I missed the heyday of the online poker boom, where Americans could make deposits from their checking accounts and gamble with real money. It wasn't until a couple of years after Bill Frist snuck the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act into a complete unrelated security bill, making it illegal for U.S. financial institutions to transfer funds to sites like Pokerstars or Full Tilt and effectively killing online poker in the U.S., that I got into it. It's hard to express how repugnant it is that the Land of the Free is one of the few countries in the world where adults aren't allowed to play poker with their own money. But that's modern conservatism for you. Everyone's morality needs to be regulated, except for the CEOs getting rich by breaking the backs of the middle class or Republican congressmen trying to fuck underage pages.
Anyway, because I can't deposit money into my Pokerstars or Full Tilt accounts via my bank account, and because I'm wary of trusting the shady sites that will still transfer money (most of which seem to be based either in Russia or various east European countries I've never heard of), I'm stuck playing in the free sections of both sites. And it's not always bad. Sometimes, I'll find a game where the players know what they're doing, and get in some good practice. Much more often, though, I'll enter a freeroll tournament or a sit and go and some jackass will go all-in on the very first hand. Betting $15,000 to win $45 is hardly good EV, so it's not something you'd ever see happen where real money is at stake. But it's an annoyingly regular occurrence when nothing's actually at risk. Even when you don't encounter donks like that, free poker is still a poor simulation of the real thing. My play is no different. I'm a lot more likely to call a big raise with a marginal hand like two pair or a straight draw than I would if making a terrible read would actually cost me something.
So as someone who wants to play poker for real money, but not have to drive to Charles Town to do it--or for that matter, Atlantic City or Vegas--this was interesting news:
The timing of this was odd. Less than a week after Republicans in Congress told D.C. that it couldn't use its own funds for abortions and needle exchange programs, those same Republicans were going to turn around and let D.C. become an online den of iniquity? The always-entertaining Michael Brown seems to think so.
I find his naivite adorable. There's no way this is going to happen.
Republicans would probably try and kill D.C.'s online gambling plan regardless, but Brown all but jumping up and down in front of them, shouting, "Ha, ha, we tricked you! Too late to do anything about it!" is only going to make them more determined to do so. Ideally, this whole thing would have waited until Democrats controlled the House again, but in the very least, not openly taunting people who have demonstrated they have no respect for the concept of D.C. home rule, seems like it would be the prudent approach.
From the Washington Times:
Yeah, I dunno. That doesn't exactly scream, "Online poker? Sure, go for it, guys," to me. If Congress can't block the new law outright, I'm sure they'll find some other creative way of doing it. Lots of municipalities are interested in legalizing online poker, but in absence of a federal law, no one seems to want to go first. Not even Nevada. If D.C. does, that'll open the floodgates nationwide, leading to much conservative teeth gnashing about the evils of gambling, and how it would be just another tax on the American people, and what about the children, and so on. So I expect this to be killed fairly quickly.
The sad thing is, this plan really would bring in millions to the city. I think it'd actually exceed the projections of $13 million in revenue by 2014. Yes, some of that revenue would be made off of District residents who would lose money that they can't afford to lose. Most likely the same people you see at convenience stores blowing $20 on DC-5 tickets every day. But because non-D.C. residents would be allowed to play so long as they were inside the city limits, there'd also be tons of Virginia and Maryland residents who would make the trek in every weekend. Hell, every weeknight, too. Imagine empty storefronts somewhere in D.C. Now imagine them full of tables and internet routers, and people paying by the hour (so also, more jobs and tax revenue! Yay!) to sit down with their laptops, contributing rake after rake to the city's coffers. And don't forget about the tourists, who would come for business trips or sight-seeing and leave behind a lot more money than they'd planned.
I'd very much love to be proven wrong on this, and by the end of the year, supplementing my income via fish who have no poker acumen whatsoever. I'd actually just settle for some real competition. But I don't have a whole lot of faith in that happening. In other words, I better get used to playing freerolls.
Anyway, because I can't deposit money into my Pokerstars or Full Tilt accounts via my bank account, and because I'm wary of trusting the shady sites that will still transfer money (most of which seem to be based either in Russia or various east European countries I've never heard of), I'm stuck playing in the free sections of both sites. And it's not always bad. Sometimes, I'll find a game where the players know what they're doing, and get in some good practice. Much more often, though, I'll enter a freeroll tournament or a sit and go and some jackass will go all-in on the very first hand. Betting $15,000 to win $45 is hardly good EV, so it's not something you'd ever see happen where real money is at stake. But it's an annoyingly regular occurrence when nothing's actually at risk. Even when you don't encounter donks like that, free poker is still a poor simulation of the real thing. My play is no different. I'm a lot more likely to call a big raise with a marginal hand like two pair or a straight draw than I would if making a terrible read would actually cost me something.
So as someone who wants to play poker for real money, but not have to drive to Charles Town to do it--or for that matter, Atlantic City or Vegas--this was interesting news:
The District is becoming the first U.S. jurisdiction to allow Internet gambling, trying to raise millions of dollars from the habits of online poker buffs and acting ahead of traditional gambling meccas like New Jersey and Nevada.
Permitting the online games was part of the 2011 budget and a 30-day period for Congress to object expired last week, said D.C. Council member Michael A. Brown, who authored the provision.
The gaming would be operated by Intralot, a Greek company, and would be available only to gamblers within the borders of the District. (The Washington Post)
The timing of this was odd. Less than a week after Republicans in Congress told D.C. that it couldn't use its own funds for abortions and needle exchange programs, those same Republicans were going to turn around and let D.C. become an online den of iniquity? The always-entertaining Michael Brown seems to think so.
I find his naivite adorable. There's no way this is going to happen.
Republicans would probably try and kill D.C.'s online gambling plan regardless, but Brown all but jumping up and down in front of them, shouting, "Ha, ha, we tricked you! Too late to do anything about it!" is only going to make them more determined to do so. Ideally, this whole thing would have waited until Democrats controlled the House again, but in the very least, not openly taunting people who have demonstrated they have no respect for the concept of D.C. home rule, seems like it would be the prudent approach.
From the Washington Times:
But a spokesman for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Wednesday that the 30-day time period cited by Mr. Brown was merely symbolic and does not bar future action.
"That's not how Congress reviews controversial legislation passed by the District of Columbia," committee spokesman Frederick Hill said. "In practice, that is done through the normal legislative process or through spending bills or riders that restrict federal funds based on the implementation of certain laws."
Despite Mr. Brown's announcement, made to the Associated Press, Mr. Hill said the issue has not yet come up in Congress in the form of a hearing or a bill that would require action. Until it does, he said, "There is no specific plan to block the legislation."
Yeah, I dunno. That doesn't exactly scream, "Online poker? Sure, go for it, guys," to me. If Congress can't block the new law outright, I'm sure they'll find some other creative way of doing it. Lots of municipalities are interested in legalizing online poker, but in absence of a federal law, no one seems to want to go first. Not even Nevada. If D.C. does, that'll open the floodgates nationwide, leading to much conservative teeth gnashing about the evils of gambling, and how it would be just another tax on the American people, and what about the children, and so on. So I expect this to be killed fairly quickly.
The sad thing is, this plan really would bring in millions to the city. I think it'd actually exceed the projections of $13 million in revenue by 2014. Yes, some of that revenue would be made off of District residents who would lose money that they can't afford to lose. Most likely the same people you see at convenience stores blowing $20 on DC-5 tickets every day. But because non-D.C. residents would be allowed to play so long as they were inside the city limits, there'd also be tons of Virginia and Maryland residents who would make the trek in every weekend. Hell, every weeknight, too. Imagine empty storefronts somewhere in D.C. Now imagine them full of tables and internet routers, and people paying by the hour (so also, more jobs and tax revenue! Yay!) to sit down with their laptops, contributing rake after rake to the city's coffers. And don't forget about the tourists, who would come for business trips or sight-seeing and leave behind a lot more money than they'd planned.
I'd very much love to be proven wrong on this, and by the end of the year, supplementing my income via fish who have no poker acumen whatsoever. I'd actually just settle for some real competition. But I don't have a whole lot of faith in that happening. In other words, I better get used to playing freerolls.
0 comments:
Post a Comment