The Beginning of the Death of Online Poker in the US

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well PStars and Party don't allow U.S. customers I believe. They will reject any payments coming from those countries.

Pokerstars is the most active poker room in the US. They accept Echeck and you can also do a prepaid visa.

[RainMaker]

Then it's Party that bans U.S. I thought they used the same platform?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Then it's Party that bans U.S. I thought they used the same platform?

They do not use the same platform.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

They do not use the same platform.

Did they use to? I know Party had skins for tons of poker sites in the past.

[stevew]

No. But party and several other things were the same in the past

[Radii]

stars is the #1 site in the US with Full Tilt #2. Stars has always allowed US players.

I've also never successfully deposited via CC/Debit Card, but I haven't tried in years.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Did they use to? I know Party had skins for tons of poker sites in the past.

There used to be 3 Party skins that I knew of, Empire Poker and InterTops, and one more I forget that all fed into the Party tables and had the same look and feel. For awhile it was fairly simple to have accounts on all of them and bonus whore them all when bonuses came up.

[k0ruptr]

Originally Posted by Radii

There used to be 3 Party skins that I knew of, Empire Poker and InterTops, and one more I forget that all fed into the Party tables and had the same look and feel. For awhile it was fairly simple to have accounts on all of them and bonus whore them all when bonuses came up.

haha yea that was fun.. bonus whoring was great.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

haha yea that was fun.. bonus whoring was great.

Indeed it was. I think that's why I still get giddy and run back to stars every time they offer a bonus, even though Stars bonuses haven't been any better than Full Tilt rakeback over the same amount of play in years.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well PStars and Party don't allow U.S. customers I believe. They will reject any payments coming from those countries.

Naw, Pokerstars still allows U.S. players. Only PartyPoker restricts U.S. players, and even they are considering rolling back that restriction.

[Capital]

Has anyone tried cashing out recently? If so, any problems?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Capital

Has anyone tried cashing out recently? If so, any problems?

I've cashed out twice in the last week on FTP via paper check with no problems.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Capital

Has anyone tried cashing out recently? If so, any problems?

e-check cashout from pokerstars in the first week of july worked fine.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

No issues at all with getting a check from the poker sites.

Honestly, the government intervention thus far has been more of a non-intervention. I've had much better luck putting money in and taking it out since the passage of UIGEA than before it was passed. The companies are quick to act to avoid any blockage of payments going in and out. The government is two or three steps behind at any given moment. The people running these sites are far smarter and more well funded than our own government, hence the reason that passage of legalized gaming is a significant reality in the near future. The gov't is spending money to do nothing right now.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Forbes article on online poker battle with gov't.......

Are the Feds Cracking Down On Online Poker? - Forbes.com

[RainMaker]

Well they have time on their hands after catching and convicting all those people who defrauded people out of billions during the financial collapse.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well they have time on their hands after catching and convicting all those people who defrauded people out of billions during the financial collapse.

I've never found it to be easier to deposit/withdraw than right now. I use a major credit card and have no issues. Checks are sent to me and cash without any problem.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I've never found it to be easier to deposit/withdraw than right now. I use a major credit card and have no issues. Checks are sent to me and cash without any problem.

I was making a crack at the fact the Feds didn't really target any of the banks and financial institutions who ran these massive ponzi schemes and mortgage scams for the last decade. Just find it embarrasing that they are focusing on online poker when real criminals are running around.

[CleBrownsfan]

I agree - I set up a checking account used just for online poker (POkerstars) and I'm able to do direct deposit/withdraws (e-checks) with no problems. I never keep much in my PS account though because I'm always afraid of not being able to get it out. I just withdrew some money three days ago and I saw it in my account this morning.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I was making a crack at the fact the Feds didn't really target any of the banks and financial institutions who ran these massive ponzi schemes and mortgage scams for the last decade. Just find it embarrasing that they are focusing on online poker when real criminals are running around.

I know. I was just trying to redirect to poker.

[albionmoonlight]

Not about Poker per se, but the BetUs banner ad playing on this site right now made me do a double take. It asks what would you rather do with $100--order 7 buckets of extra crispy chicken OR make tons of money betting with them?

I looked at it when it had the "order 7 buckets of extra crispy" banner up, and I was totally stumped as to what the hell could be being advertised there.

And, to get back on topic, internet gambling is clearly one of those areas where we should all agree--make it legal federally and let states choose to ban it or allow/tax it.

[Lathum]

Albion- Maybe I am wrong but if something is legal on the federal level I thought states weren't allowed to ban it on a state level. Doesn't the constitution prohibit individual states fro overruling the fed because of all the anti-immigration laws California tried to pass in the 1870's?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Albion- Maybe I am wrong but if something is legal on the federal level I thought states weren't allowed to ban it on a state level. Doesn't the constitution prohibit individual states fro overruling the fed because of all the anti-immigration laws California tried to pass in the 1870's?

Maybe it would have been more accurate for me to say "de-criminalize."

Basically, state laws cannot conflict with valid federal laws, but states can legislate in areas where the fed is silent.

So, let's say that Congress, as part of its Constitutional authority to regulate commerce and the armed forces, passed a law saying that employers must hold open the jobs of individuals who take leaves of absence in order to join the armed forces and/or reservists who get called into active duty. (FWIW, there is a law somewhat like this, but I don't know the exact contours of it).

And then lets say that a state decided that this law placed too much of a burden on employers and wanted to create a more business friendly environment, so it passed a law saying that companies had the right to fire individuals for cause if they had to leave for military reasons.

That state law would be invalid under the supremacy clause. It would conflict with a valid federal law.

If, however, the fed is silent in an area--say that it says nothing about internet gambling--then states are free to regulate it however they want.

[Lathum]

Had a nice cash for 3K last night in a Stars $11 buy in tourny. Perfect timing with tuition due and a baby on the way in less than a month.

I haven't cashed out on Stars in forever, anyone know the best method. I am sure I can look on 2+2, just throwing it out there.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Had a nice cash for 3K last night in a Stars $11 buy in tourny. Perfect timing with tuition due and a baby on the way in less than a month.

I haven't cashed out on Stars in forever, anyone know the best method. I am sure I can look on 2+2, just throwing it out there.

Mailed check has always worked best for me. Never had any issues doing that other than having to wait a few days to get the money.

[Lathum]

So wow, requested echeck cashout at 7:30 PM PST of 3/31 and the money was in my account this morning.

[Chubby]

for all the states crying poverty and already in bed with gambling (hello NY) you'd think they'd be all over this to legalize and make a new source of income.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Chubby

for all the states crying poverty and already in bed with gambling (hello NY) you'd think they'd be all over this to legalize and make a new source of income.

One would think, especially considering Poker isn't even gambling

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Lathum

One would think, especially considering Poker isn't even gambling

That has me scratching my head.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

That has me scratching my head.

Why?

Poker has been ruled a skill game by many state governments.

Not to mention most people who play on a regular basis will tell you in the long run poker is 90% skill and 10% luck.

[Radii]

congrats lathum!

[MJ4H]

Gambling and skill game are not mutually exclusive.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Radii

congrats lathum!

Thanks! I don't play much anymore because I can't commit to the 8-9 hours required to win so this was a nice surprise.

[Lathum]

*sigh*

PokerStars statement on the blocking of players from Washington State

PokerStars today announced that it would cease providing real-money poker to residents of Washington State. To date, PokerStars has operated in Washington on the basis of legal opinions where the central advice was that the state could not constitutionally regulate Internet poker, or at least could not discriminate in favor of local cardrooms and against online sites. Last week, however, the Washington Supreme Court for the first time rejected that position and upheld the state's Internet gaming prohibition.

In light of this decision, following extensive consultation with our legal advisors, we believe that the right course of action is to now block real money play by Washington residents on the PokerStars.com site. This policy will remain in effect until the law changes or subsequent legal challenges succeed. Our decision to block real money play in Washington does not affect the balance of funds in customer accounts, which remain completely safe. Our payment services team continues to be available to Washington State residents to assist with cashout requests.

We regret this decision, which will no doubt disappoint our customers in Washington State. However, in all of the jurisdictions where we operate, we are committed to making responsible decisions that are based on a full and considered understanding of the most up-to-date legal advice.

PokerStars remains supportive of passing sensible Internet poker regulation in the United States that will provide much-needed tax revenues and formalize consumer protections. PokerStars operates under those conditions, complying with rigorous licensing regimes, for its worldwide operations in the Isle of Man (UK), and for local operations in Italy, France and Estonia.

[MJ4H]

I thought that happened several weeks ago?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Why?
Poker has been ruled a skill game by many state governments.
Not to mention most people who play on a regular basis will tell you in the long run poker is 90% skill and 10% luck.

I've friends who bet on (and also own) horses who swear blind the same about horse racing .....

Statistically speaking poker is most certainly gambling - there is a skill element to it, but you only have to look at the 'internet players' lifting the World Player titles to realise its not truly a game of skill.

Or to put it another way - how many amateur players do you think could lift the crown at Wimbledon (Tennis) or beat a Grand Master chess player? .... those are games of skill, poker is gambling with an element of skill involved.

(and this is coming from someone who enjoys a game of poker now and again)

[MJ4H]

You are making no distinction between poker tournaments and the game of poker. The degree of luck in a poker tournament is much higher than in the long run of the game itself.

I think the likelihood of a bad poker player beating a world class poker player in the long run of poker are pretty much the same as the chess example.

In a single tournament, anything can happen.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I thought that happened several weeks ago?

about 3 weeks ago but I hadn't played in a while so you can imagine my surprise when I logged in today.

[MJ4H]

ouch

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I've friends who bet on (and also own) horses who swear blind the same about horse racing .....

Statistically speaking poker is most certainly gambling - there is a skill element to it, but you only have to look at the 'internet players' lifting the World Player titles to realise its not truly a game of skill.

Or to put it another way - how many amateur players do you think could lift the crown at Wimbledon (Tennis) or beat a Grand Master chess player? .... those are games of skill, poker is gambling with an element of skill involved.

(and this is coming from someone who enjoys a game of poker now and again)

You couldn't be more incorrect.

Internet players win because of the experience you can get playing online, you can see many more hands then a live player, so you gain experience faster. Poker is also at its roots a game of math, and the internet players for the most part are math based.

MJ4H touched on it a little but I'll elaborate.

In a single setting, a single tournament or a single cash game session, any player lucky enough can win, but you can't look at poker that way, especially as a pro. You have to look at the long term. every pro is going to have a losing month or consecutive losing months, but the players who are skilled enough to be pros make a living over the long term. Do you just think they are really lucky? No, they know the odds and math, and over long term it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to lose.

I always use this example. If you sit 9 people at a poker table and dealt them a hundred hands, someone would get lucky and win. If you dealt those same people a million hands, they would all get the same starting hands the same number of times. The more skilled players would crush the less skilled players over the long term because they know how to play specific hands better, know how to get value out of better hands, know when to chase a draw and know when to fold.

Poker is absolutely a game of skill, if it isn't how do you account for the fact people make a living from it, are they just really lucky?

[MIJB#19]

What's interesting here is that last June in the Netherlands there's been a lawsuit where the court declared that poker does not qualify as a game of chance, stating there's no scientific proof that poker is a 100% game of chance.

[Lathum]

And down goes Full Tilt in Washington State

Dear Lathum,

Unfortunately, due to the recent Washington State Supreme Court ruling, real-money play at Full Tilt Poker is no longer permitted within Washington State.

[tyketime]

Originally Posted by Lathum

And down goes Full Tilt in Washington State

There's always Freddie's...

[Lathum]

I'm just glad they waited to pass the law until I had made enough to pay a chunk of my student loans off.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Open Channel - Reid's push for online poker (from Nevada casinos) riles lotteries

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Poker is absolutely a game of skill, if it isn't how do you account for the fact people make a living from it, are they just really lucky?

In this day and age most 'professional' players have sponsors who cover their entry fee's and most likely more ..... this helps ensure they smooth over the 'bumps' in form they might have in play (due to 'luck' ).

That some people can make a living from it means there is an element of skill, that combined with bad luck not running against them for a long enough time to 'break' them doesn't mean that its a game of skill in itself in my book.

For a comparison - the game of 'Sorry' - there is an element of skill in this due to the positioning of your pieces and which moves when, as such if I was mean I could normally beat my kids at it.

Would I indicate it was a game of 'skill' - not a bloody chance, you roll a dice to determine how far you can move ... that makes it a game of chance.

Poker is the same its a game of chance with an element of skill.

[Lathum]

Marc, you are just so wrong on so many levels. I am on my iPhone and dint have time to explin why right now but I will at some point.

[MJ4H]

I hope this guy can hold off the bad luck a little longer!!



This guy needs just a little dose of good luck to go with his bad, right?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

In this day and age most 'professional' players have sponsors who cover their entry fee's and most likely more ..... this helps ensure they smooth over the 'bumps' in form they might have in play (due to 'luck' ).

That some people can make a living from it means there is an element of skill, that combined with bad luck not running against them for a long enough time to 'break' them doesn't mean that its a game of skill in itself in my book.

For a comparison - the game of 'Sorry' - there is an element of skill in this due to the positioning of your pieces and which moves when, as such if I was mean I could normally beat my kids at it.

Would I indicate it was a game of 'skill' - not a bloody chance, you roll a dice to determine how far you can move ... that makes it a game of chance.

Poker is the same its a game of chance with an element of skill.

Marc,
The piece that you are missing is this.
"Having the best hand in a game of poker, is a game of luck"
"Having the winning hand in a game of poker is mostly skill."
Some stats suggest that in an on line world the best hand wins less than 30% of the time. Due to the nature of casino tables and mucks it is impossible to calculate their equivalent but I'd bet it is not far off.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

That some people can make a living from it means there is an element of skill, that combined with bad luck not running against them for a long enough time to 'break' them doesn't mean that its a game of skill in itself in my book.

For a comparison - the game of 'Sorry' - there is an element of skill in this due to the positioning of your pieces and which moves when, as such if I was mean I could normally beat my kids at it.

Would I indicate it was a game of 'skill' - not a bloody chance, you roll a dice to determine how far you can move ... that makes it a game of chance.

Poker is the same its a game of chance with an element of skill.

OK, so I am going to address all the wrong in this statement as previously promised.

In this day and age most 'professional' players have sponsors who cover their entry fee's and most likely more ..... this helps ensure they smooth over the 'bumps' in form they might have in play (due to 'luck' ).

You are right that there are sponsorships out there, but just like in anything else you have to be great in your field to gain them. How exactly do players get sponsorships? By being WINNING players of course. How is it that a small minority of players win? They are more skilled than others, luck has nothing to do with it.

For a comparison - the game of 'Sorry' - there is an element of skill in this due to the positioning of your pieces and which moves when, as such if I was mean I could normally beat my kids at it.

Would I indicate it was a game of 'skill' - not a bloody chance, you roll a dice to determine how far you can move ... that makes it a game of chance.

Poker is the same its a game of chance with an element of skill

This statement is borderline insulting to anyone who takes poker seriously. Sorry is a child's board game. All this info is in front of you and you have a very basic set of decisions to make, all with having complete knowledge of your opponents pieces.

Poker is a game of incomplete information, where you have to figure out what hands your opponent holds and determine your odds of beating that hand. The better players are better at determining their opponents hand and them mixing up their play.

This is just one example of skill in poker. There is also knowing odds, playing position, reading players, both physical tells and betting patterns, getting value, bankroll management, discipline to lay down a big hand, knowledge of tournament structure and strategy.

The problem with people like you is that they look at poker and think it is luck because in a single session they can win or lose based on getting good cards or lucky draws. And their is a lot of truth to that.

What you fail to understand is over time if you are more skilled at all the things I just mentioned, none of which involves luck at all, it is impossible to lose. That is how the Phil Ivey's of the world make millions at it and were doing it long before sponsorships. They are just better than everyone else.

I will also speak from experience as someone who has been playing for 17 years, including paying a good chunk of college tuition, among other things from winnings. There are times when you sit at a table and withing 30 minutes you know you are they best player. It isn't a matter of feeling "lucky," you know you are more skilled and short of other players getting lucky you can't lose. Play at that table long enough and you can't lose, the math and skill eventually take over.