Ambiguities of online poker

“It's hard work. Gambling. Playing poker. Don't let anyone tell you different. Think about what it's like sitting at a poker table with people whose only goal is to cut your throat, take your money, and leave you out back talking to yourself about what went wrong inside. That probably sounds harsh. But that's the way it is at the poker table. If you don't believe me, then you're the lamb that's going off to the slaughter.” Stu Ungar

Over the last few months I have been primarily playing online and all I have to say is that the results are far less than spectacular. I utilize HUD software to analyze my sessions and break them down into meaningful information. This helps me decipher opponent’s tendencies as well as my strengths and weaknesses. Now I understand that poker is a game of adaptability, but the absence of a physical human being sitting at a table across from you & the inability to physically view your surroundings is mentally exhausting. Full Tilt’s introduction of Rush Poker has become the next poker epidemic which is similar to playing bingo on crack. The lack of table dynamics & post flop play make it a quite attractive venture. Unlike a standard ring game, rush poker consists of large pool of players & every hand is played at a different table. The beauty of this is if the hand that’s dealt is less than desirable, the quick fold option can be selected & the player is moved to a new table before the flop of the previous hand is even dealt. This is also great for players with ADHD & the lack of patience.

There are only two things certain in life, death & taxes. In the United States, it’s more like pwned by the Chinese. Instead of practicing irresponsible fiscal policy, maybe the United States government should consider the economic benefits of legalizing & regulating online poker. In its current state I have feelings of uncertainty toward online poker. There are too many critical aspects that leave online poker vulnerable to the next Bernard Madoff “Ponzi “scheme. “A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from either their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit. The scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.” This is actually conceivable considering that the online poker market continues to grow at an astronomical rate.

When it comes to computers & technology I am usually skeptical, because they can be compromised. Unlike human beings, morals do not exist in technology. Trust me I am a firm believer in that history tends to repeats itself. Take prohibition in the early 1900’s for example. From 1920-1933 the manufacture, sale & transportation of intoxicating liquors was illegal in the United States. Organized crime recognized this imbalance of supply & demand & the realization of a profitable business venture on the black market took place virtually overnight. Although online poker & prohibition do not necessarily parallel identically, the moral of this comparison is to identify the potential weaknesses of the online poker industry. Online poker is considered to be illegal in the United States via the unlawful internet gaming enforcement act of 2006 (UIGEA), but the industry continues to grow exponentially reaching approximately $7 billion dollars in annual revenues, with the United States consisting of approximately more than 1/3 of the global market.

We are in the midst of an economic crisis. Although illegal, online poker continues to grow exponentially. Identity theft & white collar crimes are highly prevalent in today’s society. Now do you see the parallels for comparison? After conducting some research, I found it interesting that legal ambiguities diminish accountability. Instead it tends to protect the financial interests of online commerce instead of the reason for its existence, the customer base. With that being said, why would online poker sites not want to protect its customer base? This question could create an interesting debate. Most sites do not offer disconnection protection, unless it had to specifically correlate to site server failure & there is a point of disconnect where the site legally separates accountability for any losses incurred. This occurs when private hole card information is transmitted from the server to the player’s personal computer. Once received it is then decoded by the software & made visible in a publicly readable format. This is the most evident situation of susceptibility against potential collusion or deception. It is conceivable that malicious software could gain access to a personal computer, thus gaining access to private hole card information & transmitting it to a third party. If you believe that this is not even a logical possibility, then you must have forgotten that MIT still exists. Playing poker is a tough way to make an easy living, but someone has to do it.

Don't forget to listen to WTF Poker hosted by Jack McAdoo, Danielle Adams-Benham & Hannah Elisabeth only on www.pokerpodradio.com. Putting the broads back in broadcasting to go. Remember there is no substitute for profanity. Enjoy!