The Beginning of the Death of Online Poker in the US

[Comey]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Disney’s ESPN Drops Poker Programming After Websites Charged - Bloomberg

Yeah, I saw that a few days ago. That's a shame...I wonder what'll happen with the WSOP, PAD, HSP, etc...but especially the WSOP. Can they find enough sponsors to get them back on the air? And that's a lot of time ESPN suddenly has to fill (while I'm sure they can easily, the WSOP is good business for them, probably better than anything that could replace it)...I wonder if they'll find a compromise before long.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Very few tea partiers or libertarians are for zero government regulation. They are for regulation that will allow fair trade, but not for regulation that has too wide sweeping power. Part of the anger over the Obama banking regulation and consumer protection agency was that the agency had too wide sweeping power, would be a presidential appointee with no accountability to congress and didn't have clearly defined rules on what they could or couldn't do.

I understand hypocrisy as well, and it isn't a cute bumper sticker on either side when the issues are glossed over, oversimplified or not looked at on both sides by the person making the accusation. You are the same person who said the government had spent all it's money investigating Bonds and that NOT ONE person had been tried for financial fraud.

Just so you know, I'm not a tea partier, though I agree with the republicans on the issue of a presidential appointee having unlimited oversite of the banking industry.

I know they aren't. They are for regulation of things they don't like and for no regulation on stuff they do like. It's just that their websites and talking points don't seem to word it like that. And I'm not the one that is oversimplifying it, they are. Go through the websites, listen to their speeches, it's very black and white to them.

And tough shit if there was too much oversight. It's our fucking money. These banks would have been insolvent without the U.S. government. So tough shit if they don't like how we tell them to spend our own fucking money.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Comey

Yeah, I saw that a few days ago. That's a shame...I wonder what'll happen with the WSOP, PAD, HSP, etc...but especially the WSOP. Can they find enough sponsors to get them back on the air? And that's a lot of time ESPN suddenly has to fill (while I'm sure they can easily, the WSOP is good business for them, probably better than anything that could replace it)...I wonder if they'll find a compromise before long.

Saw this article that gives a nice overview of the changes this will cause. Didn't realize how many spots in the WSOP were via tournaments online.

Insider Breakdown Of Poker's Black Friday - CNBC

[Cap Ologist]

Has there been a definitive answer if players will get their money back at some point? I didn't have that much money left online, but I'd still like that couple hundred bucks back.

[Lathum]

Dan Patrick talking about it today and spewing all kinds of false information. This is the biggest problem, uninformed people with access to the masses completely misrepresenting the situation.

[Lathum]

Incompatible Browser | Facebook

[DaddyTorgo]

Ridiculous.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Comey

And that's a lot of time ESPN suddenly has to fill (while I'm sure they can easily, the WSOP is good business for them, probably better than anything that could replace it)

Not that much better though. Ratings were down 30% in 2010 vs '09, plus the event is a real bear in terms of production headaches & cost (relative to another generic indoor event). There's various theories about why the ratings swooned, but I believe nothing caused it so much as the b.s. "November Nine" crap that kills every bit of the momentum of the event for all but the most hardcore. As championship ideas go, it makes the FedEx Cup look like sheer genius.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not that much better though. Ratings were down 30% in 2010 vs '09, plus the event is a real bear in terms of production headaches & cost (relative to another generic indoor event). There's various theories about why the ratings swooned, but I believe nothing caused it so much as the b.s. "November Nine" crap that kills every bit of the momentum of the event for all but the most hardcore. As championship ideas go, it makes the FedEx Cup look like sheer genius.

I honestly think that (at least for me) it got too diluted and there were too many people who won some tournament to get in and then made a run that then ESPN spent all this time talking about their story and trying to build them up as a character rather than focusing on the poker.

And I know that's part of the beauty of it as an event and everything, but it makes for tough TV because you don't have compelling returning characters to root for, so you're in effect returning a new cast every year kind of, and having to hype them from ground zero.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Incompatible Browser | Facebook

I'd love to see him address it (though that's doubtful), but I'm very disturbed to read about people who "need online poker to feed their kids". We should legalize poker and take those kids away.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Incompatible Browser | Facebook

Can you summarize this? FB is blocked at work for me unless I want to jump through a bunch of hoops, and the URL title isn't saying anything.

[MJ4H]

^^ ditto

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

Can you summarize this? FB is blocked at work for me unless I want to jump through a bunch of hoops, and the URL title isn't saying anything.

Obama's having a facebook town hall today, where you can submit questions. On the first page of submitted questions off of that link - it seems 80% are about online poker -"why are you shutting down these domains?", "you're cutting into my income", etc.

[BillyNYC]

Originally Posted by molson

I'd love to see him address it (though that's doubtful), but I'm very disturbed to read about people who "need online poker to feed their kids". We should legalize poker and take those kids away.

Eh. To some people it's their full-time job. It's not much different (hypothetically) than a stockbroker who wakes up one day and finds the stock market closed indefinitely. Their source of income...and career...have been suddenly cut off. Their skills are only somewhat transferrable to other fields.

As long as they've been paying their taxes (and more importantly, if online poker in and of itself is legal...), they have as much right to earn a living playing poker as anyone does in any other field.

If you equate "professional poker player" with drug dealer, yes, there would be parenting issues. I equate it more with stockbroker or small business owner (sinking their own money in, maybe with some investors; needing to earn a profit on the merits of their work...and some luck...or close down), and don't think it precludes one from necessarily being a good parent.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BillyNYC

Eh. To some people it's their full-time job. It's not much different (hypothetically) than a stockbroker who wakes up one day and finds the stock market closed indefinitely. Their source of income...and career...have been suddenly cut off. Their skills are only somewhat transferrable to other fields.

As long as they've been paying their taxes (and more importantly, if online poker in and of itself is legal...), they have as much right to earn a living playing poker as anyone does in any other field.

If you equate "professional poker player" with drug dealer, yes, there would be parenting issues. I equate it more with stockbroker or small business owner (sinking their own money in, maybe with some investors; needing to earn a profit on the merits of their work...and some luck...or close down), and don't think it precludes one from necessarily being a good parent.

If poker is legal, yes. If it's not, and the sites are subject to seizure at any moment, different story. (And I'd bet a lot of those amateur players aren't paying their taxes on their winnings, and are still collecting government benefits as if they're unemployed.) I'd think the appeal of poker as a job would take a signficant step downwards if it goes legit.

Edit: I would be funny if the government auditted everyone who submitted a facebook townhouse question about poker and could tie them to their gambling winnings.

[fantom1979]

Having a facebook town hall might be the worst idea ever. Anyone that has ever read the comments in a youtube video or a yahoo news article would know better.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

Having a facebook town hall might be the worst idea ever. Anyone that has ever read the comments in a youtube video or a yahoo news article would know better.

He doesn't take them seriously anyways. He had one when he was running for president and there were a high percentage of legit questions about legalizing marijuana that he made some joke about. I know he is stuck because he really can't say he would legalize drugs either but he just made a joke about it. I am sure he will give about as much thought to this as well. Face it with the contributions they are getting from the major players they don't care.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

If poker is legal, yes. If it's not, and the sites are subject to seizure at any moment, different story.

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO PLAY POKER ONLINE!!!!!!

except in the crappy state I reside in.

[Lathum]

dola- Before I graduated college, got a better job, and got married I used poker to supplement my income. It also halped pay my tuition and other expenses.

How is someone doing it online any different that making their way down to the local Indian casino to play?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

How is someone doing it online any different that making their way down to the local Indian casino to play?

Because it's more likely that the government will seize the website (and the money there) than the local Indian casino.

Edit: All I'm saying is that a parent shouldn't rely on Pokerstars to feed their kids.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I believe nothing caused it so much as the b.s. "November Nine" crap that kills every bit of the momentum of the event for all but the most hardcore. As championship ideas go, it makes the FedEx Cup look like sheer genius.

What's funny about that is that ESPN's tv coverage was one of the biggest reasons this started... hell maybe it was the only reason. I don't know any poker players that liked the idea, it was simply so that ESPN could produce a nearly live broadcast without the winner having already been known for 4 months, believing the hype would add suspense, ratings, and interest in the game in general. I still think it was a ridiculous and horrible idea.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: All I'm saying is that a parent shouldn't rely on Pokerstars to feed their kids.

There has been a lot of reasonable discussion over the years on 2+2 on how to do this the right way. Have a poker bankroll separate from your savings and money set aside for living expense, pull profit out of poker as needed/desired for income. Have more money set aside for living expenses than one might recommend for a "normal" job because of the variance in poker, like anyone self employed consider that you may not turn a profit over a period of time and prepare yourself for that possibility. If the money from your play supports people other than yourself, consider an even bigger safety net to allow for variance. Play with a proper bankroll so that if you have a long period where you run bad you don't have to pull money out of savings to fund your bankroll.

Basically, treat it as if you were a self employed small business owner. You're working for yourself on your own time but if you have people to support you have to manage your risk properly.

Many, many, many online poker pros were doing these things and feeding a family by doing so and are not going to be starving next week and are perfectly responsible adults.

Some weren't, but those people would have been living paycheck to paycheck at their normal job anyway and would be crying "I NEED THIS TO FEED MY KIDS" if IBM laid them off too.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: All I'm saying is that a parent shouldn't rely on Pokerstars to feed their kids.

Radii touched on it but you can say that about anything. Anyone can get laid off, suffer an injury and have their disability run out, have their investments tank, etc...

There are very few people in America who wouldn't suffer if their livlihood was stripped from the suddenly. Why is online poker any different, especially since it is a perfectly legal activity, except in my nanny state.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Why is online poker any different ...

{sings} ... and that brings us back to ... games of chance, a sucker's bet, a lousy way to feed your kids ... {/singing}

I don't recommend daytrading to feed 'em either.

[MJ4H]

Except most of these players have profit graphs with more reliably straight lines than my teaching job's.

[Pumpy Tudors]

And I think we've now reached the point of the argument where one side argues that the sky is green and the other side argues that the Golden State Warriors will win the NBA championship next season.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Radii

Basically, treat it as if you were a self employed small business owner. You're working for yourself on your own time but if you have people to support you have to manage your risk properly.

Well, and treat your small business and entire industry as if it can (and probably will) be seized by the government at any moment.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned. If someone told me their sole, only source of income was internet poker, and that they were't developing any other job skills or experience, I'd be sad for their kids.

We also seem to be assuming that everyone who plays poker makes a killing. Doesn't there have to be more losers than winners? A lot (probably most) of those losers "think" they're winners, or think that winning is just around the corner. When the federal government regulates/facilitates domestic internet poker, there needs to be a hefty use and winnings tax to pay those social costs (as is done with currently "legal" and facilitated gambling.) It can't be treated as regular income.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by molson

Well, and treat your small business and entire industry as if it can (and probably will) be seized by the government at any moment.

hindsight

Originally Posted by molson

We also seem to be assuming that everyone who plays poker makes a killing.

We are talking about those that play for a living. They win consistently or they wouldn't be doing it.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

And I think we've now reached the point of the argument where one side argues that the sky is green and the other side argues that the Golden State Warriors will win the NBA championship next season.

Wait, what? You're saying the Warriors don't have a chance next year?

[molson]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

hindsight

Really? This was shocking? The title of this thread is "the beginning of the death of online poker in the US" and the thread is almost 5 years old.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Wait, what? You're saying the Warriors don't have a chance next year?

BRING BACK BARON DAVIS!!!

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{sings} ... and that brings us back to ... games of chance, a sucker's bet, a lousy way to feed your kids ... {/singing}

I don't recommend daytrading to feed 'em either.

you are completely wrong again. We aren't talking about people who are taking money they need to survive and pissing it away. These are people with a proven track record at making a living playing poker. They are consistent winners, with facts to back them up.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

BRING BACK BARON DAVIS!!!

Now you're talking! Now if they could just win on the road...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

These are people with a proven track record at making a living playing poker. They are consistent winners, with facts to back them up.

And how are they doing so far this week?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Now you're talking! Now if they could just win on the road...

Let's not go overboard here.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

We also seem to be assuming that everyone who plays poker makes a killing.

Oh, I didn't realize that. No, I'm talking about probably .01% of people who have played online in the last year, maybe less, who are making a living playing poker. Maybe a slightly higher percentage if you throw in smart college kids who are doing this instead of getting a part time job for spending money.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

We are talking about those that play for a living. They win consistently or they wouldn't be doing it.

Or they're addicts. Or they're pissing through their life savings. Or their inheritance. There's quite a few scenarios that are at least equally as reasonable as simply playing winning poker.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Let's not go overboard here.

Baron or winning on the road?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Radii

Oh, I didn't realize that. No, I'm talking about probably .01% of people who have played online in the last year, maybe less, who are making a living playing poker. Maybe a slightly higher percentage if you throw in smart college kids who are doing this instead of getting a part time job for spending money.

I have no doubt that there's a group of people that can make a living, and do so with pretty minimal risk relative to other jobs (at least, if internet poker wasn't in the government crosshairs, as it's been for while now). But I agree with you that that's a probably pretty small number (and maybe even smaller if 30-40% of internet gambling winnings were witheld for taxes). For everybody that pulls it off though, there's a lot more than fail, and a few that ruin themselves and their families. That's OK, I don't have a problem with transfering wealth from stupid people to skilled people, but there is a societal cost there (which can be mitigated with aggressive taxation and enforcement).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Lathum

you are completely wrong again.

Right, wrong, I'm not the guy who has law enforcement breathing down their neck now am I?

We aren't talking about people who are taking money they need to survive and pissing it away.

Got a mouse in your pocket? Because apparently we aren't talking about the same people.

These are people with a proven track record at making a living playing poker. They are consistent winners, with facts to back them up.

If those folks are the ones crying about needing an online game in order to "feed their kids" less than a week after they were cracked down on apparently they haven't done a good job of managing that money ... or maybe they haven't been raking it in the way you're claiming here. That sort of statement this soon sounds a lot more like an addict in need of a fix (or treatment) than professional anythings.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Baron or winning on the road?

The Warriors couldn't win a road game if you had them play against three infants in a gym just outside Omaha.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

The Warriors couldn't win a road game if you had them play against three infants in a gym just outside Omaha.

Damn. Monta is going to be pissed when I tell him you said that.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If those folks are the ones crying about needing an online game in order to "feed their kids" less than a week after they were cracked down on apparently they haven't done a good job of managing that money ... or maybe they haven't been raking it in the way you're claiming here. That sort of statement this soon sounds a lot more like an addict in need of a fix (or treatment) than professional anythings.

You are kidding yourself if you think there isn't a very large section of the population who if they lost their source of income today would be in line at a foodbank tomorrow.

Why should someone who makes a living at online poker be considered any different?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You are kidding yourself if you think there isn't a very large section of the population who if they lost their source of income today would be in line at a foodbank tomorrow.

Why should someone who makes a living at online poker be considered any different?

I think it's because it's considered one of the 3 main vices in this country that dates back to pre-revolutionary times: Gambling, booze, sex.

I'm not arguing, I just think that's where the genesis of the stigma to online gambling comes from.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I think it's because it's considered one of the 3 main vices in this country that dates back to pre-revolutionary times: Gambling, booze, sex.

.

Yet the millions of people who make a living working in a casino, in the adult entertainment industry, and in the booze industy have a right to make that living.

Makes sense.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Yet the millions of people who make a living working in a casino, in the adult entertainment industry, and in the booze industy have a right to make that living.

Makes sense.

They probably have better lobbyists.

[DaddyTorgo]

Don't poke the Lathum.

[fantom1979]

Lathum sounds like I did after they shutdown yessmoke.com

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Or they're addicts. Or they're pissing through their life savings. Or their inheritance. There's quite a few scenarios that are at least equally as reasonable as simply playing winning poker.

In none of those scenarios is the person playing for a living. They may not have another job, but they are not making a living playing poker.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

In none of those scenarios is the person playing for a living. They may not have another job, but they are not making a living playing poker.

So you're only "making a living" at it if you're successful, but those who fail miserably in the attempt don't count against the numbers? Yeah, I get it now. That sort of logic would indeed provide a high success rate for the "making a living" at it subset.