The Future (of Online Poker) Looks Predictable

When I wrote Part One of this series, a friend commented on my Facebook posting of the article about my political take.  Now, this friend, who we’ll call “Mike #2” (because that’s his name), shares similarities with me besides the moniker.  We’re both from the Midwest (I’m transplanted to Oregon, though), we’re both poker players and chip collectors, we both love dogs (I’m currently dog-less; he has a new corgi-mix and I love corgis, though I’ve had Eskimos and Samoyeds in the past), and we’re both older men watching our waistline.  And there are probably some other things we share.

Politics isn’t one of them.

We’ve tangled good-naturedly (I hope that was good natured) about a host of issues - and every time I’m way over here on the left, and he’s over there on the right.  He needed me (rightly so) that it was Obama’s administration that brought the hammer down on Black Friday (though they were enforcing the UIGEA, brought to you in 2006 by you-know-who).  And he ripped me a new one on my example of congressional disarray in the recent Cabinet hearings/approvals.  And no doubt we’ll tangle again.

But when it comes to online poker, we’re on the same side.  That’s because both the GOP and the Dems are of one mind here.  In the distant past, there have been matters of morality or rights or touchy-feely concerns that have caused one party or the other to cast a frown on the promotion of gambling.  But in the last 20-30 years, with Lotteries, Indian Casinos, Riverboat Casinos, Racinos (horse-track casinos), and a virtual explosion of gaming (don’t call it gambling) helping states from Maine to California with their bottom lines, there is only ONE issue that makes legislators turn their heads:

EM OH EN EE WHY.  Money.  Cash.  Dollars.  Dinero.  Cold, hard bucks.  Franklin Mint Chip.

Nevada licenses are being handed out to qualified vendors, but…this article from the Las Vegas Sun (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/mar/03/only-big-fish-allowed-swim-nevadas-online-gambling/) indicates it’s only the big fish that need apply.  The law is pretty restrictive, requiring, “…a $500,000 operating license to enter the online gambling market and restricts licenses largely to resort hotels -- a legal definition including 200 hotel rooms, a 24-7 restaurant, a bar and a casino floor-- with a non-restricted gaming license.” (LVS, 3/3/13) 

 
Exactly WHY does an online poker room need 200 hotel rooms?  This would be akin to only allowing firms to develop “horseless carriages” that had at least 100 stables, 24/7 access to buggy whips, and a ton of hay.  Obviously the guys with the money want to keep the money and they HATE HATE HATE competition.  And their friends in Carson City helped them keep it that way.

Want more proof?  The new law in New Jersey is similar, so, naturally, if one wants to be in the online poker biz, one needs to own a casino there.  And that’s what PokerStars is trying to do, much to the consternation of the American Gaming Association and the folks who pay their way (major casino owners).  In a story reported in CardPlayer (and elsewhere (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/15119-u-s-casino-lobby-trying-to-block-pokerstars-entry-into-new-jersey), the AGA says PokerStars should not be approved, “because the integrity of the gaming industry would be gravely compromised by any regulatory approval of PokerStars, a business built on deceit, chicanery, and systematic flouting of U.S. law.”  To their credit, PokerStars deflected the hit, saying that “…the U.S. Department of Justice explicitly gave it permission to reenter the U.S. if licensed by a state and that it was allowed to bail out Full Tilt Poker.”  Other countries where PS does work in tandem with those in power (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, and others) might take umbrage with the AGA.

It’s already been almost two years since US players were frozen from playing online poker for money (legally), and, of course, the jockeying to make it so (officially) started longer before Black Friday. Expect the dragging of heels to continue, as they big boys with the big toys (and the bankrolls to buy them) battle it out.  It will be fierce, it will be bloody, and it will be over when someone pays someone some serious money.

When/if online poker does make its debut in Nevada or New Jersey, expect the one with all the toys to win, eventually.  It’s so predictable.

The Future (of Online Poker) Looks Scary

This is part two of the “Future” series (and there will be a part three).  This time, knowing that online poker – legal, for real with money online poker – will be a reality most likely by this fall, albeit in only one, two, or maybe three states (NJ, DE, and NV, all of which has legalized it as of this writing),  There may be a few others who join this select group soon (CA, MD, IA?), but it’s doubtful they can set up all the protocols necessary to get their state games up and rolling before 2014.  But who knows?

I mentioned before that the jockeying for licenses and a presence in online poker in the US is fierce, with many established gaming houses joining forces with established gaming technology companies to earn a place at the (poker) table.

Then there is the 500 pound gorilla – PokerStars.

And it’s 1600 pound cousin – Zynga.

Make no mistake, the two monkeys listed above know better than anyone just how much is at stake here, and, as of this writing, both see a similar path to glory.  Kinda.

You know PokerStars – biggest online real poker room in the world now, and savior (and now owner) of Full Tilt, the SECOND largest.  PokerStars, vying for US legitimacy by playing ball with the government to avoid any Black Friday scandals AND also trying to prop up flagging New Jersey casinos…by buying one.  And despite all that, they cast their eye to the undisputed social gaming leader, Zynga.

So we must look to the big Z to see the “future” of gaming online, and of online poker.  And if you’ve ever played poker at Zynga, you know it ain’t pretty.  Zynga is first and foremost a social gaming construct.  Poker is just one of many amusements, like Farmville, Bubble Safari, and Mafia Wars.  Winning is secondary to being involved and having fun with your friends.  Many Zynga poker players play at the tables similarly to how they play every other game on Zynga.

And that ain’t poker.

Because it’s free and you can get more chips just by breathing (you can buy millions, but…why?), players tend to not play like “normal” poker.  As in – just about every game, just about every hand, some clown goes “all-in.”  And, most likely, MANY do likewise.  It’s only a game.

Obviously, if it were for real and real money was involved, it would be doubtful (but not impossible) to take such a cavalier attitude towards the game (though I saw a lot of that crap in the small stakes cash games on PokerStars back in the day).  Some might go that way and make some cash, many will try it and fail miserably…and never return, going back to the cheap thrills of Chefville.

Zynga has great faith in their social gaming platform (it might be fine for amusement, and the single table format is OK for phone users, but…that’s about it).  Worse yet, PokerStars now had a Facebook interface ala Zynga that allows you to sign up and play (for free) just like Zynga via Facebook.  It even had some of Zynga’s gimmicks like player levels, experience points, earning free chips and rewards for special challenges (most having to do with other players and your friends – very social).  I’ve tried the PokerStars FB format, and it’s OK – partly because it hooks into your regular PS account and the regular PS setup, and most of the games and your opponents are part of the PS network and NOT Facebook (making getting those social credits difficult).  The poker playing interface is sooooooooo much better than Zynga, it’s not funny.  Still, you can see where they’re going with this.  Too bad

If the future of online poker is destined to mirror the social online gaming experience, I foresee this as a major blow to poker.  There is no “World Series of Diner Dash.”  Poker players spend hours at the game, learning, improving, and trying to get better.  They read about poker to educate themselves to play better.  To my knowledge, there isn’t a library of good strategy books on Mafia Wars.

If poker must go the way of Zynga and its ilk, poker will no longer be the game we know and love.  Fortunately, I don’t think that will happen.  Part three of this series explains why.

The Future (of Online Poker) Looks Great

You’ve no doubt seen the news this week - both New Jersey and Nevada signed measures that will allow residents of their states to LEGALLY gamble online, and they join Delaware in this regard, making at least three states (with more states like California and Maryland considering similar measures) that may have online poker available by Fall, 2013.

Hooray!  Probably.

The tortured soul that is online poker in the USA has gone through more ups and downs than that damned roller coaster outside of the New York New York casino.  We flocked to Full Tilt and PokerStars in the early part of the last decade, only to see the UIEGA in 2006 shoot a warning volley that finally hit home on Black Friday, April 15, 2011, as US players were shunned from (almost) all online sites.  Since that day almost two years ago, we’ve suffered with the crumbs of a few sites who (quietly) take US deposits in a roundabout way (disclosure - I have a small fund on one site - not saying who), pay-to-play sites like WTP and CardPlayer, and free games (for no $$$ prizes…or much of anything except practice and adrenaline) on Zynga, casino-sponsored sites, and the like.

I once thought that the initiative to make online poker legal again (OK, the depositing to play poker - don’t get technical) would come from the Federals, not the states.  Surely they realize the vast untapped $$$ waiting for them in these difficult economic times.  Cripes - this is a Congress that can’t even get a majority of Republican Senators to approve a Republican Senator for Secretary of Defense.  Think about that - hey, he’s one of us, not from the other party - NO!  Mind-boggling.

It should be no surprise that NJ, NV, and Delaware were first out of the blocks to OK online gaming, since they were states that were already “heavily invested” in the idea of revenue from casinos/gaming.  And it’s not surprising that the other states who look more likely to go the same route are also becoming more beholden to gaming revenue, or, as one wag put it, “continue to suck on the teat that is gambling taxes and fees.”

So I see an eventual set-up (barring Federal approval of course, which won’t happen for at least two years, maybe longer, maybe not ever) like this:  like horse-racing (ironically, already legal for online betting).  Simulcasting works on a state-agreed reciprocity basis where citizens of many states pool wagers at the host track and are paid thusly online via services like Xpressbet and TwinSprires, and the host track’s state gets a share of the tax revenue from wagers.  Since the pools are larger than if only that state’s residents could wager, the state’s cut is larger.  Everyone wins (except the bettors, of course, since the rake from the track is pretty high).  Still, this arrangement saved horse racing from an early death (it’s still not like it was in the 1930s, and may never return to those glory days).  Poker may very well follow this path.

That’s both good and bad news.  Since there is currently NO online poker, ANY available game might be seen as a victory.  But like horseracing, the glory days of poker may be in the rearview mirror.  Many vendors are staking claims in the new “clean” 2013 version of online poker - casinos (who have a lot to lose if everyone stays away from Vegas and plays at their computers), current online poker sites like PokerStars and PartyPoker (who have the rest of the world, but lust after the huge US market), and social sites like Zynga.  Oh, Zynga…you may be the largest gaming site in the world (and they are, really - 3x as big as PokerStars for poker alone), but your approach might speed up that rearview mirror process.

I’ll explain how in part two…

Blackjack Reminders…and a Funny

I thought I’d take a week off of poker…at least, writing about poker…and talk a bit about Blackjack.  One reason is that my Blackjack strategy book, “The ABC’s of 21” is flying off the shelves (well, better than the other two books, and I even sold a “Nook” version).  Another is something that reminded me of something that reminded me to remind players about something.  And then I came across the “funny” from a Facebook friend, and that settled it.

So, the reminder is this – since you’re not playing blackjack every day (are you?), and the skills you need to play blackjack should always be razor sharp, you need to practice. There are plenty of good programs out there that allow you to set the scene – number of decks, Las Vegas or Reno or AC rules, etc.  Some are free, and others aren’t, but as always, you get what you pay for (in that the free programs have fewer features). 

Being cheap, I always look for free, and since I spend some time online…I practice at sites that aren’t really like the real thing, but they are great for ONLY dealing with Basic Strategy (as card counting is counter-productive, no pun intended).  I’ve been playing a Facebook app called MyVegas (from the MGM/Mirage folks) that has a blackjack game as one of their options (the others are all slots, but you can win points usable at their properties, and since I usually stay at Luxor, an MGM/Mirage property…it makes sense).  The game is fast, you can play three hands at once, and although they use a “perpetual digital deck” (continually reshuffled multi-deck, so counting cards is non-existent), it’s great for practicing Basic Strategy, which by now everyone kn ows because you bought my book.  Or something.  Anyway, if you’re interested in joining the site, it’s free and I can send you chips to get you started.  Just ask here on the blog, or on Facebook, or contact me somehow.

Now, the funny.  A posting from FB friend Judy went like this:

Playing blackjack and got on a run when someone at the table wanted to split pictures. The guy next to me was laughing so hard I had to ask what was so funny. He said he went to split pictures one time and an 80 year old woman said to him, "If you had a 12 inch cock would you cut it in half?" He said he nearly fell off the chair, never split pictures again and gets a good laugh every time someone else does.

That was funny enough (and good advice), but one of the comments that followed was even better:

What do you think the woman would have used for a metaphor if it was a woman splitting pictures?  Then again, a woman wouldn't be so dumb.

Can’t say I disagree.

So remember – practice, don’t split picture cards, and guys…don’t hack your weenie, no matter what.

The State of the (Poker) Union

Hey, it’s that time of year.  I’ve bee thinking about the current state of poker in the union (the US of A), and recent events made me think and opine.  First, the news:

ITEM:  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie conditionally vetoes an online poker bill which was his way of saying “make these changes and I’ll sign.”  According to the PPA (Poker Players Alliance), “The governor’s conditional veto openly declared support for licensed online poker and merely seeks specific modifications on its implementation.”

ITEM:  Delaware, Iowa, and Washington are also moving forward with their own in-state online poker legislation.  Nevada is currently the only state with laws on the books and licensed vendors, though no sites are yet up and running, although several are expected to begin operation this year.

ITEM:  Zynga launches a new multi-table tournament module for their Facebook poker users, and it quickly gains traction.  Although only a social gaming site, Zynga has shown interest in making the jump to real-money games.

ITEM:  PokerStars launches a Zynga-like social poker game on Facebook.

ITEM:  Two companies that would benefit from NJ online gaming, Zynga and Boyd Gaming, have seen stock prices rise dramatically in the last few weeks. 

ITEM:  PokerStars is looking to buy a casino, the Atlantic Club, in Atlantic City, NJ.

ITEM:  Hollywood Casino in Columbus, OH, is adding 6 poker tables…and removing 500 slot machines to make room.

So does this mean that we still have a seeming insatiable appetite for poker?  I would say yes.  And are all the players involved doing everything they can to help feed that appetite?  Yes, all but one…the Federal Government.  

 

The fact that the PPA has moved away from any federal lobbying and has concentrated their efforts to the states should be enough evidence that no one in Washington is paying attention (I realize that this is said a lot in a variety of issues).  I still think it will be difficult to have an effective poker presence in the U.S. going state-by-state, but it could be that the Feds will wash their hands in order to let some progress be made (see horse racing and simulcasting).

I am very hopeful that online poker will become “legal” in the U.S. once again (of course, it’s not currently illegal, but the moving of money in order to do so is the crux of the issue – see UIGEA).

I’d love to see more progress sooner than later, but that’s wishful thinking.  But a boy can dream, can’t he?

Re: Re-raising. Patience Works Unless You Don’t Have Enough

Something that I don’t see enough of at the lower levels is smart re-raising.  Heck, I don’t see much re-raising at all except for the asinine all-in from the bingo players.  The re-raise is a valuable weapon in your arsenal, and it’s also something to be careful of if it’s tossed back at you.

When a re-raise is made, it should signify a strong statement – even though another player has committed chips to the pot, the re-raise stipulates that more are needed, because whatever hand the first player thinks he has, the re-raiser thinks his hand is better.  At least, that’s what a re-raise SHOULD signify.

Obviously, this is a good bluff, or semi-bluff, in the right spot.  If this occurs on the flop, and the flop contains “scary” cards (all of one suit or three-in-a-row) so that a re-raise could mean a straight or flush – that could be scary.  It’s also a case where there are two like cards (9-9-4) which could give the re-raiser trips.

In any case, it’s a situation where I like to think there are only two possibilities:

• I’m way ahead, as he’s bluffing, or
• I’m way behind.

This also holds true if I’m the one doing the re-raising.  In 70-80% of these situations I have a great hand – two pair, trips, or a made straight or flush.  I have the nuts or damn close to it.  In 10-15% of hands I am semi-bluffing – I am one card away from the nuts.  In the other cases I have air. 

Of course, the goal is to not tip off when I have what.

Last week I was on the other end of a great re-raise.  I was up and down all tournament, and was trying to knock out one of two really good (and aggressive) players at my table.  I don’t usually go after the strong players, but the weak players were not very active, I was the chip leader at the table by a good margin, and I saw a couple of opportunities to deliver punishing blows.  One player was on the ropes until a river 9 gave him trips, and two hands later he doubled up again through me having pocket aces to my pocket queens.  So two re-raises from me in a row, and neither worked.  I then set my sights on the other strong player, and tried a couple more re-raises on scary flops, and he conceded two in a row.  And then, he re-raised me on a 10-7-5 flop where I had top pair, top kicker, and I pushed all in.  He called again…and flipped over pocket Kings.  He waited a complete round before he continually re-raised me whenever I made a bet.  I tossed two mediocre hands away, and finally pushed holding pocket Tens…and damned if he didn’t have the Kings again.

I lost the ability to gain respect for my re-raises and never got it back.  And I should have been more patient and waited until I had a monster hand before challenging him again.  But…frustration + lack of patience + moderate cards = rail.

More on this later in the month.

Big Stack vs. Patience. Guess Who Won?

This is the follow-up to my last post, a few days later than I planned.  I gave this a little extra time as I only had a couple of responses on the Blog, and I asked a few of my online buddies the same question…and I guess few responded because they thought it was kind of a dumb question, which maybe it was.

If you recall, I asked the following:

Situation:  It’s a 10-player 1 table Sit ‘n’ Go, top three get paid, and there are 6 players left.  You’re one of them – IF YOU COULD ONLY HAVE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO OPTIONS, WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER?

  1.     A big stack to punish the other five players, or
  2.     Absolute patience to pick your spots in order to get to be one of the Top 3.

I reminded posters that they could not have both patience and a big stack.  I also asked them to explain why they chose as they did.

To little surprise (except me, I guess), everyone said “Big Stack.”

Those that did explain themselves usually said something akin to “It’s easier to punish people with a big stack” and “you can take more chances.”  I get that.

The thing is, poker isn’t (necessarily) about taking chances.  It’s about making the best of what you do get.  It’s about making fewer mistakes than the other guys, and pushing them into making mistakes that pay (you) off.  You can do that with a big stack, and for some, I would think it would be easier based on not skill, but luck and bullying.

I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen players get a big win by luck (their suited 8-9 makes a four-flusher in spades to two red Aces, for example), and then plunge in to try to re-double their luck with pretty much any two cards, thinking they can beat their opponents senseless merely by the size of their bets.  Push, push, push…until someone gets a hand and breaks them, and their big stack is whittled in half.  So whatever advantage they had is gone.  This is hardly using a big stack effectively.

And yet, I see it over and over and over.

If only they had the patience to wait, take chances when they had the best of it, and lure opponents into a trap rather than use blunt force.  If only they used their muscle (their big stack) like a knife, cutting pieces of their opponents bit by bit, rather than all at once as a nuclear device.

Tell me if I’m wrong in what I see,

I am a strong believer in patience.  Not that I don’t like a big stack – it is the overall object of the game, after all.  But there is a reason we say “building a stack” instead of “having a stack (magically appear).”  Skyscrapers aren’t put up all at once – they’re built.  One doesn’t obtain an automobile from a 3-D printer (not yet, anyway) – it’s built with craftsman-like skill.

So should your poker playing be like the craftsman – you can’t conjure up a big stack, you have to create it.  Luck is based on statistics, and if you’re playing hands that only give you a 1-in-6 chance of winning, in the long run, that’s what’s gonna happen.  

In the next few posts I will dive further into how patience can get you the big stack you want. 

 

But you’ll have to be patient….