United States Online Poker indictment.

[McGrrr]

i didnt read the article, but is online poker really that profitable?

For whom do you mean? The sites or the players?

The largest site, Pokerstars, raked $1.4bn in 2010 with £500m in profits. Revenues are massive in relation to running costs. Most of poker site spending focuses on advertising and promotions.

As for the players, the game is increasingly difficult to beat. The poker boom is long over and even par players now have a significantly better understanding of the fundamentals (i.e. position, ranges, board texture, fold equity, way ahead/way behind etc.) and a solid grasp of previously underrated/unknown concepts (i.e. villain ranges, balancing, pot control, bet sizing, general post flop play, betting patterns etc.). The game can still be profitable, but I don't understand why people would choose to play professionally within a country where their profits are taxable (sup America?). They would need a massive edge to beat 1) the competition, 2) the rake and 3) income tax.

Successful poker players need to have a certain level of degeneracy and gamble in them to get to where they are.

 

[Synre]

I bet ESPN is furious. NOW why are people going to watch their blocks of poker programming?

 

[MrIndigo]

let's see this then

The USA is essentially the central location for internet hosting around the world (something that has been the subject of international discussion recently due to the US government having power to force the servers to turn off to certain locations etc.)

Either way, it's still moot - This issue seems to be completely unrelated to jursidictional overreach issues.

 

[CaptKirby]

holy fucked up sentences!

can someone please explain to me why it falls to the us to prosecute non-us companies dealing with their citizens or is this just america being ridiculous as per usual

last I knew the U.S. had placed an embargo against somewhere in Central America (the Dominican Republic) over this issue, and the United Nations ruled that embargo illegal, which the United States ignored...I could be getting hte details wrong, look it up if you care enough I guess!

edit okay I actually looked it up, or at least wikipediaed...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigua#Internet_hosting_and_gaming WTO and Antigua, I do not know what the other details were in my head for; either way, U.S. is so far "factually" in the wrong in trying to control offshore gambling

+1, one of my good friends in college legit lost 30K in a night because of this. best part: he's a canadian citizen. this is money that he took time to earn and it really sucks since he was paying tuition for it.

Not sure why you would +1 my post...? I am in favor of your friend losing 30K. It is not up to gambling organizations to stop imbeciles from gambling away $30,000. It is up to individuals to stop the bleeding at $2000 and realize "hey I should probably never gamble again in my entire life on anything, I suck at it quite a bit". I am calling the nutjob moral being trying to restrict gambling, it is probably just about either restricting gambling because "oh no it is evil", or even worse if it is just to keep on sedating Las Vegas.

 

[billymills]

I bet ESPN is furious. NOW why are people going to watch their blocks of poker programming?

Does this mean poker may no longer be sponsored (and hence covered?).

I have been waiting for this for a long time.

 

[CaptKirby]

I just realized - did NO ONE in this topic discuss this in comparison to the stock market? The stock market is 100% unhealthy for the world (probably the real reason for the bailout). The U.S. allowing one and not the other is hypocritical, slipshod moralism, or entirely political (again, probably about Las Vegas, trust me there is a reason Nevada made this illegal, and they have been bitching to D.C. / sending money their way on this issue).

 

[iDunno]

I just realized - did NO ONE in this topic discuss this in comparison to the stock market? The stock market is 100% unhealthy for the world (probably the real reason for the bailout). The U.S. allowing one and not the other is hypocritical, slipshod moralism, or entirely political (again, probably about Las Vegas, trust me there is a reason Nevada made this illegal, and they have been bitching to D.C. / sending money their way on this issue).

Well... the stock market is the only thing keeping capitalism going in this country. Without it, many companies would collapse due to lack of funds, since many companies rely on investments from average consumers. Also, investing =/= gambling. Although they may be similar, an educated investor is able to become informed about his purchases and make intelligent decisions about who he or she invests with. Gambling is just luck. I don't know if this is what you were basing you're argument on, so sorry if my response sounds retarded.

Capitalism sucks either way. Socialism for all!

 

[McGrrr]

The stock market is 100% unhealthy for the world (probably the real reason for the bailout).

[x] The stock market provides equity financing for companies.
[ ] The stock market is 100% unhealthy for the world.
[ ] The stock market is the real reason for the bailout.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Hey at least they got those pesky gamblers! It's a good thing the bankers who are laundering the money aren't getting punished, we may lose too much talent and cause a global financial crisis or something!

the previously or currently rich only want people to get rich by the standard school-degree cycle. Its sad really. These people are gonna have to get real jobs now. Thats difficult in this economy.

Lol, the currently rich don't want anyone else to get rich. Then they won't be as rich. Also, good luck making $75k out of college. You're gonna need a computer science degree and a preeeetttyyy high GPA for that. You're completely right that this act was politically motivated but you have a pretty naive view of the world regarding everything else you posted.

 

[CaptKirby]

The modern stock market is all about money manipulation, I do not see it as much of a positive. I have no problem admitting it may be painting the subject as too black and white; for the purposes of this topic, I hope you can admit that the only relevant point is the comparison of people making money off of doing nothing (or rather nothing but betting money, the exact item being made illegal), which makes the stock market and gambling easily comparable in terms of the morals broached. If online gambling in international transactions is illegal, then stock market exchanges should be illegal for online international transactions.

For the record McGraw, you do understand that since I am in favor of gambling, I am not saying the stock market should be eradicated, right? Both should be allowed or neither should be allowed. Anything else is political and/or moral hypocrisy. Although the biggest problem here is probably that an anachronistic law is being applied to a modern situation. Politics should be more adaptive than this.

Also, it was probably the real LARGEST reason for the bailout. So go ahead and x that please!

 

[iDunno]

But the thing is, investors actually contribute something to society. They provide companies with funds and allow them to prosper. They ARE the driving force for capitalism and without them, creating and maintaining businesses would be nigh impossible. I mean, there are so many nonprofit organizations that compose research, for example, that rely in investments from private and public vendors completely, and without them, they wouldn't be able to continue their service. The only way someone can make money off of investing is if they sell the stock/bond/mutual fund/etc they hold, but one would only do that if they believed the fund wasn't going to maintain itself.

Online Gambling...doesn't do much. And apparently it doesn't help the government as much as I previously thought either seeing as they banned it.

 

[CaptKirby]

Not only did we have businesses before stock markets, not only do some of these companies "do evil", thus the person contributing does evil, but there are people who JUST manage money for a living. A lot of them, if you have not heard. You also seem to realize that a) most of stocks are held by the rich / "corporate" investors b) stocks are constantly turned over, so the company cannot exactly go out and spend all that cash. This is not some noble endeavor. No one who invests in stocks does it to help other people out, they do it to make money. Stocks are essentially gambling, and all the same morals apply. The problem here is either a) an outdated law being applied for moral reasons that are hypocritical since the stock market allows for massive gambling / is practically gambling, corrupt practices, and other reasons or b) an outdated law being applied for political reasons that should not hold water.

lol does not do much because the government banned it? The government banned it because Vegas bitched / used money to bitch, what does that prove about it "not helping"?

Also, it does not matter if gambling does nothing positive or if it is a "social ill". People should be allowed to spend their money however they want. What is so noble about building businesses or spending money on consumer goods? It is not good because people are having fun with money in a way that does not involve purchasing overpriced goods and participating in chic modern life? That is fucking nonsense. Money was not created to contribute to society, it was created to facilitate societies exchanges (in this case, money bet against other money). Even worse, you realize that none of this has anything to do with fucking anything, right? Whether or not it is fluffy marshmallows or praising Satan in your mind, casinos are legal all over the United States and ruin plenty of lives, and enable people to make the same living. Those places are mad that online places let you do it easier with better fucking returns without the travel. None of your points have merit. The same living can be had, you just do it with actual better returns by doing it online, whether poker, sports, or anything else.

 

[iDunno]

Yeah I get it. There is no reason why online gambling should be banned. But I don't understand why you turn a completely blind eye to the fact that the Stock Market helps America in any shape or form. If you noticed, I never said anything about agreeing with the legislation. Just because I think gambling is useless doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. I've just been replying to you to tell you that you're analogy is retarded.

None of your points have merit. The same living can be had, you just do it with actual better returns by doing it online, whether poker, sports, or anything else.

WHAT POINTS ARE YOU REBUTTING??? I don't recall saying anything denying this.


I think you may be falling ill to Phantom Debate Syndrome

 

[Glen]

Well... the stock market is the only thing keeping capitalism going in this country. Without it, many companies would collapse due to lack of funds, since many companies rely on investments from average consumers. Also, investing =/= gambling. Although they may be similar, an educated investor is able to become informed about his purchases and make intelligent decisions about who he or she invests with. Gambling is just luck. I don't know if this is what you were basing you're argument on, so sorry if my response sounds retarded.

Capitalism sucks either way. Socialism for all!

actually poker is a game of intelligent decisions, the same few people take almost every major event, and if you know what you're doing you can make a living through online poker with little to no risk. it's still gambling so of course luck is a factor, but to say it's just luck is a bit naive

 

[Requiem[9]]

"Humphrey said Internet poker companies have argued in court that online poker is legal because it is a game of skill, as opposed to a game of chance."

heh heh heh

This seems like a weird comment on a pokemon forum, since they're similar games. Luck plays as much a factor in pokemon as poker, and that doesn't mean there aren't better and worse players. Good players are defined by their ability to get into situations where their opponents have to get lucky to win. That's a bit simplistic, but I don't see how that's a funny defense.

 

[Zebstrika]

Unlike in poker, you can choose your team (hand) in Pokemon, giving it much more skill.

 

[Glen]

Unlike in poker, you can choose your team (hand) in Pokemon, giving it much more skill.

this goes so far beyond the realm of facile that i'm at a loss

 

[Curtains]

This seems like a weird comment on a pokemon forum, since they're similar games. Luck plays as much a factor in pokemon as poker, and that doesn't mean there aren't better and worse players. Good players are defined by their ability to get into situations where their opponents have to get lucky to win. That's a bit simplistic, but I don't see how that's a funny defense.

I dont think pokemon is even close to poker as far as skill/luck goes. Thats insulting poker. The main difference between pokemon and poker is that poker is much more well defined. In poker if you are the better player vs a weaker player you will win 95% of the time. In pokemon almost everything is a matter of luck. The only real skillful act in pokemon is getting in better position (glorified guessing if you will) and team building for the metagame. Other than that pokemon is just random button mashing and hoping you don't get a crit. Pokemon is fun but it is no where near demands the need for high mind capacity and intelligence as poker. Especially 5th gen.

 

[McGrrr]

Even though I no longer play, I am happy that people continue to believe that skill is insignificant to poker; because the sooner that HMRC catches wind that this is false, the sooner the government makes poker profits tax liable.

 

[mattj]

I somehow don't think it would work.

As for the legality issue if

The companies allegedly arranged for the money from U.S. gamblers to be disguised as payments to hundreds of non-existent online merchants for the purchase of items such as jewelry and golf balls, according to the indictment.

is illegal, then I don't see what's wrong with what the DOJ did.

 

[Requiem[9]]

I dont think pokemon is even close to poker as far as skill/luck goes. Thats insulting poker. The main difference between pokemon and poker is that poker is much more well defined. In poker if you are the better player vs a weaker player you will win 95% of the time. In pokemon almost everything is a matter of luck. The only real skillful act in pokemon is getting in better position (glorified guessing if you will) and team building for the metagame. Other than that pokemon is just random button mashing and hoping you don't get a crit. Pokemon is fun but it is no where near demands the need for high mind capacity and intelligence as poker. Especially 5th gen.

You need massive, massive samples to tell who's the better player. The better player in poker can lose over thousand of hands. I mean, you can legitimately still argue that Tom Dwan is a better player than Jungleman12 even after their match. And, getting crit in pokemon is pretty much the same as getting coolered on poker. There's honestly not that much of a difference between the two, other than that one involves colorful animals and the other has a long history. There's a lot of different kinds of random bullshit in pokemon, but there isn't more net bullshit than poker. Similarly, while pokemon matches aren't broken into nice segments like hands, the play my hand/play my range sort of dichotomy is still there. I mean, just look at the recent Poker After Darks, too: Patrik Antonius isn't a bad player just because he's down three buy-ins. I'm not the best poker player or pokemon player, but I honestly don't see your argument...

Or, why you're arguing.

Unlike in poker, you can choose your team (hand) in Pokemon, giving it much more skill.

Okay, this I disagree with.

 

[Curtains]

You need massive, massive samples to tell who's the better player. The better player in poker can lose over thousand of hands. I mean, you can legitimately still argue that Tom Dwan is a better player than Jungleman12 even after their match. And, getting crit in pokemon is pretty much the same as getting coolered on poker. There's honestly not that much of a difference between the two, other than that one involves colorful animals and the other has a long history. There's a lot of different kinds of random bullshit in pokemon, but there isn't more net bullshit than poker. Similarly, while pokemon matches aren't broken into nice segments like hands, the play my hand/play my range sort of dichotomy is still there. I mean, just look at the recent Poker After Darks, too: Patrik Antonius isn't a bad player just because he's down three buy-ins. I'm not the best poker player or pokemon player, but I honestly don't see your argument...

Or, why you're arguing.

If pokemon takes as much skill as poker then why isnt it played for millions of dollars? If you take a random smogon tour and a random world poker tour you will always notice that there are always the best players at the final table and maybe one or two amatures. In the last 16 in a tour you will have 10 elete battler1900's and a few noticeable names. Even though pokemon has alot more depth in terms of items/monsters and moves anyone can pick it up and do well at it without any knowledge of whats going on. If you sit at a table and try to play poker the first times your gonna get smashed by expert readers, No matter how good your hands are. Pokemon is alot more mapped out and requires in the long run less creativity to do well. Look at the fifth gen metagame. Its either rain, stall, sand, sun. You only have to prepare for four teams. Hell i use banded dragonite and allways on the first move i spam outrage. That takes as much thought as taking a shit. And if they bring in X ill bring in Y and its that easy. In poker its different. You get 2 cards ( or in other variants 5-7 cards) and you have to calculate your hand ,the board, what others may have, the pot, your stack, EVERY section of the hand. In pokemon you already see the opponents team so basically its just advanced ro sham bo.

I know this isnt a pokemon vs poker topic but i must address this incorrect comparison.

 

[Zebstrika]

If pokemon takes as much skill as poker then why isnt it played for millions of dollars?

1. Pokemon has only existed for about 15 years, but people have been playing poker for much longer and are therefore much more familiar with the game. In addition to Pokemon being invented more recently, the game frequently changes.

2. Pokemon requires more memorization, because there are 649 Pokemon with hundreds of different moves, abilities and game mechanics. Poker only has 52 cards that each have a pattern and are the same in many other games, with few rules. Pokemon requires skill to make a good team. You can't just take six popular pokemon and their movesets, slap them together and expect to consistently win.

3. Many people think of Pokemon as being a game where you catch cool and cute made-up animal ripoffs rather than for the competitive and strategic battling.

Unlike in poker, you can choose your team (hand) in Pokemon, giving it much more skill.

Okay, this I disagree with.

I guess I should rephrase that and say, "a type of skill that poker does not require."

For Pokemon, it requires skill to build your team effectively. Poker relies on luck for you to get a hand.

Both games have luck involved regarding what type of player you meet and the team/hand matchups.

Both require guesswork during gameplay, because you have an advantage if you know how daring your opponent(s) is and what type of team/hand he/she has. Pokemon also requires you to know what action your opponent will take next.

Pokemon always has luck during gameplay, and only some variants of poker do.

Tl;dr It still isn't a good comparison because the two games require skill in two different areas.

 

[Curtains]

2. Pokemon requires more memorization, because there are 649 Pokemon with hundreds of different moves, abilities and game mechanics. Poker only has 52 cards that each have a pattern and are the same in many other games, with few rules. Pokemon requires skill to make a good team. You can't just take six popular pokemon and their movesets, slap them together and expect to consistently win.

Wrong. 649/3= 200 ish fully evo pokemon. And about 70 that are actually decent in the metagame makes pokemon every easy to learn. The pokemon are nicely colored so that you can tell that "hey hes red so he must be a fire type" and hey that pokemon made it rain so it must be a water type. Most of the time pokemon is just trial and error. Poker requires more instant memorization and calculation. What did the player in second position do this turn that is different from last turn? What are the odds of me winning heads up when i have QQ and he has KK? More math = harder to memorize. Colors = not hard to memorize. Im not bashing the game. Its just that pokemon is not hard at all compared to poker. You would never see thousands of 12-14 year olds do well in poker. They dont know how to process 100's of calculations in a match. They do know how to match simple types in a ro sham bo way. Even if they have to deviate a tempo ("predict"). Its not just mental, its physical too. In pokemon all your looking at is a screen of a ferrothorn all day. In poker you have to watch the simplest movements to make an accurate prediction. In pokemon all you have to do is set up spikes. Bring out X when his spinner comes in etc. Pokemon is no comparison.

tl;dr Poker isnt just memorizing 52 cards. Its about making the right decisions and calculating and memorizing the things that the opponents do all match.

 

[Zebstrika]

tl;dr Poker isnt just memorizing 52 cards. Its about making the right decisions and calculating and memorizing the things that the opponents do all match.

Same with Pokemon. You can't win without making the right decisions, calculating whether it is a good idea to leave your Outrage-confused Dragonite out against that Salamence or if you should switch and let it set up, and memorizing what strategies the opponent has tried before.

And about 70 that are actually decent in the metagame makes pokemon every easy to learn.

But you should still memorize all the ones you might see in a match. Mismagius, for example, is rare and somewhat outclassed but still a threat.

The pokemon are nicely colored so that you can tell that "hey hes red so he must be a fire type" and hey that pokemon made it rain so it must be a water type.

Breloom used Mach Punch! Heatran got pwned! There's still a lot more, like memorizing the accuracy and power of moves, base stats, common movesets, etc.

You would never see thousands of 12-14 year olds do well in poker. They dont know how to process 100's of calculations in a match.

I do it in Pokemon too. And in poker they aren't that hard, as long as you remember simple stuff like times tables up to 13, etc. In Pokemon usually percentages are in twentieths or powers of two.

In poker you have to watch the simplest movements to make an accurate prediction. In pokemon all you have to do is set up spikes. Bring out X when his spinner comes in etc. Pokemon is no comparison.

In poker those simple moves are pretty rare, about as common as a simple move can be in Pokemon. Like Thundurus uses Volt Switch instead of switching, because he knew he would take the hit instead of the switch-in.

I think we can still agree that both games have some luck and some skill.