For all the "pro-regulation" advocates dancing on Absolute's head ...

[MiltonFriedman]

Your faith in "regulation" is touchingly naive.

Pop History Quiz:

What OTHER online poker site was discovered to have a "back door" which allowed certain players to see their opponents' hole cards ?

What State Gaming Commission approved the suitability of the former manager of that site for a GM position with an unrestricted gaming licensee, with knowledge of his history of involvement with that same poker site ?

Research THAT one before you go shouting for "regulation" of the marketplace as a panacea for this rather simple "dishonest employee case".

Do you also think that if someone working in a B&M casino cheats that the casino's license is pulled ?

Here there is VERY little to actually tie Scott Tom personally to this caper. I would be astonished if he had ANY role in the heist. I tend to think the "disgruntled geek" line may be accurate. I could be wrong, but I doubt it on this one.

Absolute DID screw up clearly. The security and monitoring by Absolute IS a legitimate issue, as any "superuser" account should never leave a testing environment and the player winrate and results should have been flagged internally by Absolute's own monitoring.

However I VASTLY prefer that the online poker market, in the persons of poker players, be allowed to mete out whatever justice is due from Absolute, unless they are stuoid, they will pay out any legitimate "cheated" players.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Here there is VERY little to actually tie Scott Tom personally to this caper. I would be astonished if he had ANY role in the heist. I tend to think the "disgruntled geek" line may be accurate. I could be wrong, but I doubt it on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was interested in your post up until this line, which shows that you have no idea what this scandal is about and haven't read most of the information on the subject.

edit: I would have preferred not to post here, but this misconception, if widely held, plays right into AP's hands and does not need to be spread any further right now.

[Skallagrim]

Adanthar is one of the people to be most thanked for his work uncovering this scandal. His conclusions are the next best thing to absolute fact (pun intended).

Milton, Do you really think that the poker community, which uncovered and prosecuted this scandal itself, is "crying out for regulation?" I would guess that maybe, at most, 5% of the online poker community actually wants government regulation. IF, IF, IF we could get the government to just leave us alone, thats what most would want, no question. And the real truth of this incident is that we can take care of ourselves.

But it is clear the government is not going to just leave us alone, It is going to continue escalating its attempts to stop us from playing, or its going to regulate and tax us (to one degree or another). Obviously, the latter is preferable to the former, the lesser of the 2 evils.

In that light, saying this incident shows how "regulation is needed" is an appropriate response to those (FOF and the NFL) who will use this incident to argue that further banning efforts are needed.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

I have read a lot about this scandal. Certainly, existing evidence points to Mr. Tom. The way that Absolute has issued press releases in increasing admissions of problems from none to breach by unknown employee suggests that it may not be telling the truth about Mr. Tom's lack of involvement.
However, I would not yet say that the evidence against Mr. Tom is conclusive. I noticed that the G911 article, a translation of an article from a German publication, accusing Mr. Tom of being the culprit is no longer on G911's site. So, I would be careful before I make any statements that his involvement is fact.
I agree with Skall and I just hope that WTO or court cases save us from government ban or heavy regulation.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Adanthar is one of the people to be most thanked for his work uncovering this scandal. His conclusions are the next best thing to absolute fact (pun intended).

Milton, Do you really think that the poker community, which uncovered and prosecuted this scandal itself, is "crying out for regulation?" I would guess that maybe, at most, 5% of the online poker community actually wants government regulation. IF, IF, IF we could get the government to just leave us alone, thats what most would want, no question. And the real truth of this incident is that we can take care of ourselves.

But it is clear the government is not going to just leave us alone, It is going to continue escalating its attempts to stop us from playing, or its going to regulate and tax us (to one degree or another). Obviously, the latter is preferable to the former, the lesser of the 2 evils.

In that light, saying this incident shows how "regulation is needed" is an appropriate response to those (FOF and the NFL) who will use this incident to argue that further banning efforts are needed.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

The poker community may not be calling for regulation but the actions of some of the sites in relationship to all the work some very dedicated 2+2er's sure is!

If these sites continue to rely on the same external people over and over and show that thier internal security is worthless and can't see the value in rewarding the volunteer "sherifs" in this wild west virtual world, then regulation will certainly follow, just as it eventually came to the US wild west.

Most of us wouldn't have a clue about these scandals if it were not for the 2+2ers who have found almost every major problem to date. Let alone all the fish who are scared off at every scandal let alone the tin foil hat crowd. Almost none of them could find 2+2 with twelve sherpas and a talking GPS system.

Mason et.al. may not want a reward but I think that someone has one comming. Simply redistributing the seized money to those cheated, is not investing in the knid of goodwill and forsight that might, just might, keep some future legislative aide from writing rules that will significantly change on-line poker as we know it today.

Thanks again for this community. I shudder what might be going on if it weren't for some of the people here.



D$D

[JPFisher55]

The truth is that any government regulators would not have discovered this scandal for many more months or even seriously taken the players complaints for some time. The work of Josem, Adanthar and others far exceeds what any regulators, especially US ones, would have accomplished in several months.

[Doom_Switch]

AP cheating, UB cashout delays, Neteller seizing funds, FT freezing account for no legitimate reason, constant RNG accustations. Please regulate so we can get rid of the status quo which is absolutely ridiculous. A government run site similar to Sweden Spel would be ideal. Regulation with open competition would be next. Regulation with few major players would be further down. Status quo is way way way down the list. Get Tuff_Fish or some normal poker players involved in the conversation. This site has too many shill with ulterior motives when it comes to regulating. Last thing major sites want is regulation.

[adanthar]

This probably belongs in politics, and I will probably repost it there eventually. That said:
---


Having just gotten off the phone with a relatively important person at AP, which should just about end this chapter of the story (tomorrow morning, anyway), let me now say a couple of things about this thread:

First off, *every single piece of research* Nat and I had pointed to Scott Tom and AJ Green. These may or may not be the people that wind up implicated, because either one of them may 'merely' be guilty of gross negligence. I won't comment on that yet and it doesn't really matter, because the more important thing is this:

After over a month of completely unpaid, volunteer research, comprising more time and energy than I care to admit, one thing that is extremely clear is that the free market does not even remotely work. The reason is twofold and self evident:

1)AP got 81(!!!) people in their 100 person guaranteed 1K event on Wednesday, when they were still in the middle of the coverup,when every single one of those people knew exactly what was going on, and when AP could, looking at the fact that even their biggest tournament only dropped 20%, have decided to stonewall us into oblivion;

2)One of the major free market supporters immediately took off and ran with the free market angle without doing the least bit of fact checking, something that would have taken him exactly two minutes to do.

In other words, this scandal is the best poker example ever that, when faced with a decision that maximizes the short term utility to themselves at the cost of the long term utility to the entire industry they base their livelihood on, the vast majority of humans involved will take the immediate profit, and damn the consequences. In the meantime,

1)Many of the masses predictably reacted to this discovery with the standard "online is rigged" outcry - even when *they are 2+2'ers that know something about poker* and the person that co-uncovered the entire freaking thing was/is telling them the opposite;

2)Just as many others didn't bother to do any research and came up with their own theories of how the whole thing evolved without even reading the original post in BBV, much less any of the other stuff.

You know what the best thing to come out of this is? The KGC, a licensing agency which has heretofore done *absolutely nothing* to police their licensees, woke up and will now act as a proper authority, *after* multiple senior executives at one of their holdings embezzled a million dollars, *after* the embezzlers (that is the proper crime here!) proved to be the worst criminals ever, and *after* they happened across two of the literal handful of people in a position of authority in this field that could actually drive public opinion to do something about it. Despite that, without the Excel file, which might well have been incompetence rather than whistleblowing, they had a good chance of getting away with it anyway.

Oh yeah, and nobody's going to jail, anyhow. Lack of regulation sure is awesome.

[MiltonFriedman]

1. Your work and Nat's work in this matter has been beyond awesome. It clearly proves that an unregulated market CAN detect something amiss through private action. A market ONLY operates efficiently if there are sources of information available to market participants. Please give it time to work, rather than rush to impose restrictive, anti-competitive regulation.

2. I have read the posts here and in BBV. I know about the email address, the IP, et cetera.

3. Where we differ is that I would rely on poker players to decide what "should" be done. The market DOES discipline miscreants, to the extent that poker players would care or decide how extensive the problem is. If you assume a 20% drop in business is the short term reaction,then this scandal would already cost AP about $100,000 per day going forward.

Your "self-evident' conclusion that this thread "proves" that the free market cannot work is wrong.

First, my original post is not evidence of anything, except my dismay at a lynching of an industry on scanty evidence, beyond someone having cheated at one site. A rush to regulation will not necessarily get anything like justice or prevent future "cheating" scandals. The rush will more likely result in a BAN, than regulation.

Second, you are outraged that the market may ignore this scandal. I really do not think that will happen. (A 20% drop likely would cost Absolute about $100,000 per day) However, even if the market does treat this like a passing blip, maybe that is all it should be seen as ? Are you saying that poker players cannot be trusted to judge this properly, after all your work laying out facts for review ?

FINALLY, do not assume that no one would be going to jail. There ARE laws on the books which could apply here easily. You might want to wait on that conclusion. Mark my words on this point.... (and I am not talking about the KGC.)

ALL I am saying is that regulation is the camel's nose under the tent flap. There is NO way that "regulation" would be a net benefit to US players.

Dracula reputedly could only enter a house if he were invited in.

[girlsCanPlay2]

adanthar may be right; the US market doesn't look like it will punish Absolute currently. I think the problem right now is that for us casual Americans (1hr/day) who like alot of traffic there are only 3 options:
1) Stars - horrible bonus and VIP program; no rakeback (once again for casual players - 1hr/day)
2) FT - horrible bonus and decent rakeback
3) Absolute - best bonus in town (so sad miss the old days) and decent rakeback

So giving these choices, most are going to choose Absolute. Over the last week, Absolute player chat has made refernce to the scandal over and over and no one seems to care. I have monitored the traffic as well and it hasn't dropped drastically.

Granted it is early and only time will tell, but initial observation points to Absolute getting away with this horrible breach as long as our wonederful government keeps its wonderful policy.

That being said I have moved my bankroll to FT for now; but I feel like I am voting Green. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Legislurker]

Its not jumping to a conclusion to say the free market doesn't work for poker. Poker is a like a problem of the commons. Someone has to protect the marketplace, the fish pool, whatever you want to call it. Sooner or later, something will come out bigger and worse that will push poker back. Not one single room has ever stood up and laid their integrity out. No one has given away power to shut them down, or confiscate assets if they cheat. You think they are just going to play nice forever? Some people just shouldnt be allowed to take Econ10 because they always come out screaming about free market this, and free market that.
The market is a great thing, but not an unfettered one. Smith and Ricardo got that.

[kidpokeher]

[ QUOTE ]
There is NO way that "regulation" would be a net benefit to US players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for one, it would give the fish and the "online is rigged" crowd an incentive to come back.

[bigbb33]

And what are the odds that if this does make it to lawmakers OR some poker laws come up for review that this will end in more of "we need to protect hard working citizen's and our children from dishonest offshore conglomerates by banning this industry" vs "make it open, legal (in the US), and regulated" ?

[Uglyowl]

First off a giant thank you to adanthar and crew. You went above and beyond for the good of everyone.

I am on the fence about regulation vs. status quo (of course I wish we could go back to the "old days"). It is hard to tell what "regulation" means, but most things the government gets it's hands on is a giant failure.

[DING-DONG YO]

grunch

Not all regulation is created equal, OP. That's the whole point.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is NO way that "regulation" would be a net benefit to US players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for one, it would give the fish and the "online is rigged" crowd an incentive to come back.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do we just get the fish back.

I'm tired of educating the tin foil hatters....


D$D

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
And what are the odds that if this does make it to lawmakers OR some poker laws come up for review that this will end in more of "we need to protect hard working citizen's and our children from dishonest offshore conglomerates by banning this industry" vs "make it open, legal (in the US), and regulated" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well given the current position of the US has been to ban or make attempts to ban it seem future legislation is the only way we will every get open poker.

IMO that means going through the Hill.

At that point the industry will claim that a combination of the free market and self regulation will work just fine.

A couple more scandals between now any that time and crappy responses from the sites and that argument will not stand a chance of getting past the first hearning.

If however there was a history of very positive action by the sites that had be created by their action between now and that day we would have a shot at less regulation.

My fear is that out of individual greed or stupidity the cumulative record will leave the future legislators no choice by to "fix" all these past problems in that future legislation.



D$D

[JPFisher55]

Adanthar, as others have pointed out, for US citizens a free market for online poker does not exist. Despite federal appellate court case law that ruled that no federal law bans online poker sites offering their service to the US, the campaign of intimidation by the DOJ has caused most online poker sites to not accept US players. In addition, only 1 ewallet, Epassporte, serves US citizens and it is not available at some poker sites that do accept US citizens.
This is not a free market. US players do not have many large poker sites to patronize. Thus, many of them will figure that lightning will not strike twice and play at AP. Still over time AP will lose business. Should the WTO or court cases force a change in the position of the DOJ, or force Congress to pass legislation changing the current situation, and US players have as many options as European, I predict that AP and UB will be the first to suffer from the increased competition.

[Skallagrim]

AP has been running some pretty nice ads on the TV Poker shows.

Only the dedicated really know the details of the scandal, and the average small time player figures (rightly or wrongly) that this high stakes cheating is not going to affect his game.

There is too much fear of regulation here, IMHO. I say too much because if we wont accept regulation, the governments alternative will be more measures to prevent play. And no law is going to tell a poker room how to give bonuses or rakeback, set up the tables, or any other similar thing. Its going to madate some safety things (age verification, etc..) and its going to get taxes (one way or another). It is most likely the taxes (other than income taxes) will have to be paid by the site.

Give up your free poker market dreams, they died with the UIGEA. Its like arguing whether we ever should have gotten into Iraq, when the only real argument should be about how we go about getting out (or not, for you die-hards).

Skallagrim

[girlsCanPlay2]

JPFisher55 and Skallagrim make great points:

As a US citizen who use to be a 2BB+ player at 5/10 limit, I have no faith in the current situation. I have reduced my bankroll to 2/4 or less.

1) for US citizens a free market for online poker does not exist
2) high stakes cheating is not going to affect 2/4 or less

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
1) for US citizens a free market for online poker does not exist

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, time to put this meme to rest, too.

Stars
FTP
Prima
Bodog
Cake
WSEX (it's even almost rake-free!)
Poker.com

Even UB is technically uninvolved and nobody's really cared about getting it boycotted (yet). AP is the 4'th largest site in the US, much less outside of it - in theory, the Euro population should be shunning it more effectively [yeah, right]. There are plenty of alternatives, ones without superusers or crooked executives. And yet, people kept playing, *even during the investigation itself when AP was stonewalling us and when that sent a message to them to keep doing so.* For almost a full month, every well known pro was screaming that AP was rigged at the top of their lungs, and it made not an iota of difference to their bottom line. The best part is that their own executives mentioned this to me multiple times.

This idea that the marketplace would have successfully abandoned AP is foolish at best and a complete "shoehorn the square facts into the round ideology" copout at worst. It might not be a totally free market, but it's damn well free enough to give the masses plenty of superuser-free choices. Yet the masses, plenty of whom knew about the scandal (it was in every freaking chatbox), kept playing.

The market does not differentiate on ethics. It never did, it doesn't now, and it never will. It will even not do so at this very second, when we've proven a gigantic case of malfeasance (for which, BTW, zero people are going to jail *exactly* because of the lack of regulation and the gray area poker operates in.) This isn't limited to the US, because the Euros have plenty of UK-licensed sites; nobody's ever said a word about William Hill or Betfair being rigged. So, I ask you: how many Europeans were playing on Kawanahke licensed sites two weeks ago, when it was manifestly evident they didn't oversee a damn thing?

[MiltonFriedman]

Coase never played poker.

The tragedy of the commons issue is a better analogy to the proliferation of HU tracking, live odds calculators, rakeback and, yes, multitabling. The frirst three were demanded by the fishermen, i.e the "wining players". The last item was the equivalent of fishing with high explosives.

If you want to drawn an analogy to Coase's work, try harder.

[MiltonFriedman]

"The market does not differentiate on ethics. It never did, it doesn't now, and it never will."

Amen. (To the extent that your work informed the market, it was a great service. What more could you ask. If the market doesn't weigh this the way you do, that is not a reason to call the cops. It is a reason to go back to playing where the fish swim thickest.)

There was a well stated post above this one, but both of you miss the point ....

Why should you call in the POLICE, if informed players still want to play at AP ?

1."the US market doesn't look like it will punish Absolute currently." "Over the last week, Absolute player chat has made refernce to the scandal over and over and no one seems to care."..... Why is that a bad thing ? If US players want to continue to play there, in any numbers, why not let them do so ? Who are you to exercise a POLICE power to prevent them from doing so. Are you no better than FoF ?

2. "Absolute getting away with this horrible breach as long as our wonederful government keeps its wonderful policy."
Hold on a minute, IF the US players do not care, or at least some portion of them, WHY should you want to involve the government ? Absolute is not "getting away" with snything if the "informed market" has appropriately discounted the risk of cheating and decided to play there anyway.

You are free to exercise your choice NOT to play there, if you want the POLICE to ban everyone else, how are you better than Focis on Family ?

(A disclaimer here is in order, I have NO connection to Absolute, I do not even play there. Also, I believe that regulation or a BAN will result from this scandal, just like the Abramoff scandal tipped the scales toward the UIGEA. I am registering my opposition before the fact.)

3. "That being said I have moved my bankroll to FT for now; but I feel like I am voting Green."

Okay, what do you do if AP turns into the fishiest site in the history of online poker, do you figure in a risk factor and return ?

[Legislurker]

Yes, I have a threshold of pain for AP/UB melting down. I figure $500 is the most I am comfortable with there, and as long as I still win, why leave? Id love to see the corporation smacked with a big fine, jail time, and a yanked license in the theatre of justice. But my self-interest is only concerned with my material well-being. I can't make Congress regulate, but I can relieve some AP/UB players of $.

I think the poker market is akin to a problem of the commons. Its not the best analogy I know, but its not a free market textbook example either. Higher economics makes my head hurt, its why I dropped out twice.

[MiltonFriedman]

"zero people are going to jail *exactly* because of the lack of regulation..."

Want to offer odds on that proposition ?

The "gray area" poker operates in is not gray at all. It is NOT prohibited, but it is covered by the same fraud laws as cover any other lawful business, especially one which takes credit cards.

If you are right, it is because it's Chinatown, meaning there is no appetite for enforcement, not because there are no applicable laws.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolute is not "getting away" with snything if the "informed market" has appropriately discounted the risk of cheating and decided to play there anyway.

You are free to exercise your choice NOT to play there, if you want the POLICE to ban everyone else, how are you better than Focis on Family ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don't know how to even approach the depth of ignorance/nihilism/whatever that this question implies.

Let's review: we uncovered uncontrovertible proof of a site co-owner/his friend rigging the site to benefit himself. The site's response to this was to stonewall - no surprise since the co-owner was running the show at the time. The market looked at this and yawned, meaning that nothing was going to stop this guy from coming back to run a slightly smarter ripoff six months later. Hell, there still isn't, since one of them is only suspended *now*.

Your response to this is "well, if they're dumb enough to play there, who are you to stop them?" Every poker player with three brain cells to rub together that cares about the perceived integrity of the game as a whole and its future growth should be smart enough to laugh out loud at this. Do you not get at all how bad this looks and how much something like this hurts the entire industry? Do you think this indifference makes future investigative efforts more or less likely to work? Am I gonna waste any more of my time doing the legwork on FTP when they go rogue if nobody cares? How about the new fish - are they more likely to sign up to *any* site when they hear games are obviously rigged and no one did anything about it?

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD A SITE WAS RIGGED AND SOMEONE HELPED SOMEONE ELSE STEAL A MILLION DOLLARS AND THEY WILL BE BACK BEHIND THE HELM OF A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR COMPANY IN THE SAME BUSINESS IN A YEAR. And the market, made up of thousands of people who can make a few hundred extra bucks in expected value by crossing a virtual picket line, keeps playing at AP, thereby reaffirming each other's horrible decisions in a positive feedback loop. Mind you, that expected value is contingent upon the game remaining unrigged when a certain executive gets unsuspended - our first public hint of that happening will be around the Tenth of Never - and upon that executive not getting any better at poker in that timeframe. But, you know, who am I to go against a tidal wave of lemmings, each of whom is securely thinking they'll get out at the first sign of trouble before the others leap over the cliff? How dare I interfere with them just because that stampede is going to directly affect the likelihood of the next 10 crooked execs getting away with it and make me unable to say "the games are honest" with a straight face? FREE MARKET FOREVER.

[ QUOTE ]
Want to offer odds on that proposition? [that no one's going to jail]

[/ QUOTE ]

I would. And I know a lot more about this than you do.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I have a threshold of pain for AP/UB melting down. I figure $500 is the most I am comfortable with there, and as long as I still win, why leave? Id love to see the corporation smacked with a big fine, jail time, and a yanked license in the theatre of justice. But my self-interest is only concerned with my material well-being. I can't make Congress regulate, but I can relieve some AP/UB players of $.

I think the poker market is akin to a problem of the commons. Its not the best analogy I know, but its not a free market textbook example either. Higher economics makes my head hurt, its why I dropped out twice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it is in simple economic terms.

You are a farmer.
You grow a crop.
The market is bad and prices are low.
Someone proposes all farmers plant 1/2 their normal ackerage and thus all will make more money than all planting a normal full field.

You are smarter than the rest of the farmers and figure out if you plant your full ackerage you make twice as much if no one else does the same as you thus destroying the price by over supply.

So do you plant 1/2 the crop and make the average higher profit?

Do you plant a little more just because you can?

Do you plant as much ackerage as you and beg, borrow or steal to maximize your personal profit but do so at the expense of the "common" good.?

Or do you plow your crop under to make up for all the jerks?

Given your statement that since you are making a personal profit at little or no personal risk I can guess at your answer.

The problem is poker players as a whole are too self centered and greedy to ever consider how to act together long enough for all of us to do better.

As soon as enough people leave 1/2 their fields fallow, and a few people notice the few renting the fallow land to plant more everyone plants the maximun and no one makes any money.

God, I hope that was simple and gramtically correct enough for a few people to follow.


D$D

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD A SITE WAS RIGGED AND SOMEONE HELPED SOMEONE ELSE STEAL A MILLION DOLLARS AND THEY WILL BE BACK BEHIND THE HELM OF A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR COMPANY IN THE SAME BUSINESS IN A YEAR. And the market, made up of thousands of people who can make a few hundred extra bucks in expected value by crossing a virtual picket line, keeps playing at AP, thereby reaffirming each other's horrible decisions in a positive feedback loop. Mind you, that expected value is contingent upon the game remaining unrigged when a certain executive gets unsuspended - our first public hint of that happening will be around the Tenth of Never - and upon that executive not getting any better at poker in that timeframe. But, you know, who am I to go against a tidal wave of lemmings, each of whom is securely thinking they'll get out at the first sign of trouble before the others leap over the cliff? How dare I interfere with them just because that stampede is going to directly affect the likelihood of the next 10 crooked execs getting away with it and make me unable to say "the games are honest" with a straight face? FREE MARKET FOREVER.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell, I keep editing to add more to this paragraph and it's still not sufficiently thorough.

I cannot stress this point enough: If a new player asks me "how secure is online poker?" and my answer has to be "well, it's secure except for this one site whose executive could see the hole cards, but don't worry - he got suspended and he learned his lesson", that person will not be playing online. I might also reply that the free market has proven that it doesn't care; I might add that the chances of that guy doing it so brazenly that we can catch him again are minimal; and I might finish with the reminder that the government has crooks, too.

I might do all that, but if that's going to be the long term answer, I'd still rather just find another line of work, because it's going to be a lot easier than making this guy see why the free market dictated an acceptable percentage of hole card cams in his poker game.

[Michaelson]

Adanthar, I can't tell you how refreshing it is to see this point of view expressed with such conviction. I've in a round about way been trying to say the same thing for several days now, though never with the clarity you display here.

Cheers.

[ikestoys]

The nicest thing about government regulation would be that we might actually be able to find out easily who owns the company.

[Michaelson]

Word.

Especially given the likely result of all of this, wrt Scott Tom at least, is that a guy who until a day or two ago they denied was even a part of Absolute Poker, is being suspended from his position at the company...

I mean, they didn't even stop for a second to acknowledge that Tom had still been involved in the company in recent months. They just jumped straight from "Scott Tom's not involved with us," to "Scott Tom will no longer remain involved with us for the short/medium term."

And at least for now it looks like that line is flying (probably because everyone already knew that Tom was involved with AP). Nevermind why we should be expected to believe that Tom won't just involve himself in the company's operations from out of sight, as he already had been doing for a year now...

This thing all makes me so mad, and I'm just a low limit grinder on FTP.

Anyway, the point is that they have been able to present their organisational structure in whatever way suits their corrupt needs precisely because they're unregulated.

[Richas]

We can test how regulation would have worked by pretending that Absolute was a UK licensed operation.

First the consequences for the "players" cheating. They would have committed an offence punishable by up to 51 weeks in gaol and a fine.

The senior managers at Absolute would be facing 2 years in gaol. They would face this either for collusion with the cheaters or for "negligence". Absolute would face a level 2 fine (sorry can't find how much that is - it is not in the Act). Al would be banned from ever working in the gambling industry again.

The company license would have been suspended by now so they would be closed down. The Gambling Commissions own inspectors would be crawling all over their systems. They would also have helped in the investigations and been willing to take on consumer complaints so it might have saved some people from (some)unpaid work. They would also have the power to search and seize computer equipment from both the company and the "players" for evidence. The Company would also face the prospect of having bets declared void so forced to pay punters back. Plus the Gambling Commission can fine the company.

In short Absolute would be history and the gits would be facing prison. We would be able to sue the company and they could be forced to pay players back. Sounds better to me.

[Skallagrim]

As someone whose political views are primarily libertarian, I would love to agree with Milton on this one. But I cant. The poker market currently is not "free." If it were free there would be US sites I could play at and be sure that if they cheated me or anyone else I could use the court system to insure that the cheating was punished and the victims compensated. Even strident libertarians agree that for a free market to work there must be protections against, and consequences for, "force and fraud."

Absolute, by virtue of its quasi-legal offshore status, is effectively immune from the consequences of its fraud, other than our right to shift our play to the handful of other sites operating in the same quasi-legal status.

As I have said twice, if the government would just leave us alone by acknowledging poker as a legal game, I might be inclined to let the free market run things (knowing I then have the ability to limit my play to sites where I have access to normal legal redress for cheating and other unfair practices). Since that is not going to occur, Richas and Adanthar win this argument hands down.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Adanthar, you are not wrong. However, you forget about some problems with US regulation.
One, the US Congress and government regulate and tax way too much when they start regulating. Once they start, the costs of operating the regulated business make it more expensive for everyone; especially the customers.
Two, the US goverment is so inefficient and ineffective that their regulation does not prevent cheating like AP's. In addition, the US judicial system can punish the cheaters, but it is not very good at compensating the victims. Also, with US regulation, some good operators will have to spend significant money to defend against baseless lawsuits and claims by regulators.
Three, customers of US regulated businesses tend to overrely on the regulation to protect them. Thus, when bad operators ignore the regulations and steal from their customers, the customers lose more than they would have if they had exercised more prudence. In addition, customers, like you, do less to uncover the cheating and the US regulators take a very long time to discover cheating if they do. Thus, the damage to all concerned by the cheating is much worse than without regulation and the cheaters make more than without regulation. I am sure that your great efforts prevented the cheaters at AP from stealing more than they would have been able to with US regulation.
For these reasons, I believe that an unregulated free market is better for customers than US regulation and the costs and taxes that it causes.

[MiltonFriedman]

Okay, Skall ... I can see your point. A "truly-free market" would more directly allow US customers to choose a site within the purview of the US legal system, it would incorporate that legal system as an available attribute for providers to offer.

Pass the Wexler Bill into law and that is what you get ... no need to "regulate" the industry, just make it legal.

Thereafter, if a site wants to compete for US player business, then it COULD offer access to the US civil/criminal system to players for redress of grievances. You do not need any elaborate, burdensome federal licensing agency or protectionist regulations favoring US companies, just legalization ... which allows a company to voluntarily submit itself to US jurisdiction for player grievances.

Elitists may cry "Lemmings" because in the absence of such a market choice, AP players apparently have discounted the scandal, and MAY do so even if offered a "US-legal" site. (Personally, I would NOT play at AP, but I do not denigrate those who choose to do so.)

However, the Wexler Bill remains based in the same trust in individual decision making which justifies a offer to US players their decision to even PLAY poker, or other "skill" games.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Adanthar, you are not wrong. However, you forget about some problems with US regulation.
One, the US Congress and government regulate and tax way too much when they start regulating. Once they start, the costs of operating the regulated business make it more expensive for everyone; especially the customers.
Two, the US goverment is so inefficient and ineffective that their regulation does not prevent cheating like AP's. In addition, the US judicial system can punish the cheaters, but it is not very good at compensating the victims. Also, with US regulation, some good operators will have to spend significant money to defend against baseless lawsuits and claims by regulators.
Three, customers of US regulated businesses tend to overrely on the regulation to protect them. Thus, when bad operators ignore the regulations and steal from their customers, the customers lose more than they would have if they had exercised more prudence. In addition, customers, like you, do less to uncover the cheating and the US regulators take a very long time to discover cheating if they do. Thus, the damage to all concerned by the cheating is much worse than without regulation and the cheaters make more than without regulation. I am sure that your great efforts prevented the cheaters at AP from stealing more than they would have been able to with US regulation.
For these reasons, I believe that an unregulated free market is better for customers than US regulation and the costs and taxes that it causes.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree with everything problem you identify and more.

This is why, IMO, if sites don't do more now it will cost us all later.

Because the US is such a large part of the on-line market, even if a fairly heavily regulated US site opens it will have to compete with the less regulated EU or Centeral Amer. sites this will always be a constant disadvanatge.

Unless the plan of Congress, assuming they have a plan, is to block all sites that don't conform to US regulations.

Given the UIGEA action I don't see it any other way.

Just like the admin's stance on the WTO; do it our way or else. The sheer size of the US market has the chance to shape the world poker future.

For good or bad.

The outcome is pretty much up to us.

But then again I am a bit of a '60's dreamer, that if we actually could organize and get the sites to act responsibily now that future deal would be much better.

Right now John Pappas' job is about as much fun as hearding cats! Unless that changes we will end up having to live with whatever the Hill comes up with. Ultimately the actions of the members of the US poker community end up with the responsibility deciding the fate of the world on-line poker market.


D$D

[Skallagrim]

Yeah. we are back in agreement, Milton.

If Wexler passed (and even it has minimal regulation requirements like age verification) then I would have the free choice to play at US and EU sites where I am confident that I have redress for fraud. I would also play at FTP (and Stars or TruePoker or a few others I trust - if they would get Mac software, or when I upgrade to a Mac with an Intel chip).

If FTP or some other offshore site in a jurisdiction where I couldn't effectively sue or complain to a regulatory agency then ripped me off, well, THEN its my fault for playing there and taking the chance. Thats a free market.

Skallagrim

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
Your faith in "regulation" is touchingly naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

say what tf you want

i'd rather have the gaming commission than not have it. somethin is better than nuthin. only naive people think otherwise.

and i'm looking forward to the days when all those caribbean/latin america/tax haven cowboy outfits are pushed aside by well-regulated american casino-run enterprises.

[TheEngineer]

I don't think we're let strong enough to get to choose HOW we'll get explicitly legal poker....we just have to agitate for our right to play, IMO. If the Wexler bill goes through, the first U.S. sites will probably be in NV (NV is the only state that licenses online gaming sites), so there will be regulation via the Nevada Gaming Commission. If someone chooses to play an offshore site rather than MGMpoker.com or Harrahspoker.com, shame on them.

Bottom line...I don't know that people who want regulation have much to worry about.

[Skallagrim]

Politically, I am 100% with Engineer on this: we are not going to get unregulated legal poker no matter how much we want it. Its either regulated and legal, or it will be made illegal explicitly. This will happen one way or the other once the UIGEA is shown to be the worthless tool it is.

That said, I will play FTP as long as they let me and feel no shame (I dont think thats the way you meant it TE, but I had to respond anyway). I would hope FTP would be one the first licensed legal sites, but if they are prevented from becoming one, I will still play there out of thanks for their being there for us after the UIGEA passed and the others split. The same can be said for Stars and the other US friendly sites - except Absolute for obvious other reasons.

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

I think that the sanctions imposed by the WTO will greatly affect what happens with online gambling in US. IF WTO grants IP sanctions, then US will be forced to open online gambling to foreign operators. No other country attempts to regulate or tax operators in foreign countries. Even the recent UK regs and taxes only affect operators located in the UK.
So if WTO really cracks down, it will not accept a law such as IGREA that attempts to regulate foreign online gambling concerns.
Also, I really believe that these state laws prohibiting an individual from online gambling in his own home will be declared to violate the privacy rights under the US constitution. I cannot see how one has the right to gay sex in one's home, but not the right to gamble online.
Of course, Congress can regulate online gambling operators located in US, which is why I doubt that they will arise anytime soon. Most states already have licensing, taxation and other regulations that would apply to any business located in a state that offers online gambling services. I believe that such laws and/or federal such laws will prevent operators of online gambling site in US from being able to compete with foreign competitors.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone chooses to play an offshore site rather than MGMpoker.com or Harrahspoker.com, shame on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Meant to write: If someone chooses to play an offshore site and gets hosed, shame on them. They knew (or should have known) the risks and associated trade-offs.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, I will play FTP as long as they let me and feel no shame (I dont think thats the way you meant it TE, but I had to respond anyway). I would hope FTP would be one the first licensed legal sites, but if they are prevented from becoming one, I will still play there out of thanks for their being there for us after the UIGEA passed and the others split. The same can be said for Stars and the other US friendly sites - except Absolute for obvious other reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. No matter what happens in the future, I'll always play FT and/or PS at least a little out of respect for the loyalty they showed us. Had they pulled out, we'd be in a much weaker position.

Well, time to meet and greet! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
There is NO way that "regulation" would be a net benefit to US players.

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not follow from the rest of your points at all. There is a very real chance that all on-line gaming, including poker, will be effectively off-limits to all US residents at some point in the not so distant future. A regulated industry is clearly superior to that outcome.

I share your preference for the free market, but I think harping on it is counter-productive in this situation. We need to focus on the points that have the best chance of success and present a clear, consistent message. It's hard enough to convince legislators that on-line gaming shouldn't be banned. And almost all legislators tend to be anti-market; their jobs depend on regulating. So although you can to talk all you like about how great the market is, in practical terms, given our objective, I think it's at best academic and at worst counter-productive. IMO, the way to go is to argue that regulation wil help prevent the supposed problems with on-line gaming while also producing substantial tax revenues.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the sanctions imposed by the WTO will greatly affect what happens with online gambling in US. IF WTO grants IP sanctions, then US will be forced to open online gambling to foreign operators. No other country attempts to regulate or tax operators in foreign countries. Even the recent UK regs and taxes only affect operators located in the UK.
So if WTO really cracks down, it will not accept a law such as IGREA that attempts to regulate foreign online gambling concerns.
Also, I really believe that these state laws prohibiting an individual from online gambling in his own home will be declared to violate the privacy rights under the US constitution. I cannot see how one has the right to gay sex in one's home, but not the right to gamble online.
Of course, Congress can regulate online gambling operators located in US, which is why I doubt that they will arise anytime soon. Most states already have licensing, taxation and other regulations that would apply to any business located in a state that offers online gambling services. I believe that such laws and/or federal such laws will prevent operators of online gambling site in US from being able to compete with foreign competitors.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the WTO works for us, we need to be lobbying for the US to join with the UK on the white list. Perhaps expand it. Form a government sponsored testing and auditing site. The right to advertize in an unfettered manner and be placed in people's MINDS as more safe and secure is a big carrot. They won't have to submit to it, but I think most of the long run operations will want to. Id like to see a large bond required as well, bigger than any one prize on offer at a book/poker room/casino where if they refuse to pay, the bond is pulled and given to the player. Word of mouth is strong and amateur detection as has been proved by this, but
we also need a government seal of approval to market a legitimate product to the masses.
Look at the free market in the gaming world overall, how many F rated books are there at SBR? People still give their money to be stolen year after year to rogue books. Five minutes googling should give you safe good books or casinos, but rogue ones pop up all the time. The programmers, managers, processors, and CS reps work with poker as well as those places. You think 90% of them give a [censored] if we get cheated now and then? If anything this episode( I can't even call it a debacle) has shown they can get away with it with little or no risk. But not if they lost advertizing priviliges, faced jail, or lost a posted bond.