Saturday, July 29, 2006
And Now the Main Event
There will be at least 8,532 participants. A friend of mine got 3-1 that there would be over 8,000 people. Nice bet!
My horse doesn't race until Monday. C'mon Joe, the kids would really like to go to college some day! :)
-----
Here's a brutal hand from day 1a courtesy of pokerwire.
Jack Mahalingham 8
8
Opponent 55
The board came 655
97, and Mahalingham's opponent flopped quad fives -- only to lose to a straight flush on the river.
My horse doesn't race until Monday. C'mon Joe, the kids would really like to go to college some day! :)
-----
Here's a brutal hand from day 1a courtesy of pokerwire.
Jack Mahalingham's Straight Flush Kills Quads
No Limit Hold'em Main Event
Jul 28, 2006 / 21:48:15 EDT
Jack Mahalingham moved all in for 5K, and another player called. They showed:Jack Mahalingham 8
8Opponent 5
5The board came 6
5597, and Mahalingham's opponent flopped quad fives -- only to lose to a straight flush on the river.Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Internet Gambling: The Latest
Nothing earth shattering, but here is where we stand.
Lou Krieger reports that internet gambling was not one of the priorities mentioned by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) during a Tuesday meeting with reporters.
Iggy follows with the same news later mentioned by two Republican aides.
So what does this all mean? Basically the Republican leadership in the Senate does not consider internet gambling a critical issue to the November elections. The general U.S. public doesn't care about this issue. In a normal year this would be bad for gamblers since there is really no reason not to pass the ban. However, the state of the Iraq war and the Republican's refusal to reign in spending during the last six years have left many normal GoP supporters (myself included) disenfranchised. The Republican controlled congress is under siege and the Senate leadership knows they need to focus on issues that can win votes. A ban on internet gambling is unlikely to win them additional votes.
Why?
The key supporters of this legislation are the self-proclaimed Pro Family groups. These groups are sometimes characterized as the Religious Right, but that's way too broad a generalization.
"generalization about broads?"
The thing is the Republicans don't need the Pro Family vote because they already have it. They need to be careful not to piss them off since they are a key and vocal part of the Republican base, but they don't need anything else to get their Nov. 06 vote.
As I mentioned before, in a normal year (2007?) the Republicans would pass this just because they could. Right now they have more pressing issues.
Does This Mean We're Out of the Woods?
Probably for 2006 we are. Expect to see continued rhetoric on this issue though. Bill Frist simply can't blow off this bill's supporters and needs to give them excuses why they can't pass the bill now. From a political standpoint the Pro Family groups understand they are better served with a Republican congress and might be willing to let this issue slide, for now, if it will help will the Nov. 06 elections.
The risk is that the Pro Family groups will demand the bill's passage this year. It really won't take much effort to get it through the Senate. And they understand the concept of making hay while the sun shines. The only real negative for Senate Republicans is the loss of time.
For now we just have to wait. Remember to contact your senator.
Lou Krieger reports that internet gambling was not one of the priorities mentioned by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) during a Tuesday meeting with reporters.
Iggy follows with the same news later mentioned by two Republican aides.
So what does this all mean? Basically the Republican leadership in the Senate does not consider internet gambling a critical issue to the November elections. The general U.S. public doesn't care about this issue. In a normal year this would be bad for gamblers since there is really no reason not to pass the ban. However, the state of the Iraq war and the Republican's refusal to reign in spending during the last six years have left many normal GoP supporters (myself included) disenfranchised. The Republican controlled congress is under siege and the Senate leadership knows they need to focus on issues that can win votes. A ban on internet gambling is unlikely to win them additional votes.
Why?
The key supporters of this legislation are the self-proclaimed Pro Family groups. These groups are sometimes characterized as the Religious Right, but that's way too broad a generalization.
"generalization about broads?"
The thing is the Republicans don't need the Pro Family vote because they already have it. They need to be careful not to piss them off since they are a key and vocal part of the Republican base, but they don't need anything else to get their Nov. 06 vote.
As I mentioned before, in a normal year (2007?) the Republicans would pass this just because they could. Right now they have more pressing issues.
Does This Mean We're Out of the Woods?
Probably for 2006 we are. Expect to see continued rhetoric on this issue though. Bill Frist simply can't blow off this bill's supporters and needs to give them excuses why they can't pass the bill now. From a political standpoint the Pro Family groups understand they are better served with a Republican congress and might be willing to let this issue slide, for now, if it will help will the Nov. 06 elections.
The risk is that the Pro Family groups will demand the bill's passage this year. It really won't take much effort to get it through the Senate. And they understand the concept of making hay while the sun shines. The only real negative for Senate Republicans is the loss of time.
For now we just have to wait. Remember to contact your senator.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
A Reponse to Lou Krieger
I love Lou Krieger and enjoy reading his material. I think he's a little over optimistic in his analysis of HR 4411 though. Here's the direct link to his blog post. Here's what Lou has to say followed by my comments:
Online gaming sites may not accept payment from a United States financial institution. The United States has no jurisdiction over any online gambling site because they are all outside of the United States. Try as they might, Congress cannot enforce laws on business outside the United States.
No disagreement with Lou on this point. The U.S. Government can't do anything to enforce this. Except maybe arrest the CEO, executives, etc. from said gambling sites if they ever set foot in the U.S.
Financial institutions may not transfer funds to online gaming sites. Banks and credit card companies already refuse to send money to offshore sites. That’s why offshore third-party financial intermediaries, such as Neteller, were created.
Neteller is not a secret. It is a company specifically setup to aid gamblers in moving money around...and everyone knows it. It seems likely that U.S. Banks will block Neteller, Firepay, and others if this bill becomes law.
I'm sure there will be other creative ways developed to get money in and out of online sites. It will continue to be more difficult though.
The 1961 Wire Act would be amended to include the Internet and to prohibit games “predominantly subject to chance.” Determining what is, and is not a game of chance will require expensive, time consuming litigation.
Expensive and time consuming for whom? The DoJ already considers online gambling, poker included, to be illegal under the 1961 wire act. This bill simply removes the gray and makes it clearly illegal.
In 2003 Paypal forfeited $10 million to settle allegations it aided in online gambling. This year the Sporting News agreed to $7.2 million settlement. Most specifically to poker players in 2004, the Discovery Channel forfeited $6 million for accepting ads from ParadisePoker.com and PartyPoker.com.
The DoJ is already in shoot first / ask questions later mode. Even if someone, say Cardplayer.com, stands up to them and challenges the Wire Act's "predominantly subject to chance" statement the litigation will be long and costly. In the meantime online gambling, poker included, will continue to be deemed illegal. It's not like poker players will get a pass for two years while this goes through the courts.
Internet service providers and other technology providers will be required to block access to online gambling sites when requested to do so by a law enforcement agency. In my opinion, this is unenforceable, and represents an unfunded mandate that will prove prohibitively expensive if ISPs and others are asked to serve as deputized officers for law enforcement. It is very costly, and not at all in their self-interest to do this.
This is a simple task for ISPs. The government will simply provide a list of sites that should be blocked by the ISPs and they will comply. It will only take one example from a major ISP to get the message across. Will there still be smaller ISPs that don't comply? Probably. Are there way around this with software and proxies? Absolutely.
The damage will already be done and your casual player is not going through the hassle of getting it working if it's not easy.
And what might be the strangest stroke of all, there’s no provision in the bill that prevents you from playing online poker, or renders the game of poker illegal. If this bill were to pass the Senate and become law — something neither I nor more seasoned Congress-watchers predict — we might have to jump through a few more hoops to move our money offshore in order to fund our online poker accounts, but we would not be violating any law by playing poker.
The U.S. government already considers playing online poker illegal. If the bill becomes law in current form, according to the U.S government, we would be violating the 1961 Wire Act.
Will they actually go after internet poker players? You sure wouldn't think so, but who really knows. My guess is the ISP blocking and financial blocks will do enough damage without going after the players themselves. The big online affiliates will have a huge target on them though.
One should also consider the negative press online gambling, poker included, will receive if this becomes law. It will be common knowledge that online poker is illegal. For you online pros remember how difficult it was explaining to people what you did for a living? At least when they asked about legality you could truthfully answer "yes / maybe." Now they won't need to ask because they'll know you make your living illegally.
Hopefully this will all just blow over and the U.S government can go tackle some meaningful issues. As of now I'd say it doesn't look good for poker players though. The momentum is not on our side.
-----
In other news Foxsports.com Poker has a really good interview with Eric Lynch. Eric is better known to the online poker community as Rizen, currently the number 2 ranked player on pocket 5s.
Online gaming sites may not accept payment from a United States financial institution. The United States has no jurisdiction over any online gambling site because they are all outside of the United States. Try as they might, Congress cannot enforce laws on business outside the United States.
No disagreement with Lou on this point. The U.S. Government can't do anything to enforce this. Except maybe arrest the CEO, executives, etc. from said gambling sites if they ever set foot in the U.S.
Financial institutions may not transfer funds to online gaming sites. Banks and credit card companies already refuse to send money to offshore sites. That’s why offshore third-party financial intermediaries, such as Neteller, were created.
Neteller is not a secret. It is a company specifically setup to aid gamblers in moving money around...and everyone knows it. It seems likely that U.S. Banks will block Neteller, Firepay, and others if this bill becomes law.
I'm sure there will be other creative ways developed to get money in and out of online sites. It will continue to be more difficult though.
The 1961 Wire Act would be amended to include the Internet and to prohibit games “predominantly subject to chance.” Determining what is, and is not a game of chance will require expensive, time consuming litigation.
Expensive and time consuming for whom? The DoJ already considers online gambling, poker included, to be illegal under the 1961 wire act. This bill simply removes the gray and makes it clearly illegal.
In 2003 Paypal forfeited $10 million to settle allegations it aided in online gambling. This year the Sporting News agreed to $7.2 million settlement. Most specifically to poker players in 2004, the Discovery Channel forfeited $6 million for accepting ads from ParadisePoker.com and PartyPoker.com.
The DoJ is already in shoot first / ask questions later mode. Even if someone, say Cardplayer.com, stands up to them and challenges the Wire Act's "predominantly subject to chance" statement the litigation will be long and costly. In the meantime online gambling, poker included, will continue to be deemed illegal. It's not like poker players will get a pass for two years while this goes through the courts.
Internet service providers and other technology providers will be required to block access to online gambling sites when requested to do so by a law enforcement agency. In my opinion, this is unenforceable, and represents an unfunded mandate that will prove prohibitively expensive if ISPs and others are asked to serve as deputized officers for law enforcement. It is very costly, and not at all in their self-interest to do this.
This is a simple task for ISPs. The government will simply provide a list of sites that should be blocked by the ISPs and they will comply. It will only take one example from a major ISP to get the message across. Will there still be smaller ISPs that don't comply? Probably. Are there way around this with software and proxies? Absolutely.
The damage will already be done and your casual player is not going through the hassle of getting it working if it's not easy.
And what might be the strangest stroke of all, there’s no provision in the bill that prevents you from playing online poker, or renders the game of poker illegal. If this bill were to pass the Senate and become law — something neither I nor more seasoned Congress-watchers predict — we might have to jump through a few more hoops to move our money offshore in order to fund our online poker accounts, but we would not be violating any law by playing poker.
The U.S. government already considers playing online poker illegal. If the bill becomes law in current form, according to the U.S government, we would be violating the 1961 Wire Act.
Will they actually go after internet poker players? You sure wouldn't think so, but who really knows. My guess is the ISP blocking and financial blocks will do enough damage without going after the players themselves. The big online affiliates will have a huge target on them though.
One should also consider the negative press online gambling, poker included, will receive if this becomes law. It will be common knowledge that online poker is illegal. For you online pros remember how difficult it was explaining to people what you did for a living? At least when they asked about legality you could truthfully answer "yes / maybe." Now they won't need to ask because they'll know you make your living illegally.
Hopefully this will all just blow over and the U.S government can go tackle some meaningful issues. As of now I'd say it doesn't look good for poker players though. The momentum is not on our side.
-----
In other news Foxsports.com Poker has a really good interview with Eric Lynch. Eric is better known to the online poker community as Rizen, currently the number 2 ranked player on pocket 5s.
Friday, July 21, 2006
As Expected
Now I'm sick and the Mrs. is showing signs as well. Tonight we were supposed to attend a unique recoginition event from work. We were both looking forward to it since it's rare that we get out together, just the two of us.
Hopefully this is a two-and-out illness like it was for the kids.
Hopefully this is a two-and-out illness like it was for the kids.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Coming Out Both Ends
Both large WSOP qualifiers started out well. In each case I had doubled up by the first break. Even with the great starts I couldn't keep it together and never really sniffed a seat in either event.
I'm left with mixed emotions now that the 2006 WSOP qualifiers are finished. In general I played great and my results would have been off the charts had I been playing normal MTTs. The problem was these weren't normal MTTs. They were, for the most part, events guarantying only a few seats. I have nothing to show for all the final tables and bubbles.
What this run has done is renewed my interest in playing MTTs. Indeed my recent win likely would not have happened had I not played so well in the WSOP qualifiers. My tournament game is better than ever!
So what about next year? Who knows... A friend asked whether I'd enter the ME if I won $10K in a tournament. I told him likely not. Playing (and more specifically doing well) in the ME is certainly a goal of mine. However, I'm not willing to risk a decent chunk of my bankroll on a crapshoot. If I took down a Sunday major then the situation changes.
-----
The family has been adjusting to Mrs. Royal being back at work. There's been some drama with changes at Daycare, but for the most part everything has been okay.
Then Monday the baby is sick and needs to stay home and get checked by the Doc. By yesterday evening the fever is gone and he's doing fine. Around 4AM this morning I wake up to find my daughter in bed. She isn't allowed to sleep with us, but at 4AM certain rules get bent if the situation requires it. Mom is up doing something which I later find out is pulling the sheets off Little Royal's bed as she is apparently sick too.
Wonderful
I'm left with mixed emotions now that the 2006 WSOP qualifiers are finished. In general I played great and my results would have been off the charts had I been playing normal MTTs. The problem was these weren't normal MTTs. They were, for the most part, events guarantying only a few seats. I have nothing to show for all the final tables and bubbles.
What this run has done is renewed my interest in playing MTTs. Indeed my recent win likely would not have happened had I not played so well in the WSOP qualifiers. My tournament game is better than ever!
So what about next year? Who knows... A friend asked whether I'd enter the ME if I won $10K in a tournament. I told him likely not. Playing (and more specifically doing well) in the ME is certainly a goal of mine. However, I'm not willing to risk a decent chunk of my bankroll on a crapshoot. If I took down a Sunday major then the situation changes.
-----
The family has been adjusting to Mrs. Royal being back at work. There's been some drama with changes at Daycare, but for the most part everything has been okay.
Then Monday the baby is sick and needs to stay home and get checked by the Doc. By yesterday evening the fever is gone and he's doing fine. Around 4AM this morning I wake up to find my daughter in bed. She isn't allowed to sleep with us, but at 4AM certain rules get bent if the situation requires it. Mom is up doing something which I later find out is pulling the sheets off Little Royal's bed as she is apparently sick too.
Wonderful
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Lets Play Two
Per yesterday's post I had planned to play the 150 ME seat event on stars for sure and possibly the $535 on Full Tilt. Thanks to a win in a $75 satellite on Full Tilt last night I'll be playing both.
With ~15 players left I was in 6th place. The top 11 were to get seats so my position was decent, but far from guaranteed. The following hand occurs and all of a sudden I'm chip leader and coasting to a seat. To paraphrase what my buddy Joe said...It's nice to have AA actually hold up in a key situation.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?411341
With ~15 players left I was in 6th place. The top 11 were to get seats so my position was decent, but far from guaranteed. The following hand occurs and all of a sudden I'm chip leader and coasting to a seat. To paraphrase what my buddy Joe said...It's nice to have AA actually hold up in a key situation.
http://www.pokerhand.org/?411341
Friday, July 14, 2006
WSOP Main Event Weekend: Last Chance
With the 2006 World Series of Poker Main Event starting on 7/28 most of the online sites have wrapped up their qualifiers or will be doing so this weekend. The two biggest events are the Full Tilt 100 Seat guaranteed and the PokerStars 150 Seat guaranteed.
Here's the skinny:
Full Tilt 100 Seat Guaranteed
Buy-in: $500 + $35
Date: Sunday 7/26
Time: 6:00 PM EST
PokerStars 150 Seat Guaranteed
Buy-in: $350 + $20
Date: Sunday 7/26
Time: 4:30 PM EST
I'm for sure playing in the Stars event. I'm currently 3/4 in satellites with a ticket and a chunk of W$ available. I've qualified in all three Turbos I've played ($16R, $16R and $7.5R) and just missed in the normal $7.5R.
The best deal though might be the ADDED seat tournaments on Sun Poker. They're running six $140 + $14 events Saturday and Sunday with various numbers of ADDED seats. Click here for the details. They are ADDING 30 seats total.
-----
The smashing deal of the weekend looks to be the Million Mania on the iPoker network (Titan, Noble, etc.)
It's a step $1000 buy-in with a $1MM guaranteed prize pool. However, there are currently only 155 registered players and they're paying top 80. If they get 400 people there will be a $600,000 overlay with an added value of $1500 per entry. Holy shit!
I'm sure most of the online pros will get in on this before it goes, but this one might be tough to pass up even with the $1000 buy-in.
-----
Softball team is now 8-2 and in first place. With two games left before the city tournament we control our own destiny. This team has never won the league...
Here's the skinny:
Full Tilt 100 Seat Guaranteed
Buy-in: $500 + $35
Date: Sunday 7/26
Time: 6:00 PM EST
PokerStars 150 Seat Guaranteed
Buy-in: $350 + $20
Date: Sunday 7/26
Time: 4:30 PM EST
I'm for sure playing in the Stars event. I'm currently 3/4 in satellites with a ticket and a chunk of W$ available. I've qualified in all three Turbos I've played ($16R, $16R and $7.5R) and just missed in the normal $7.5R.
The best deal though might be the ADDED seat tournaments on Sun Poker. They're running six $140 + $14 events Saturday and Sunday with various numbers of ADDED seats. Click here for the details. They are ADDING 30 seats total.
-----
The smashing deal of the weekend looks to be the Million Mania on the iPoker network (Titan, Noble, etc.)
It's a step $1000 buy-in with a $1MM guaranteed prize pool. However, there are currently only 155 registered players and they're paying top 80. If they get 400 people there will be a $600,000 overlay with an added value of $1500 per entry. Holy shit!
I'm sure most of the online pros will get in on this before it goes, but this one might be tough to pass up even with the $1000 buy-in.
-----
Softball team is now 8-2 and in first place. With two games left before the city tournament we control our own destiny. This team has never won the league...
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
H R 4411 Passes
There's still along way to go before this, or something similar, becomes law. I'm not going to debate the merits here or whether the US government should even have this on their priority list. I will say that a representative I previously voted for did just lose my 2006 vote.
Here's who voted to pass the bill:
Complete Roll Call
Here's who voted to pass the bill:
| Aderholt Akin Alexander Allen Bachus Baird Baker Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Bass Bean Beauprez Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blumenauer Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonner Bono Boozman Boren Boswell Boucher Boustany Boyd Bradley (NH) Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (OH) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Burgess Burton (IN) Butterfield Buyer Calvert Camp (MI) Campbell (CA) Cannon Cantor Capito Cardin Cardoza Carter Case Castle Chabot Chandler Chocola Cleaver Clyburn Coble Cole (OK) Conaway Cooper Costa Costello Cramer Crenshaw Crowley Cubin Cuellar Culberson Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (KY) Davis (TN) Davis, Tom Deal (GA) DeFazio DeGette DeLauro Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dicks Doggett Doolittle Drake Duncan Edwards Ehlers Emanuel Emerson English (PA) Etheridge Everett Fattah Feeney Ferguson Fitzpatrick (PA) Ford Fortenberry Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen | Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Gilchrest Gillmor Gingrey Gohmert Goode Goodlatte Gordon Granger Graves Green, Al Green, Gene Gutknecht Hall Harman Harris Hart Hayes Hayworth Hefley Hensarling Herger Herseth Higgins Hobson Hoekstra Holt Hooley Hostettler Hulshof Hunter Hyde Inglis (SC) Issa Jefferson Jindal Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kline Knollenberg Kuhl (NY) LaHood Langevin Lantos Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Leach Levin Lewis (CA) Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski Lowey Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Lynch Maloney Manzullo Marchant Marshall Matheson McCarthy McCaul (TX) McCollum (MN) McCotter McCrery McHugh McIntyre McKeon McMorris Meehan Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Mica Michaud Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, Gary Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Murphy Murtha Musgrave | Myrick Neugebauer Northup Norwood Nunes Oberstar Obey Ortiz Osborne Otter Oxley Pallone Pascrell Payne Pearce Pelosi Pence Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Pickering Pitts Platts Pomeroy Price (GA) Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Regula Rehberg Reichert Renzi Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Ross Royce Ruppersberger Ryan (OH) Ryun (KS) Sabo Salazar Sanders Saxton Schmidt Schwartz (PA) Schwarz (MI) Scott (GA) Sensenbrenner Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Sherwood Shimkus Shuster Simmons Simpson Skelton Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Sodrel Souder Spratt Stearns Stupak Sullivan Sweeney Tancredo Tanner Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Turner Udall (CO) Upton Van Hollen Visclosky Walden (OR) Walsh Wamp Wasserman Schultz Waters Waxman Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Westmoreland Whitfield Wicker Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wolf Wu Wynn Young (FL) |
Complete Roll Call
Thursday, July 06, 2006
A Poker Hangover
You know the routine.
An innocent night of poker takes a turn to the dark side and you're left feeling exhausted the next day at work. You inevitably promise yourself not to enter that 9, 10, or 11 PM re-buy event ever again...at least not on a week night.
A Typically Poker Hangover Includes:
Last night the six hours and 4AM bed time were worth it. Thanks for sweating me Lisa!
An innocent night of poker takes a turn to the dark side and you're left feeling exhausted the next day at work. You inevitably promise yourself not to enter that 9, 10, or 11 PM re-buy event ever again...at least not on a week night.
A Typically Poker Hangover Includes:
- Alcohol - though not technically required for a poker hangover it certainly adds to the potency.
- IM, IRC, a blogger table, etc.
- Playing in several tournaments and feeling the need to enter just one more. It's only 10PM right? I'll probably be out by midnight, asleep by 1 AM and five hours of sleep is enough...
- Spending three or four hours to bubble or min cash. Yeah, that $20 profit was worth the pain I feel now!
- Difficult to sleep afterwards (passing out not included) as I replay that bad push or suckout in my head. If only he didn't turn that Q...
Last night the six hours and 4AM bed time were worth it. Thanks for sweating me Lisa!
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Pressure Poker by Scott Gallant
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]