find something else to blame for why they always lose.
Plenty more to say but that will do for now...
Re:that's what you get for breaking the law (Score:4, Informative)
in poker anyways, the house makes its money on the rake. which is, each pot it gets a small percentage (usually this is capped at a few dollars). So the house has every reason to make sure it's cards are random, as people will perform statistical analysis on the cards dealt, and it makes no difference in terms of how much money they make. They want you to play more/bigger hands. So in poker, you're not really competing against the house, just other players and to make money you need to be better than the other players by percentage of the rake.
Re:that's what you get for breaking the law (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that, but it's online. You know you are playing against real people how? you know the computer isn't feeding you a 'good' hand and someone else a better hand? how do you know the computer doesn't change the hands you can't see dependant on the pot?
You can't. And since they are over seas without regulation you have no way of knowing.
SO you get the normal house pot, AND the winning from some other player.
It's a trivial scam. Considering the history of gambling houses, and shady people who use the internet it's a risk.
I wrote a poker software package that did all that for SnGs in 99.
Trivial.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, what? You wrote a software package that did what? Explain this please.
Re:that's what you get for breaking the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Most online gambling might be an outright lie. But in the case of online poker, the house took a rake, just like in the real casino. In fact, I managed to even cash out a few winnings before I lost interest, and then it became illegal. It was *possible* for the online casino to have a ringer that got stacked decks... But I seriously doubt that any of the mainstream sites would use that tactic especially since there was:
1) A metric F ton of competition from other casinos.
2) The cash they raked anyway was pretty darn good.
3) No risk on their part... They just needed to provide a service.
I was absolutely shocked that all online gambling was banned... until I saw that casinos and racetracks were the primary fund^H^H^H^H beneficiaries of the law. But IIRC the real selling point was that it was treated as unreported income for most of the users. That translated directly to lost tax receipts. I personally thought that the govt could have worked with the sites to find a way to slice off some of the winnings, or to get the sites to properly report losses and gains of the members. I'll assume that the reason they didn't was because the sites were mostly offshore.
Re:Ready...Set.... (Score:4, Informative)
There's no revenue here, the money was frozen, not seized (despite what the summary says).
Never attribute to malice what can more easily be attributed to stupidity.