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

[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.