Frank Reintroduces Payment Systems Protection Act

September 13, 2008
Haley Hintze
U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) has introduced his "Payment Systems Protection Act of 2008" as part of his continuing effort to overturn the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Frank, the chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee, has described the UIGEA as the "stupidest law ever passed." Frank saw his previous attempt to bring anti-UIGEA legislation -- the original "Payment Systems Protection Act" -- foiled earlier this year when a committee vote on his measure ended up deadlocked.

The latest edition of Frank's bill directly addresses the worst shortcomings of the UIGEA as currently enacted, which failed even to attempt to define the term "Unlawful Internet
Duplicate Poker
Gambling." The UIGEA's last-second attachment to a must-pass port-security bill by right-wing politicians prevented proper vetting of the language by Congress, which in turn led to the bill's proving to be all but unworkable in its present form. The new bill, HR 6870, will attempt to prohibit the two US federal agencies responsible for implementing the UIGEA (the Department of the Treasury and the Financial Reserve Board), from extending the UIGEA's reach beyond those areas specifically outlawed under previous federal code, such as sports wagering.

Frank's HR 6870 also calls for the suspension of current UIGEA code until an administrative law judge (to be appointed if the law were to pass) works with the Treasury and Federal Reserve to develop and implement workable regulations. The current UIGEA attempts to accomplish its goals by placing an unfunded mandate upon the US banking system to categorically block many internet-related gambling transactions. Besides the UIGEA's attempt to force the nation's banking system to serve as law enforcement agents, estimates of the costs to the banking system itself for implementing and monitoring the UIGEA have been shown to be magnitudes greater than those initial offered by the bill's supporters.

Frank's bill will undergo an initial markup in subcommittee on Tuesday. While well-intentioned, and certainly introduced with the support of America's powerful banking lobby, the bill faces stiff opposition from anti-gambling forces. Frank's bill has already picked up its first co-sponsor in Rep. Peter King (R-NY).

Poker News

WPT Lawsuit Settled

Pokernews Article

The WPT has settled its lawsuit with several notable poker players. This lawsuit was filed back in 2006 by Andy Bloch, Annie Duke, Phil Gordon, Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson. The players had a big problem with the release forms that the WPT required them to sign in order to play the tournaments. According to the player's legal team, the release forms violated both federal and state anti-trust laws.

The players claimed that they had to release the rights to have their names and images used in whatever ways the WPT wanted. This included being used in video games and other promotions on behalf of the WPT, yet receiving no compensation from the WPT. It doesn't seem fair especially considering the players have to buy into the tournaments themselves.

The WPT people flat out denied having broken any laws, and argued that its casino contracts and releases do not make them liable for any malfeasance.

It appears that after several years of a drawn out legal battle, both sides agreed the lawsuit was portraying a negative light on poker. No money was included in the settlement; however the WPT has agreed to institute an improved standard release form to all players in WPT events.

Spokesperson Chris Ferguson seems happy with the settlement, saying he feels the new standard release forms will protect the player's rights to control their own images. Now all players worldwide will be protected, ultimately making this lawsuit a success.

Casino vs. Online Poker

It has been my experience that playing at a casino isn't as profitable as playing online for two main reasons: cost and time.

Casino Play

The costs of going to a casino to play a live game are high. If you are traveling away from home, you need money for travel expenses like gas, tolls, food and accommodation. Tips for dealers and waitstaff, not to mention bigger rakes, can all add up. Although comp dollars pay for some of this, it is not nearly enough.

It also takes time. Like most people, I don't live near a casino. To get to the nearest casino in Atlantic City, I have to drive an hour there and back. That's two hours taken away from actual game play. On top of the lost driving time, live play tends to be slower than playing online. With optimal conditions, players acting quickly and a strong dealer, you may only get to play about 30 hands an hour. In comparison, you can play anywhere from 60 to 80 hands an hour online.

You can also lose time waiting to be seated at a table in a casino. The popularity of poker has grown faster than the casinos' ability to accommodate aficionados, and it's not uncommon to wait for more than an hour for a table, two hours if it's the weekend.

As you can see, that's why I prefer to play online.

Advantages of Online Play

I've done much better with online casinos for a few reasons:

1. Experience: I play online every day so I'm used to it. I pick up players' tells pretty easily, and I'm probably more experienced than most players I'm up against.
2. Playing only when I'm at my best: Table selection is much better online, and I don't have to wait for a table. If I sit down and realize all the players are good, I can instantly switch. It's much harder to do that at a casino. It's also considered poor etiquette to leave a table at a casino if you win big really quickly. However, when I play online I can easily leave, bank my money and start a new table.

Another big benefit to online poker is that I can pick and choose when to play. If I'm at home and I play two hands and think, "You know what, screw this," I can stop. The same goes for if I'm hungry, tired, drunk, dumb, angry or sad. The same cannot be said about playing in a casino because I've already spent so much time, energy and money to get there.

1. Bankroll size: When I play online, I don't sit down with more than $600 on a table at any one time. When I am in a casino, it's quite common for me to have $800 or $1,000 in play at once. There's a lot more pressure when a bigger percentage of your bankroll is in play. The last time I was in the casino, I folded hands I would've called while playing online because I would've been out of money if I lost. Playing online also means I have access to all of my money. At the casinos, I only allow myself to use the money I bring, and having a sufficient bankroll is almost as important as being a good player.
2. Tells: There are certain tells that I've learned from online play, but I don't need to read any social situations online. So even though my knowledge of poker theory, playing the cards and reading online tells has expanded rapidly, my ability to read people in live games hasn't grown; in fact it may have even shrunk.

Online playing experience also comes with advantages and disadvantages when transferred to a live game. For instance, I have way more facial and behavioral tells in a live game because I don't need a poker face to play on a computer. On the other hand, I have fewer verbal and mannerism-related tells because I am used to playing in solitude and silence.

1. Patience and time management: As I said before, online games move much faster than live games. I'm also able to play two tables simultaneously online which results in constant action. When someone is used to constant action and then plays in the casino where there's a ton of dead time, they can end up playing loosely and forcing things that aren't there. That can lead to poker suicide and losing sessions.
2. Skill level: I think online players tend to be worse than those who play at the casinos. The dehumanizing factor of the computer makes good players play poorly. When you combine them with the regular poor players, the net result is pretty good for someone like me who has outgrown and overcome the computer's dehumanizing effect. In contrast, casinos in places like Atlantic City draw the sharks that are playing at the top of their game and preying on fish. This gives bad players less of a chance to gain experience and win some money.

Although every player has his or her own opinion about the pluses and minuses of online vs. casino play, I hope that my personal comparison of the two poker venues helps shed some light on the differences between them and what can be expected.

See you at the tables.

Add to Technorati Favorites

POKER IS NOT A CRIME

Poker is Not a Crime: Poker Players Rally to Fight MA Poker Ban
by Poker Players Alliance

For Immediate Release
March, 18, 2008

Contact:
Taylor Gross
(202) 347-7943
tgross@theheraldgroup.com

Washington, D.C. (March 18, 2008) - Poker players from across Massachusetts today held a rally outside of the Massachusetts State House to protest a provision in Governor Deval Patrick's casinos bill that makes playing poker on the internet with other adults a crime punishable by jail time. The rally was organized by the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), the leading poker grassroots advocacy group comprised of almost one million online and offline poker players nationwide, and held in prior to a hearing before the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies focused on H 4307, the Massachusetts Casino Expansion Bill.

"In the case of the online poker ban in the Governor's casino bill, making criminals out of adults who choose this form of skilled recreation makes no sense," said Randy Castonguay, Massachusetts State Director for PPA. "We urge members of the committee and the state legislature to recognize the unfairness of this provision and remove it from the bill in order to protect the rights of thousands of their constituents to enjoy this game of skill - whether online or at a card table."

The online poker criminalization provision (section 15 (i)) in H 4307 makes it illegal to play poker on the Internet in the comfort of one's own home, and carries a significant punishment -- 2 years in prison and/or a $25,000 fine. The growth of online poker allows many to play the game who otherwise wouldn't be able to get to a casino, including the disabled, paralyzed veterans, people recovering from serious illness and stay at home mothers. Moreover, the vast majority of people play Internet poker for very small stakes, with the most popular games online being played for mere pennies. Putting these individuals in jail or forcing them to pay exorbitant fines is truly unfair.

"Governor Patrick's casino bill makes no sense," said Harvard Law Professors Charles Nesson, who is also the founder of the Global Poker Strategic Thinking Society (GPSTS). "It would encourage the citizens of Massachusetts to spend their money at casinos in person but threaten them with 2-year jail terms for playing the same games over the Internet from the privacy of their homes. There's no question that the provision should be removed. But there is a question about who put it there in the first place. Inquiring minds want to know."

About The Poker Players Alliance
The Poker Players Alliance (www.pokerplayersalliance.org) is a nonprofit membership organization comprised of over 900,000 online and offline poker players and enthusiasts from around the United States who have joined together to speak with one voice to promote the game and to protect poker players' rights.

Author Contact Info: Poker Players Alliance
(202) 347-7943

Cool Poker Article

Ding, Ning, Ning, Ning!
By Daniel Nagranu

That's the sound slot machines make when you walk through the casino, but I heard this sound long before I ever stepped foot in a casino. I heard it back in my teen years while playing $10-$20 poker at the charity casinos. It was the sound my friend James Canto made virtually every time he won a pot.

I'm serious. He would rake in a pot, and then at the top of his lungs yell out, "Ding, ning, ning, ning!" He'd then display an annoying little grin and giggle some more - just enough to drive most everyone crazy. If I hadn't known James away from the table, I definitely don't think we would have been friends. He was just far too annoying at the table to fathom.

I did a lot of thinking, though, about what James was trying to accomplish with his antics. Why was he so keen on getting under everybody's skin? It finally dawned on me. Now, I'm not sure if James knowingly created this image or was just being himself, but he had everybody gunning for him when he was in a pot. His opponents wanted nothing more than to put a bad beat on him so they could stand up and yell out, "Ding, ning, ning, ning" right in his face. James had that effect on people.

I started to wonder if being annoying was a good way to put people on tilt and play badly against you. It seemed to work for James.

Now, James wasn't all bad at the table; the recreational players either loved him or despised him. He certainly added energy and life to a poker game, but some of the recreational players just wanted to play poker. They hated the circus act that James put on when he was in a pot. In fact, several of the players would quit the game when James became too much to handle. On some days, he could be quiet for up to five minutes, while on others, I honestly believe he forgot to breathe.

In small doses, James was actually a funny guy, but after a while his act would begin to wear thin. If he'd been drinking at all, he would quickly become unbearable to listen to.

So, I would ask myself, is it worth it? Is it worth ticking off people just so they'll give you more action? After much thought, I finally decided that I didn't think so. The alternative was just so much better. Being a "nice guy" didn't mean that James wouldn't have gotten paid off. He played lots of hands anyway, so he was going to get paid off regardless!

Since the movie Rounders, I've noticed a trend that I'm not too happy about. I've noticed lots of younger players playing the game, which is a good thing, but I've also noticed some behavior that just doesn't belong in our game - a lack of respect, if you will. When you win a pot, just take it in, give the dealer a dollar or two, and move on. No victory dance is necessary, nor is an "I'm the man" glare across the table at the person you just beat in a pot. Basically, there's no need to make winning a pot against somebody a personal thing. It is just a game. It isn't a war between the young and the old, or between you and the other young kid across the table from you.

For many, the game's a job, but for others, it's just an entertaining afternoon. Don't spoil it for them by behaving immaturely and beating your chest like King Kong.

I receive many E-mails from young players who are just starting out, and I'm always concerned when I sense that they're taking the game too personally. When I read things like, "This dumb lady" or "This fat old man" hit a gutshot on me at the river, I'm immediately concerned.

Now, as you should already know, I'm not advocating that you shouldn't have fun at the table; I'd be the last person on earth to tell you that. Just make sure that you have fun in a friendly manner. Don't needle or make fun of a complete stranger, or someone who is obviously upset about losing a big pot. That's in bad taste. Needle only those with whom you have a good rapport and who you know can handle it. Also, don't become too personal with it; keep the humor light and good-natured.

If you want to see a good example of good-natured ribbing and needling, watch Doc Jennings, John Juanda, and Tony Popejoy go at it in the triple-draw lowball game they usually play. After playing with Tony at Commerce Casino recently, I was impressed with the way he handled himself at the table. He was very funny, and was able to needle everybody in the game respectfully and in good taste. The game was entertaining, and the jokes were coming at everyone's expense, including mine. I was no match for Mr. Popejoy, my choice for "Rookie Needler of the Year." After playing with Tony for a while, though, I'm afraid that's the only thing he'll win this year if he keeps playing poker as badly as he does. Yum-yum! (That is my weak attempt at a comeback after being the victim of a Popejoy onslaught for four hours.)