Online Poker Dead for the USofA

[borrofburi]

Please cite your sources and provide the research upon which you base this opinion or it is utterly invalid. Not according to me, mind you, but according to you. According to me (and anyone else who knows fuck-all about poker) you're just dead wrong.

I believe he's just using simple logic. The cards you get aren't influenced by your choices. Therefore, a part of what you can do is influenced by chance. I don't see the mistake here.

Eh, lrkun regularly requires "basis" and "citations" and "sources" for any little comment pretty much anywhere on this forum. Now he's said something silly and people are responding similarly.

 

[RichardMNixon]

An activity characterised by a balance between winning and losing that is governed by a mixture of skill and chance

This is the bit that confuses me in the "poker isn't gambling" argument: since when does involving skill make it no longer gambling? I'm not arguing about how much skill is involved, I just don't see how it's relevant.

That said I agree that I don't see how a high-stakes bridge tournament is any more-or-less gambling than poker. The also handle a lot of it really stupidly. We weren't allowed to have playing cards in high school - because we might use them to play poker in which we might bet money. Nevermind that we were evidently playing games that didn't involve betting, cards were apparently of the devil. The whole issue is just stupid.

And lastly back on topic, there are some poker sites still running, aren't there? My impression was there were a lot of shenanigans with the particular sites shut down.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Eh, lrkun regularly requires "basis" and "citations" and "sources" for any little comment pretty much anywhere on this forum. Now he's said something silly and people are responding similarly.

I fail to see where the silliness lies in his statements.

I await your explanation.

 

[kenandkids]

Eh, lrkun regularly requires "basis" and "citations" and "sources" for any little comment pretty much anywhere on this forum. Now he's said something silly and people are responding similarly.

I fail to see where the silliness lies in his statements.

I await your explanation.

Well, right here:

Poker is not gambling? hmmm... It's like saying smoking is not addicting.

She assumes that poker and gambling are the same, or interchangeable, or that there can be no argument... depending on interpretation. She then follows it up with a really silly non-parallel to something and its well researched side effect. To use her analogy as it is, she is saying that poker leads to gambling...

 

[lrkun]

She assumes that poker and gambling are the same, or interchangeable, or that there can be no argument... depending on interpretation. She then follows it up with a really silly non-parallel to something and its well researched side effect. To use her analogy as it is, she is saying that poker leads to gambling...

I don't deny that I firmly believe that poker is gambling. I did state that in a post in this thread, as it is my own personal opinion on the matter.

Again, as an opinion, it's not something that must be taken as the truth; hence, I supported it with basis, which to them is that wall of text. And I certainly knew some wouldn't read the same, as it is difficult to read something you're not familiar with. (but I was at fault in this case because at first I assumed that some took time to read like I do.)

That's why I had to summarize it by focusing on the two elements chance and skill.

Chance>skill = gambling. (wall of text)

poker + money = gambling (endnotes of the wall of text)

Price, consideration, promise = elements of lottery and gambling. (wall of text)

---

Remember, an opinion by a non-expert is of no moment. As I am a non-expert on gambling, my opinion was meant merely as an opinion, but someone had to make big of it. Why, I wonder. o.o

 

[Squawk]

She assumes that poker and gambling are the same, or interchangeable, or that there can be no argument... depending on interpretation. She then follows it up with a really silly non-parallel to something and its well researched side effect. To use her analogy as it is, she is saying that poker leads to gambling...

I don't deny that I firmly believe that poker is gambling. I did state that in a post in this thread, as it is my own personal opinion on the matter.

Again, as an opinion, it's not something that must be taken as the truth; hence, I supported it with basis, which to them is that wall of text. And I certainly knew some wouldn't read the same, as it is difficult to read something you're not familiar with. (but I was at fault in this case because at first I assumed that some took time to read like I do.)

That's why I had to summarize it by focusing on the two elements chance and skill.

Chance>skill = gambling. (wall of text)

poker + money = gambling (endnotes of the wall of text)

Price, consideration, promise = elements of lottery and gambling. (wall of text)

---

Remember, an opinion by a non-expert is of no moment. As I am a non-expert on gambling, my opinion was meant merely as an opinion, but someone had to make big of it. Why, I wonder. o.o

People who consistently beat 25nl have a hard time beating 50nl. Those who beat 50nl have a hard time moving to 100nl. 100 to 200nl seems to be the real big jump and is very hard to make. Are the players higher up luckier than those moving up, or more skillful?

I made a big deal out of it in the same way that I make a big deal of anyone making an argument from ignorance on this board.

 

[lrkun]

---

With respect to the Op's inquiry.

The case, at the moment, has yet to be decided. Whether it be illegal or not is something for the courts to decide. I hope the three poker moguls will get a fair trial and hopefully the players won't be too pissed while waiting for this issue to be resolved.

---

 

[Trons]

Okay, just got home. I'd like to make a few clarifications:

A) If you visit any poker forum and ask whether poker is gambling, they will respond that yes it is gambling and precautions need to be taken to prevent the dangers of gambling, such as addiction. I've been involved in more then one of those discussions. When I first started, I was of the firm mindset that poker wasn't gambling, I soon changed my mind, went the other direction and laughed at the noobs who thought it wasn't. After years of playing, millions of hands of both limit hold'em and NL tourneys, I'm back to the mindset that personally, when I sit down at a table, play within my bank roll, I am not gambling, I'm making money. Even if I lose that particular hand, tournament, or session. I'm +ev when I sit within my bank roll.

B) Regardless of how I feel about poker and whether it's gambling or not, it's been decided by others that it is more a game of skill then chance. The definition of gambling and the examples of gambling support this rigid definition.

C) lrkuns analogy is ridiculous. Not only is it an opinion that will not be supported, but it's based on a very limited understanding of the game.

D) I didn't read the wall of text.

E) With all the posts I've read and the few that I've participated in, I've learned to just ignore lrkun.

 

[Squawk]

Sounds about right to me. I figure that over a large enough sample skill is the over riding factor. Play 10 hands and it has much less chance to show, and a solid winning player will likely have a downswing of 10k hands in every 100k hands simply through bad luck.

Of course luck is a factor, but in the case of most modern forms of poker skill overrides luck in the long run.

 

[Squawk]

Could this hand have had better timing? Happened today. We can discuss this one at length.

CO is 15/8/2.5 over 300 hands, pre flop fold to 3bet of 75%, 90% flop cbet.

My line: I've missed, but I've missed nicely. Flush draw and a gutshot. I want to see both cards, and have to figure out best way to do it. A boat doesn't scare me here, he hasn't got AA, only plausible boat is AJ and if he holds AJ then good luck to him. Same with JJ for that matter.

Ergo, check with the intention of raising him. Maximise fold equity, chance of seeing the river for free if I miss, pot control through aggression, and the stack sizes make any further decisions easy. As it happens, he shoves, and given the relative stack sizes, $7 into a ,£18 pot this is an easy call.


Full Tilt - $0.10 NL - Holdem - 7 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 3: http://www.pokertracker.com

Hero (BB): $12.34
UTG: $4.53
UTG+1: $3.03
MP: $8.78
CO: $15.62
BTN: $9.18
SB: $10.05

SB posts SB $0.05, Hero posts BB $0.10

Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero has Ks Qs

fold, fold, fold, CO raises to $0.30, fold, fold, Hero raises to $0.90, CO calls $0.60

Flop: ($1.85, 2 players) As Js Jc
Hero checks, CO bets $1.29, Hero raises to $3.50, CO raises to $14.72 and is all-in, Hero calls $7.94 and is all-in


Turn: ($24.73, 2 players) 2c

River: ($24.73, 2 players) Ts

CO shows Kh Ad (Two Pair, Aces and Jacks) (PreFlop 70%, Flop 58%, Turn 73%)
Hero shows Ks Qs (Royal Flush) (PreFlop 30%, Flop 42%, Turn 27%)
Hero wins $23.09


Happy to discuss any further aspects of this hand, but not going into too much detail here yet until we have interest. My second royal flush to date, the other one was spades too, won a grand total of 30 cents on that one.

 

[Trons]

Very nice hand. Royals are nice and I've only had 1. I would like to restate that I've never played FR NLHE so take this analysis with a grain of salt.

Open raising by a TAG from CO could be a blind steel, but given the blinds vs. stack size ratios, I find that less likely...what was his attempt to steal %? You're three bet could be done with ATC. I'm surprised he didn't 4 bet you.

Flop comes. The biggest problem with your check raise is it leaves him with only 2 options, fold or shove. He doesn't really have enough chips left to call, because the only bet he can make on the turn is a shove and you're probably going to shove the turn, even if you miss. He elects to shove over you. Again, depending on your table image, and I would guess you're LAG, he probably believes he's got the best hand and you're either on a FD or a PP. He's doing what you're doing, trying to maximize fold equity. He got his money in good and you got lucky, imo.

The biggest problem I see is the level of aggression. IF I play this hand against a TAG, which I'm not likely to do OOP, I'd flat the pre-raise. The three bet is fine, but puts you in a rough spot if he comes over the top. The flop is questionable. I think I actually bet this out for pot control. I really want to play the hand, but I want to play it cheaply. I'm thinking something like $1.00-$1.25 and if he raises, then I'm probably gone.

The problem, I see, with trying to maximize fold equity is it gets expensive. It also puts you in a tough spot if you have to call $7 into a $21 pot when he shoves because the odds are there, but you want to throw up a bit because his shove screams "I have an A" or "I bet you don't have an A." At that point, you can't beat any hand that makes that play, except a bluff.

Edit: My math was off because of the way PT3 lists bet sizes. It looks like you were calling $7 into a $17 pot...That changes the odds significantly and makes the call far more questionable

 

[Squawk]

I've stoved this one, quite happy with the results

I'm actually TAG, and for the last couple of days (the only history I have with that guy) I've had shocking cards so been playing nitty as all hell, then aggressive as hell. 11/10/ AFq 54, wtsd 18%, w$sd 64%, and a very slightly positive red line, which I factored into the equation.

That's a bit nittier than I usually am, but not hugely. I just had a look and for the last 45k hands I've run at 1.8ptBB/100 (or 3.6bb/100).


Only stoving post flop.

First thing to note, I can't put him on AA. At 10nl anyone with AA is 4 betting, particularly from the button where I could well put him on anything down to TT.

With AA eliminated what hands can he shove with? I'll eliminate KK and QQ, and that leaves us with the following for a nit.

JJ,AJs+,KJs,QJs,JTs,AJo+,KJo+,QJo,JTo + bluffs. Could we put in weaker aces and jacks? Pre flop AT is certainly feasible, but I've left it out.

I figure the nittiest player is getting it in with every hand there, and against this range I have 33% equity, making the call on the end correct if we restrict him so tightly.

Start putting in those marginal hands and it just becomes an easier call. The part of the hand that I question is the check raise, and I had my reasons for it.

For starters, I repped strength pre with the 3 bet. The board has come scary, a check raise screams strength. I figured I had a 30% chance of a fold here. I figured I had enough outs if I didn't get a fold to be good (and stove says I was right) against his range.

Bear in mind that his betting range on the flop is much wider than his shoving range. He's called my 3bet, I figure he's going to bet after my check with ATC, though the call to the 3bet restricts it. So, lets make it the top 10% of hands (leaving in AA) and I'm 50% against that range.

My check raise basically meant I was pot commited, the question was, was he. I can't check call, if the flush card comes I don't get paid off, if it doesn't I'm faced with another call on the turn, or a fold.

I figure the way this hand looks on the flop I'd end up about break even in the long run with the check-raise, worst case, and I figure that's about as +ev move as was possible here.

 

[Trons]

Okay, I'm going to type while I think. 15%vpip gives us a range of 77+,A7s+,K9s+,QTs+,JTs,ATo+,KTo+,QJo. I think it's safe to say that he's open raising his entire range from the CO. The question, which portion of his range is his calling your 3bet without 4betting. That depends on the player and his impression of you. Figure we remove AA, KK and maybe QQ? Some players play QQ like AA and some play it like 88, so that's a read.

That leaves us Pre with JJ-77,A7s+,K9s+,QTs+,JTs,ATo+,KTo+,QJo. Puts you marginally ahead...stove gives me 51% to his 49%. On the flop if we don't know what he has you were at 51.5% to 48.5% against his range, but if we put in his actual hand...okay, you weren't as far behind as I would have thought...42%-58%. I'll be honest, I'm still having a hard time getting over the fact that he didn't 4bet with his AKo...That's nitty.

The numbers support your play, somewhat. Maybe it's my tourney background because from my perspective, given the size of the blinds vs the chipstacks, I'm playing this hand, but I'm going to try to play it cheaply. Later in the tourney, when blinds are larger and stacks smaller, then this gets played the same way.

I do agree that when you check-raised, he had 2 choices, shove or fold. I disagree that the check raise screams strength. I haven't played in a while, but when I did, generally a check raise screamed weak hand that needed to be protected. If I'm him, I'm taking your check raise to indicate mid PP or FD and I'm coming over the top every time with TPTK. I also remember when 3bets were almost unheard of and nobody 4bet reasonably, if they did, it was always a shove, regardless of stack sizes. I remember when 3bet bluffing became standard and 4bet bluffing wasn't unheard of. So, yeah, I understand attitudes and play styles can change.

Again, it's very read dependent. I like the preflop 3bet, but the flop play is where I differ...as I stated. I was also taught to put an amount I'm willing to put in the middle during a draw and try to control betting so I don't have to invest more then that. It makes me fairly easy to play against, except with draws I'll fold and with made hands I use similar bet sizing, just react differently to raises ect.

 

[Trons]

We've derailed. Squawk...I'll be more then happy to discuss poker hands with you, but we should probably start another thread. I'll even see if I can come up with some to post from the HH's I have on file. Back on tope.

As my uneducated opinion was stated in the OP...I listed the terms that the poker sites and monies were seized and gave reasons why I thought the laws that were claimed to have been broken didn't apply. That assertion is shared by an educated article: http://www.relentlessdefense.com/our-team/kevin-j-mahoney/commentary-on-high-profile-cases/u-s-attorney-s-office-on-tilt/

The UIGEA does not declare online poker or even online gambling illegal. Instead, it prohibits financial institutions, such as credit card companies, banks, and other payment providers, from processing unlawful online gambling transactions. Its criminal prohibitions are set out in ,§5363, titled "Prohibition on Acceptance of Any Financial Instrument for Unlawful Internet Gambling." It provides, in pertinent part:..

Importantly, 28 U.S.C. ,§3702 outlaws only online sports betting.[2] Not even the Federal prosecutors claim 28 U.S.C. ,§3702 applies to online poker sites. Instead, the U.S. Attorney's Office claims that the amorphous UIGEA betting and wagering definitions encompass online poker site activity and, therefore, prohibits financial institutions from processing transactions for online poker sites.

The U.S. Attorney's Office is also charging the defendants with violating the Wire Act. The Wire Act, found at 18 U.S.C. ,§1084, provides in pertinent part as follows:

(a) Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under his title or imprisoned. . . .

(emphasis added).

and:

Despite the ambiguities of the UIGEA and the inapplicability of the Wire Act or the money laundering statute to activity not deemed unlawful, or in spite of these obstacles, Federal prosecutors, enamored with their seemingly limitless power, obtained indictments and arrest warrants, seized countless bank accounts, and ruined the lives of these men. These arrogant Federal prosecutors should be ashamed of themselves.

Something I also did not know: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/us-usa-antigua-poker-idUSTRE73K6Z020110421

(Reuters) - The United States violated global trade law by shutting down Internet gambling sites based in Antigua and elsewhere and prosecuting their owners, according to Antigua and Barbuda officials considering action in the World Trade Organization....

This whole thing just got a little more interesting.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Okay, just got home. I'd like to make a few clarifications:

A) If you visit any poker forum and ask whether poker is gambling, they will respond that yes it is gambling and precautions need to be taken to prevent the dangers of gambling, such as addiction. I've been involved in more then one of those discussions. When I first started, I was of the firm mindset that poker wasn't gambling, I soon changed my mind, went the other direction and laughed at the noobs who thought it wasn't. After years of playing, millions of hands of both limit hold'em and NL tourneys, I'm back to the mindset that personally, when I sit down at a table, play within my bank roll, I am not gambling, I'm making money. Even if I lose that particular hand, tournament, or session. I'm +ev when I sit within my bank roll.

B) Regardless of how I feel about poker and whether it's gambling or not, it's been decided by others that it is more a game of skill then chance. The definition of gambling and the examples of gambling support this rigid definition.

C) lrkuns analogy is ridiculous. Not only is it an opinion that will not be supported, but it's based on a very limited understanding of the game.

D) I didn't read the wall of text.

E) With all the posts I've read and the few that I've participated in, I've learned to just ignore lrkun.

I think that saying "poker isn't gambling" is like saying "smoking isn't addicting", in that chance/gambling (depending on your point of view) is implicit in poker, in the same way that smoking has the "power" of addiction implicit unto it.

Forgive me for the bad English... I'm still half-asleep.

 

[Trons]

I think that saying "poker isn't gambling" is like saying "smoking isn't addicting", in that chance/gambling (depending on your point of view) is implicit in poker, in the same way that smoking has the "power" of addiction implicit unto it.

Forgive me for the bad English... I'm still half-asleep.

You can say that, doesn't make it right. If you're going to insist on comparing the two, smoking is only addicting over the long term and poker is only gambling over a small sample size.

Now, I honestly believe the people who like this analogy do so because they do not understand the game and have a few misconceptions. The most common misconceptions I've run into when talking poker with non-poker players (something I try to avoid, I might add), are things like:

A) Your cards matter:

Card don't matter. I have bought into a micro stake tournament and put a post-it over my cards so I had no idea what I was playing any given hand. I have done well doing that. I've also done it in ring games, but it's more difficult in ring because the style of play differs and more people are willing to go to showdown.

B) The best cards will always win:

AA is the best hand you can start with. It only wins about 70% of the time. This is mathematics and is pretty much indisputable. That being said, if you get all your chips in the center before the flop and you have AA, you are going to win 70% of the time. That a positive expected value.

C) The best hand always win

If you've ever played or watched it on TV, you know it is possible to get the best hand to fold before the showdown. Having the best hand doesn't mean you're going to win the hand.

D) You can't beat lady luck

This is true if you're playing roulette, craps, keno, or some other game where your actions have no bearing on the outcome of the game. Most winning poker players believe that luck can effect the outcome of the hand, but they also realize that there was a chance it was going to happen and over a large sample size, they can beat the game. Can a neophyte do well? Yes, Chris Moneymaker proved that and ran really well for a short period of time. He's not somebody you hear about regularly because a lot of people say he got "lucky" and relied on that luck to carry him through the rest of his poker playing career. Comparing him to somebody like Daniel Negreanu, and you'll see the difference between luck and skill.

E) The Earth is flat

Self explanatory and equally as invalid as the above.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I think that saying "poker isn't gambling" is like saying "smoking isn't addicting", in that chance/gambling (depending on your point of view) is implicit in poker, in the same way that smoking has the "power" of addiction implicit unto it.

Forgive me for the bad English... I'm still half-asleep.

You can say that, doesn't make it right. If you're going to insist on comparing the two, smoking is only addicting over the long term and poker is only gambling over a small sample size.

Now, I honestly believe the people who like this analogy do so because they do not understand the game and have a few misconceptions. The most common misconceptions I've run into when talking poker with non-poker players (something I try to avoid, I might add), are things like:

A) Your cards matter:

Card don't matter. I have bought into a micro stake tournament and put a post-it over my cards so I had no idea what I was playing any given hand. I have done well doing that. I've also done it in ring games, but it's more difficult in ring because the style of play differs and more people are willing to go to showdown.

B) The best cards will always win:

AA is the best hand you can start with. It only wins about 70% of the time. This is mathematics and is pretty much indisputable. That being said, if you get all your chips in the center before the flop and you have AA, you are going to win 70% of the time. That a positive expected value.

C) The best hand always win

If you've ever played or watched it on TV, you know it is possible to get the best hand to fold before the showdown. Having the best hand doesn't mean you're going to win the hand.

D) You can't beat lady luck

This is true if you're playing roulette, craps, keno, or some other game where your actions have no bearing on the outcome of the game. Most winning poker players believe that luck can effect the outcome of the hand, but they also realize that there was a chance it was going to happen and over a large sample size, they can beat the game. Can a neophyte do well? Yes, Chris Moneymaker proved that and ran really well for a short period of time. He's not somebody you hear about regularly because a lot of people say he got "lucky" and relied on that luck to carry him through the rest of his poker playing career. Comparing him to somebody like Daniel Negreanu, and you'll see the difference between luck and skill.

E) The Earth is flat

Self explanatory and equally as invalid as the above.

Not to say I'm very experienced... I've played poker, and still do... for fun, by instinct, at least now. And I don't believe any of that bullshit...

Now obviously there's much you can do by using skill... In fact, as you and others have stated, poker's more a game of skill than luck. And of course you can do well without even knowing your own cards... That's skill. And although I do agree that it's almost all skill, you cannot deny that part of the result/gameplay is determined by luck, i.e the cards you get and the cards that the rest of the players are given.

As far as I know, you can beat an excellent hand with a crappy hand, and beat a crappy hand with an excellent hand, but, to my knowledge, the latter is substantially easier, and that excellent hand is brought about by luck.

 

[borrofburi]

Now obviously there's much you can do by using skill... In fact, as you and others have stated, poker's more a game of skill than luck. And of course you can do well without even knowing your own cards... That's skill. And although I do agree that it's almost all skill, you cannot deny that part of the result/gameplay is determined by luck, i.e the cards you get and the cards that the rest of the players are given.

As far as I know, you can beat an excellent hand with a crappy hand, and beat a crappy hand with an excellent hand, but, to my knowledge, the latter is substantially easier, and that excellent hand is brought about by luck.

Isn't this true of soccer and (american) football as well?

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Now obviously there's much you can do by using skill... In fact, as you and others have stated, poker's more a game of skill than luck. And of course you can do well without even knowing your own cards... That's skill. And although I do agree that it's almost all skill, you cannot deny that part of the result/gameplay is determined by luck, i.e the cards you get and the cards that the rest of the players are given.

As far as I know, you can beat an excellent hand with a crappy hand, and beat a crappy hand with an excellent hand, but, to my knowledge, the latter is substantially easier, and that excellent hand is brought about by luck.

Isn't this true of soccer and (american) football as well?

:shock: ???

 

[borrofburi]

:shock: ???

Some days you get the wind on your side, sometimes you don't. Sometimes your team gets screwed by rain (or helped by it), and sometimes it doesn't... Sometimes your star player has a migraine or a sprained ankle from rock climbing, sometimes it's the other team's problem...