by publius
Be afraid America -- a great scourge is spreading across our land. And it must be stopped. Right now, as you are reading these very words, millions of Americans are facilitating criminal behavior. They are sitting at their computers, accessing the Internets, and ... [dramatic chord] playing poker! For money!
I know, because I am one of these Americans. The Demon Rum Flop is a wily temptress I can't resist.
Fortunately, a crack team of federal prosecutors is on it. To make sure no one in America is exposed to the horrors of alcohol playing the best card game ever, a New York-based U.S. Attorney has frozen various bank accounts of online poker players. God forbid that Americans be allowed to use their computers to play poker. God knows what could happen next. Human sacrifice. Dog and cats living together. Mass hysteria.
Reason Online has a roundup of pretty much everything you wanted to know about the absurd attempts to ban online gambling (most comprehensive article here). I haven't studied it closely, but the legal authority seems to be extremely murky.
But even assuming there's anything illegal about online poker, the law is simply stupid. Indeed, the Reason articles illustrate that the most recent legislative crackdown was a classic example of interest group legislation -- namely, an unholy alliance between social conservatives and entrenched gambling interests who don't want competition.
And just so we're clear -- I'm allowed to play government-administered lotteries, to bet on horse races, to go to casinos, and to purchase things from AIG. But the federal government is apparently drawing the line at Demon Rum online poker. We delicate snowflakes simply cannot endure its horrors.
But I have a solution. If I took my potential winnings streams, chopped them up and converted them into securities, and slapped stickers on them with various capital letters arranged in pretty designs, I suspect everything would be kosher. Then it wouldn't be gambling anymore -- it would be unleashing the powers of the free market.
[On an aside, yet another reason why Barney Frank is awesome (via Jacob Sullum)].
Five .... As in out of five.
If you're going to mess with gambling, make autoshufflers at the 21 tables illegal. You already have six freakin' decks working against us .... let my people count!
Posted by: von | June 11, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Word.
Autoshufflers are the crack cocaine of blackjack.
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 11, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Didn't Myer Lansky say something about gambling always being illegal unless the government figured out some way of taking it's cut?
Posted by: PeorgieTirebiter | June 11, 2009 at 02:31 AM
Hm. I'd be fine with the government taking a fraction of a percent from every online poker pot if it'd balance budgets and provide services, and stuff. You know: taxes. (That's how we used to raise beer money for poker night in college.)
Or alternately, we could base all of the online gambling sites in, say, Delaware, where you can have a company and pay no taxes even if it's not, uh, *there* there.
("I wanna vist the screen door factory!")
Posted by: Sator Arepo | June 11, 2009 at 02:51 AM
OK, as the resident online poker pro here (and really Publius, you have my email, should have asked for clarity on this)...
A) This has happened before. Several times in fact.
B) No money was actually taken from the players (in fact the website I play on mostly gave me a %10 bonus on the money that was delayed for the inconvenience...)
C) the AUSA in SDNY is seriously not very bright because he seized the funds under the Wire Act, which Federal Courts have already ruled does not apply to online poker (sportsbetting only)
D) related to A, the sites are making enough money (conservative estimates place the larger sites at $1mil + per day in profits, not revenues, profits), that the amount seized is the equivalent of a large traffic ticket.
E) I offer lessons...
Posted by: Pooh | June 11, 2009 at 03:11 AM
Pointing out the absurdity of regulating something as benign as online gaming, a crack at AIG, and a link to Reason for God's sake! Careful, professor, people are going to think you're a libertarian.
Posted by: Nixon | June 11, 2009 at 03:36 AM
Something as benign as online gambling? Are you trying to be sarcastic, Nixon?
btw, publius, I agree the legal gambling industry is an "interest group", but not like social conservatives. We social conservatives are not in it for profit, and that makes an important difference.
A little regulation is a good thing. Here in Norway, we went from having almost no gambling to having one of the most liberal gambling laws in the world, with one armed bandits in every supermarket. The difference it made was alarming. We saw rows of compulsive gamblers every time we went to buy milk, for heaven's sake.
Now it's back in government hands - this social conservative doesn't like that very much either, but at least they have some semblance sanity baked into the system, like spending limits you can set yourself.
Why anyone would ever gamble on the internet puzzles me. Would you go to a casino, put $5 on 0, then let the casino spin the roulette without you even being allowed to look at it? Especially if this was a completely unaccountable casino?
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen | June 11, 2009 at 04:24 AM
Harold, there is a pretty big difference between poker, which is a skill game with a great deal of short term luck/gamble and a pure (almost certainly -EV for every player) gambling game.
Posted by: Pooh | June 11, 2009 at 04:31 AM
I know a couple of hardened poker players, and their reaction to online poker when it arrived was "Why would anyone want to play poker when you can't watch the other players?"
I somehow doubt - though online poker players, feel free to leave your game and tell me otherwise - that people play poker online as a matter of skill.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 11, 2009 at 05:02 AM
Well, I don't play for the skill per se. I play because the skill allows me to make money.
Posted by: Pooh | June 11, 2009 at 06:46 AM
Also, if they feel that they need to see their opponents to pick up "tells", that leads me to question how "hardened" they really are.
("tells" and other similar indicators are really a very small part of what separates the winners from the losers in all but the very biggest games/tournaments. The math/game theory elements are far far more important. My optimal play is designed to do the best against your actual hand, but rather my estimate of the mix of hands which you would have taken similar actions to which you have done so far in a hand.
One interesting aspect of online poker is that it has allowed people to be much more rigorous about analyzing what really works and what doesn't. The short term variance in most forms of poker is such that a minimally meaningful sample size is around 30,000 hands, and you can't really really tell anything until about 5-10 times that. 30,000 hands would take a full time "live" (in person) player something around 2 years. A full time online player can do that in a long week.
but I digress...)
Posted by: Pooh | June 11, 2009 at 06:56 AM
Oh well, what do I know? If you make a regular profit playing poker online, clearly there is skill involved. For all I know, the hardened poker players who couldn't understand why people who play online have since also gone over to playing online rather than face-to-face: I haven't asked them.
(Test post to see if my e-mail address has vanished...)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 11, 2009 at 06:57 AM
Gee, Publius, you sound like someone who wants the government to stop telling you what you can and cannot do.
Posted by: GoodOleBoy | June 11, 2009 at 06:58 AM
Jes, many do both, not either/or.
"Gee, Publius, you sound like someone who wants the government to stop telling you what you can and cannot do."
Which is totatlly nuts because usually publius wants the government to micromanage every aspect of his life. Seriously. That's his position. But not now!!!!!
Posted by: Eric Martin | June 11, 2009 at 07:05 AM
Follow-up:
Most people who like to drink, don't drink to excess - alcohol addiction may be one of the commonest addictions, but still: most people can drink, even to get drunk, and still walk away from it. These days, most people who like to drink don't drink and drive. The regulation of alcohol in the US is even more insane than it is in the UK, and it doesn't stop people from becoming addicted.
I have no idea what proportion of people who like to gamble, will gamble to excess. I do know that gambling can be addictive - I've felt the rush myself, and set my own self-regulations about how not to lose money to excess. I do think that spouses and partners and families deserve a certain amount of protection against a gambling addict managing to lose everything that's theirs as well as what's their own. But, you can't stop an addict by making their supplier a criminal.
(Hm, it did. Bah. Yeah, I vote for Wordpress. )
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 11, 2009 at 07:06 AM
Also, if they feel that they need to see their opponents to pick up "tells", that leads me to question how "hardened" they really are.
Heh. Well, you're talking to someone whose idea of a fun card game is still "Happy Families", and trying to figure out from my brother's face if he does, or does not, have in his possession Mr Bun the Baker. ;-)
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 11, 2009 at 07:09 AM
"I'm allowed to play government-administered lotteries, to bet on horse races, to go to casinos, and to purchase things from AIG."
So the theory is, if a little of something considered dangerous is allowed and regulated, then by extension an unlimited amount of that thing, subject to no regulation, should also be allowed. I'll keep that in mind.
One more thought:
I think it's remarkable that anyone is against gambling. This is because so far as I can tell, according to pretty much every single person I have talked to, I am the only person who has ever gone to Atlantic City or Las Vegas and lost money. Of course, that can't be true, which means that the people I know are mostly lying. Which makes me wonder: if most people who do a thing feel the need to lie about it, how likely is it that the thing is a good thing?
Posted by: G | June 11, 2009 at 08:29 AM
Pooh,
The wonders of on line poker have been highly oversold, and there are internet poker scams(partnerships), and outright cheating. One guy working at a site was actually able to view all his opponent's hole cards! Stack your optimum game theory against that!
Although the opportunity to get up in the morning, sit in your pj's with a cup of coffee and play a few hands before work is enticing.
And in a country that cannot find ways to tax multi-millionaires, why pick on poker players?
Posted by: bobbyp | June 11, 2009 at 08:40 AM
You're not alone, G. I also lost money in Las Vegas! And every other casino I've ever played in (blackjack, poker, craps, whatever). In fact, I can't even think of a single friendly poker game with buddies when I've ever come out ahead. It's a good thing I don't play very often, because I am The World's Worst Gambler.
Posted by: ThirdGorchBro | June 11, 2009 at 09:03 AM
I am The World's Worst Gambler.
I thought that was me!
My self-regulation with regard to casinos and other gambling resources is:
1. Make up my mind before I go in how much money I can afford to lose.
2. Have fun.
3. Leave when I have lost exactly the sum of money I first thought of in (1), or when I stop having fun.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 11, 2009 at 09:42 AM
I strongly disagree with this highly inflammatory post.
Bridge is the best card game ever.
Posted by: Ian M. | June 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Ian beat me to it.
Posted by: Mike Schilling | June 11, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Bridge is clearly the best card game. It only feels like gambling when I play the weak no trump. Wheeee....
Posted by: Sebastian | June 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM
A fourth for bridge.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | June 11, 2009 at 10:41 AM
I've always wanted to learn how to play this game. But I can't find enough people who know how to play short of a concerted and aggressive search and recruitment program. Maybe when I've retired . . . I seem to recall that practically all the grownups back in the day used to play this, back before central air conditioning. My blue-haired Grandma, Opal, seemed to play it at least five nights a week with her Eve-smoking gin-slinging cronies. Those were happier days, sigh.
Posted by: ScentOfViolets | June 11, 2009 at 10:47 AM
ThirdGorchBro, we have a weekly poker game here in Michigan if you're interested in attending.
Posted by: laxel | June 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM
let my people count!
I've been to Vegas casinos with a member of the MIT blackjack team that was the subject of Bringing Down the House. Amazing how that person can count, carry on a normal conversation with the dealer and friends, and order drinks when the waitress comes by. Also, was with that person on a very hot shoe once, person made about $1,000 in 5 minutes. Fun times.
Posted by: Ugh | June 11, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Of course, that can't be true, which means that the people I know are mostly lying.
Why would you think that? It seems to me far more likely that they misestimate their wins and losses, since not only are mistakes in general more common than lying, that theory also better explains their willingness to go back for more.
Posted by: Chris | June 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM
SoV,
Try your local club. Start here. The advantage of doing it this way is that you will learn faster, have no trouble finding people to play with and, most important, begin to understand the fascination of the game.
It's unfortunate that many people's image of bridge is not unlike yours - some elderly types sitting around chatting and occasionally bidding or playing a card according to some sort of ritual. The fact is that when played competitively it's a demanding game - a terrific mixture of judgment, tactical decision-making, risk assessments, and pure technical skill. That it's a partnership game adds other dimensions as well. (Tournament play can become somewhat litigious - one unpleasant aspect).
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | June 11, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Bridge is okay, but pinochle beats it hands down.
Posted by: John Miller | June 11, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Why would you think that? It seems to me far more likely that they misestimate their wins and losses
In my experience, if one says "I'm going to Vegas this weekend" in the company of a group of people, each of them will tell you a story about the last time they went that has a happy ending. They won it back, or on their second-to-last dollar they won a small jackpot that modestly outstripped their losses, or they won a big hand/roll/jackpot and spent the rest of the weekend eating at the buffet. These stories are not the result of mixing up the numbers. Call it wishful thinking or willful self deception, but they know they lost money.
Posted by: G | June 11, 2009 at 02:34 PM
"Bridge is okay, but pinochle beats it hands down."
I'm still looking for people to come beat the crap out of me at Company of Heroes or Call of Duty 4, or Star Wars Battlefront II, or Star Wars Empire At War, or Marvel Ultimate Alliance or Total War: Medieval II or Freedom Force vs. The Third Reich or Battle For Middle Earth II (or BFME II: Rise of the Witch King), among other games I have about.
And I do mean "beat the crap out of me," because I pretty well suck at all of these whenever I play against humans. It'd just be a nice change to suck against someone who isn't a complete stranger.
I'd look for someone to play Europa Universalis III with if I could ever figure out how to really play it.
Posted by: Gary Farber | June 11, 2009 at 03:28 PM
Pooh,
The wonders of on line poker have been highly oversold, and there are internet poker scams(partnerships), and outright cheating. One guy working at a site was actually able to view all his opponent's hole cards! Stack your optimum game theory against that!
I'm well aware of the situations, and do not play at the sites affected since they already had bad reputations with respect to security and customer service, and certainly won't now given their very poor handling of the situation. (And to clarify, it was actual a former OWNER of the site who used a developer login to be able to view hole cards - the really sad thing is, if he wasn't both greedy and stupid, he could probably have made just as much over a slightly longer period and never really been suspected. But he was dumb and greedy so it was readily apparent something was amiss.)
It was actually the opponents of said players who caught them by using the knowledge gained through long hours of play that the results the cheaters were having were either double or triple digit standard deviations from expectations. (I don't remember the # of the top of my head.) Yes there is occasionally team play, but it's either pretty easy to spot or provides minimal advantage. Further the people who tend to try are usually really bad at poker so even if I knew about their "edge" from team play, I'd still play with them all day.
Although the opportunity to get up in the morning, sit in your pj's with a cup of coffee and play a few hands before work is enticing.
But what if sitting in your pjs, drinking coffee and playing a couple hands IS your job?
Posted by: Pooh | June 11, 2009 at 04:14 PM
Gary Farber, you are a hopeless geek. Not that there's anything wrong with it, I am too. However, a well-made board or card game beats the crap out of any computer game!
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen | June 11, 2009 at 05:12 PM
"But what if sitting in your pjs, drinking coffee and playing a couple hands IS your job?"
Pooh, you are most assuredly not invited to the weekly game. :)
Posted by: laxel | June 11, 2009 at 05:51 PM
My self-regulation with regard to casinos and other gambling resources is:
1. Make up my mind before I go in how much money I can afford to lose.
2. Have fun.
3. Leave when I have lost exactly the sum of money I first thought of in (1), or when I stop having fun.
Stop the presses! I agree with Jesu -- that's my strategy EXACTLY! This is such a momentous occasion, I don't know what to say!
=================
I would think that picking an online gambling site would follow the same rules as doing anything else on line: follow safety protocols, deal with trusted sources, etc.
Posted by: Jeff | June 11, 2009 at 09:20 PM
I'll go with bridge, too. Great game, engrossing, a little geeky.
Posted by: Free Lunch | June 11, 2009 at 09:37 PM
I would think that picking an online gambling site would follow the same rules as doing anything else on line: follow safety protocols, deal with trusted sources, etc.
This is completely true. Were one to want to play online poker for real money, I would recommend either Full Tilt or PokerStars and say stay away from everything else.
Posted by: Pooh | June 11, 2009 at 09:41 PM
The problem with online poker is that your opponents may be IMing each other at the same time.
Which is why I confine my online poker to the Fun section of PokerStars; I want to be able to look the guy who just hit the inside straight on the river for the fourth time that night in the eye as he takes the last of my chips.
Posted by: Ken Houghton | June 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM