Florida May Regulate Intranet Poker

Florida lawmakers are considering legalizing and regulating online poker for local residents. Analysts in the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability—the state’s research branch—are considering three possibilities: allow online poker, ban online poker, or wait to see what the US government decides to do about regulating online poker in the United States.

One problem with banning Internet poker is enforcing a ban against it, as evidenced by the US government’s inability to prevent players from gambling on websites hosted in other countries. Enforcing a ban means IP addresses need to be traced, followed by an investigation that’s likely to cost the state money don’t really have.

By allowing and regulating online poker in Florida, legislators could cut down on the use of unregulated sites offshore.

While Florida is preparing to grapple with the issue of Intranet poker, so is New Jersey and California is also likely to examine this opportunity in 2010. While this is going on, the US government may yet get to vote on Barney Frank’s bill that would tax and regulate online gaming sites.

That's a lot of action in the coming year ... with online (Intranet) poker seeking life in New Jersey, California, and Florida—and Internet poker under consideration by way of Barney Frank's legislation that would effectively emasculate UIGEA, and tax and license online sites in the US.

Is Full Tilt's "Rush Poker" Innovation the Next Big Thing?

Full Tilt poker introduced a new twist to online play they call Rush Poker and it vastly speeds up the number of hands one can play without having to multi table.

Here’s how it works. Each rush player is one member of a larger player pool who are randomly seated at tables. Cards are dealt normally, and each player has all of his usual options available along with a "quick fold" opportunity. While hands play out as they would at any poker game, once you’re out of a hand, you—together with other players who folded about the same time you did—are seated in a new game at a new table and a new hand begins. So it's not only the cards that are shuffled at Rush Poker, players are shuffled too.

Rush Poker eliminates downtime between hands, making it possible to play something like 300 hands per hour without the flip-flopping that accompanies multi-tabling.

But there’s more to it than that, once you begin to examine the strategic changes brought forth by this innovation. For one, it negates any data mining opponents may have done on you. If the player pool is big enough, you may play one hand with a given opponent but not see him again for some time. It all depends who folds and whether the timing is such that you are moved to a new table with that opponent, or a group of others.

According to Full Tilt pro Andy Bloch, "It's the difference between watching TV and watching TiVo. You get to skip the commercials.

"One of the big advantages of Rush Poker, according to Bloch, “is that you can't just observe and watch hand histories. People can't track or target you. You don't have to worry about particular players spotting a weakness in your game."

We’ll see how this innovation plays out over time. For now, it looks like a major change to the online poker offerings, and for those who are wary of playing against opponents who have them data mined, it’s a good chance to play invisibly—or close to it.

Will New Jersey Legalize Online Gambling?

Will New Jersey be the first state to legalize online gambling?

A bill would allow licensed New Jersey casinos, all of which are located in Atlantic City, to offer games such as poker online. This is something California grappled with last year, but made no headway with it.

According to state Sen. Raymond Lesniak, D-Union, the bill’s sponsor, “There are probably 500,000 online poker players in New Jersey alone. And we’re missing out on around $100 million in revenue.”

According to Lesniak, “The court said such activities must be restricted within the borders of a state,” Lesniak said. “We would restrict the games to New Jersey residents. And I believe that would satisfy that ruling.”

In addition to allowing “New Jersey residents to place wagers on casino games via the Internet,” his bill requires that the equipment used to operate Internet wagering be located in a restricted area of a casino hotel or in a secure facility off the premises of the casino hotel, “but within the territorial limits of Atlantic County.”

Lesniak added, “It would be a big boost to the casino industry in Atlantic City. It’s a bold move, and in this economy we need bold moves.”

The New Jersey Casino Control Commission reported that the state’s gaming industry took home $3.9 billion from gamblers in 2009, a 13.2 percent decline compared with 2008. It was the state’s worst year since 1997.

The act would take effect immediately upon being signed into law, and establish a model for intrastate online gaming that other jurisdictions could soon mimic. Permit holders would be required to pay an up-front licensing fee of $200,000, with renewals at $100,000. Operators will also be required to pay a $100,000 non-refundable deposit and $100,000 annual fee to treat compulsive gambling.

Joe Brennan, chairman of the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA), which pushed for legislation in New Jersey, said: “We’re happy that New Jersey has taken this issue into their own hands. New Jersey is recognized as having the toughest gaming regulators in the U.S., but as a leading gaming state with a long track record of doing things the right way, internet gambling will have a great home here and the opportunity to begin normalizing the industry.”

Highlights of the bill

• Allows “New Jersey residents to place wagers on casino games via the Internet.”
  
• Creates a Division of Internet Wagering under the direction of the state Casino Control Commission.
  
• An annual tax of 20 percent will be levied on gross revenue from Internet wagering.
  
• The Casino Control Commission and the New Jersey Racing Commission would allow the operation of terminals at racetracks at which “individuals who have registered to participate in Internet wagering may wager on games conducted at casinos in Atlantic City.” Those terminals would be identical in appearance to casino slot machines.
  
• Requires that equipment used to operate an Internet wagering site be located in a restricted area of a casino hotel or in a secure facility off the premises of the casino hotel, “but within the territorial limits of Atlantic County.”

Half-Million Dollar Jackpot Hit at Caesars Atlantic City

Caesars Atlantic City's Bad Beat Jackpot of $553,958 was hit January 4, smashing their previous record of $361,244. I don't know who tracks this sort of thing, but I'm guessing this is probably the largest bad-beat jackpot anytime, anywhere in the annals of poker ... correct me if I'm wrong!

“This is an unforgettable day for everyone at Caesars, especially our loyal players and dedicated poker team,” said Joe Domenico, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Caesars Atlantic City. “The energy building in our poker room over these past months has been incredible and to see it culminate in this record setting jackpot couldn’t be more rewarding.”

Steve Gedney held the best losing hand of his life when his four treys lost on the river to Chris Dobrzanski’s four aces. Gedney hauled in $276,979 instead of the roughly $400 pot. The winner of the hand took home $138,489 for his efforts, while the remaining 7 players at the table each pocketed $19,784 just for sitting there while history was made.

The Bad Beat Progressive Jackpot at Caesars Atlantic City is paid when four-of-a-kind loses to an even stronger hand. The jackpot is divided among all players sitting at the table at the time of the bad beat. Here's how the jackpot is distributed: 50 percent to the losing player, 25 percent to the winning player, and the remaining players divvy up the last 25 percent equally.

Losing Hand, First Place: Steve Gedney, 56, of Dover, DE took home $276,979
Winning Hand, Second Place: Chris Dobrzanski, 23, of Bridgewater, NJ took home $138,489
The remaining seven players at the table each took home $19,784

Online Sites to Match Player Donations to Haitian Relief Efforts

As relief and rescue efforts pour into Haiti in the face of a major earthquake, online poker sites Poker Stars, Full Tilt and Cake Poker announced they will match 100 percent of all players’ donations through their sites.

PokerStars announced that they will provide “…help to the people of the Earthquake-ravaged Caribbean nation of Haiti, and as always, we’re calling on our players to contribute. It is estimated that as many as three million people have been affected by the huge tremor, which registered a magnitude of 7.0. There are two ways to donate to the cause.”

Players can donate through the site’s “Transfer Funds” option by writing in “Haiti Fund” or through special dummy tournaments—they’re not really tournaments at all—but the dummy tournament buy-ins of $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100, $200, and $1,000 are listed under the Tourney-Special tab. PokerStars will match donations and send all donated funds to the Red Cross.

Players can also register for dummy tournaments at Full Tilt Poker. The events are listed under the tournament tab for Sunday at 6 p.m. ET with varied buy-in amounts—$1, $2, $5, $10, and $26. Full Tilt will also match all donations. Players may also donate by transferring funds to “Aid for Haiti” on the site.

Cake Poker is matching players’ donations through three dummy tournaments with buy-ins of $5, $25, and $100. Donated funds will be sent to the American Red Cross.

Will Isildur1 Be Back at the "Nosebleed" Stakes Games Now that Tony G is Backing Him?

Brash poker pro Tony G (pictured right) may back Swedish online “nosebleed stakes” poker player Isildur1, according to a post on TonyGPoker.com.

Isildur1—we still don’t know his true identity—is reportedly contemplating filing a complaint with Full tilt Poker about the data mining activities by Full Tilt pro Brian Townsend that provided the mystery Swede’s opponent with additional information about his playing style, and may have led to Isildur1’s defeat.

Tony G said, “It is likely I will stake him in some big cash games in the future, this is what I do after all. I like to give people a chance in life to do well.”

Isildur1, as I’ve reported here, first appeared in high-stakes games at Full Tilt in November 2009. He initially won staggering amounts in a short time, and was up as much as $5 million.

But the balloon burst, and according to PokerTableRatings.com he now shows a career loss of $2.6 million.

Although he was up more than $5 million on November 15, one month later, in mid-December, CardRunners instructor Brian Hastings took him for $4.2 million only to later reveal that he used hands compiled by fellow CardRunners pro Brian Townsend to help defeat the Swede.

Hastings made no bones about Townsend's contribution, and credited Townsend for his performance. In an interview with ESPN columnist Gary Wise, he said, "Honestly, I give most of the credit to Brian Townsend here. I mean, Brian is honestly the hardest worker I know in poker. He analyzed a database of heads-up hands that Isildur1 had played and constructed ranges of what Isildur1 was doing in certain spots. In a way, I feel bad that it wasn't Brian who got this win instead of me.”

This whole affair is far from over, and how it plays out is anyone’s guess. But if Tony G stakes Isildur1, my guess is that the stakes will be significantly less than they were in those heady days during the last two months of 2009.

We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us

A study by Cornell University sociologist Kyle Siler in the Journal of Gambling Studies on Tuesday, January 12, found that winning lots of small stakes ends up in bigger losses. Siler examined 27 million online poker hands played over the past two years and concluded, "When you lose, you lose big."

Siler examined data on nearly 300,000 poker players and compared playing styles to winnings, finding an, "increased proportion of aggressive players as one moves up stakes." (Just as an aside, isn’t Isildur1’s track record in Full Tilt Poker’s “nosebleed” stakes games about the best case in point one can find?)

He also found that those who played a lot of hands lost more money than others. "This is an unusual and seemingly counterintuitive incentive structure. After all, is not the object of every hand in poker to win it?" wrote Siler, who explained this by concluding that, “…players who win large proportions of hands lose money, because they lose a few hands of great value."

Given the huge role of luck in delivering big payoffs and big losses, the best poker players, according to Siler, must learn to keep winning or losing in stride, and that "the biggest opponent for many players is themselves" (or as that old comic strip character Pogo was so fond of saying, “We have met the enemy and he is us).

Nothing really earthshaking here—most poker theorists have been offering up this advice for years—but it’s always nice when conventional wisdom is upheld by scientific examination.

Did the WSOP Mess With Sasquatch?

While the World Series of Poker has been an unbridled success by anyone’s measure of growth during the years Jeffrey Pollack was at its helm, one area where it missed the target completely occurred during the time between mid-July and November—the months after the main event was played down to nine remaining contestants, and the televised finale in near real time on ESPN.

The idea of a three-month delay between setting the final table and playing it down to determine a winner was always to build momentum for the grand finale, while allowing ESPN to run through its backlog of televised WSOP footage so that the main event was played to its conclusion just as TV’s coverage led up to it. But little momentum was built up during those intervening 100 days between July and November, and almost nothing was done to turn those nine finalists into household names by the time the main event was televised. The general public—or more precisely the TV audience that is not made up of real poker junkies like us, but instead comprises more casual poker players and fans—didn’t know much more about the nine finalists in November than they did in July.

And the 900 pound gorilla in the room is one big question: Why was the WSOP unable to convince its advertising partners to feature some of these nine finalists in a series of commercials leading up to the November finale? After all, advertisers would also profit if more people could identify with the finalists and presumably be more apt to tune into the WSOP’s near real time telecast of the final table.

It’s easy to imagine Jack Links Beef Jerky, for example, in any number of commercial tie-ins. As perhaps the most visible of the WSOP’s advertising partners, why didn’t they produce a commercial with real-life logger Darvin Moon cutting trees in a forest and having a run-in with Sasquatch? They could have carried their Messing with Sasquatch theme further, by having all of the November Nine playing poker in the forest and inviting Sasquatch to sit in as the game’s tenth player. There’s probably no end to the commercials Jack Links could have generated to boost interest in their beef jerky, the upcoming final table, and in members of the November Nine themselves.

It’s all consistent with their advertising campaign, and would have put the upcoming WSOP final table firmly in the minds of even the most casual TV viewers.

The fact that the WSOP was unable to convince any of their advertising partners to build campaigns around the main event’s finale in that three-month window between July and November suggests a massive failure somewhere.

I have no idea whether this is the reason Jeffrey Pollack is no longer at the WSOP’s helm; I’m simply not privy to that kind of insider information. But I am sure that the idea of creating tie-ins between the WSOP and their ad partners had to be an idea that surfaced time and time again, and I’m curious as to why it was never brought to fruition.

If anyone knows more about this than I do, just send me a note.