New Federal Online Poker Bill From Barton

[Michael Paler]

I shove QQ, idiot calls 95o. Board comes down 876xx.

10 hands later, I shove AKs, idiot calls A2o. The 2 comes out in the window, no Ace or flush comes to my rescue. I'm out of the tournament. That's ****ing sucking out. It's by far LESS likely to happen than for your hand to hold up and you to profit, but it happens, and in raw numerical terms it actually happens very frequently (about 1 out of 3-4 times or thereabouts assuming you're always ahead or dominating in those spots). The cardinal sin of most poker players is that they just can't come to terms with the fact a good hand does not entitle them to win (it isn'thuman nature to think in those terms after all), so they get tilted and think they're doing something wrong, or the game is unbeatable, or even (surprisingly common) that it's rigged.

Ergo, you cannot assume the game is like chess because chess has no random variables that can turn against you. If you lost it's because your villain outplayed you, pure and simple. Once again, THIS DOES NOT MEAN I THINK POKER IS A ****ING CRAPSHOOT!

Got it?

Sure. But chess is a lot like poker: "In chess, you have to both calculate — imagine where the pieces will go in advance-- and evaluate — once they go there, how is your position? — and I think there’s some similarity there with poker. For instance, in the latest series I played at wsop Circuit Atlantic City, there was a hand where I three-bet the turn with a flush draw with second pair. It was pretty easy to approximate how often he needed to fold in order to make my three-bet decent. But who cares about all that if you’re just wrong that you have any fold equity at all — maybe this opponent has no bluffs in his turn check-raise range). Similarly in chess, who cares if you calculate 20 moves ahead if you’re wrong about the resulting position?"
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2012/12/the-grindettes-jennifer-shahade-talks-poker-chess-being-a-wo-14007.htm

And then there is this; "If there is a group of people more prepared for success at the 2011 world series of poker than chess players, PokerListings hasn’t found it. Historically, chess players have proven the transition to poker to be a profitable one."
http://www.pokerlistings.com/wsop-2011-best-bets-chess-players-30463

Keep in mind this is partially why we have this bill coming up. These are the very reasons we might see online poker in all 50 states thanks to Joe Barton. Once we remove poker from the ranks of "gambling" type games, it can then be legal in all 50 states.

I will support this guy all day long. If this goes through, then all states that do allow online poker will open up to every online poker room. For example, right now Ultimate poker is offering it only to those physically located within Nevada. If this bill passes, those of us here in California can play on the site without waiting for the additional hoops they have to jump thru state by state.

This bill is nothing but a good thing and I really hope it passes.

 

[Aleksei]

I'm quite certain that Adelson's money is not behind either of the two house bills on internet poker introduced this session. Adelson has made it very clear he is anti-internet gaming, so I find your logic quite puzzling.

And why try to make it a partisan, wedge issue? This is the fundamental problem with political discourse in this country today. People are too focused on party position to take a clear look at the issue itself. Don't make this mistake on an issue so important,

There is no need to raise partisanship, as we need support from both sides of the aisle, and quite frankly, this is not an issue that is clearly partisan. There are friends and foes of internet poker on both sides of the aisle. Trying to say one party or the other is key to success.

But it clearly is not a partisan wedge issue. There are both foes and allies on both sides of the aisle. Some GOP are against it because of a moral position, while others support it as legitimate commerce. Some Democrats are against it because of their nanny-state belief that people can't control themselves so government should control them, while others support it as an individual liberty issue.

And so IMO, we should never even let party labels, and certainly not hostility towards one or another party, enter in to our discussions, in our efforts to restore the game. It's counter productive, given that currently there is some support on both sides. We need to gain more friends.

Digging into it further, yeah I was clearly wrong about Adelson money vis a vis OLP -- but honestly, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, that paints an even grimmer picture. Barton's bill has (apparently) no big financing behind it, no co-sponsors. Most of the general public won't be in uproar over this issue like they were over SOPA. Democrats won't be virulently opposed to it since it's not an Adelson piece, but they overall don't really care and on average support it less than Republicans. Republicans themselves are split on the issue, with the Tea Party wing in favor and the fundie nut wing against. And the only big lobby that could possibly get behind it lost most of its political weight when Jack Abramoff was brought down.

So basically, there's no driving force behind this bill in the Beltway; nothing to propel it forward. I would love for it to pass, but its chances are very very slim.

 

[curtinsea]

So basically, there's no driving force behind this bill in the Beltway; nothing to propel it forward. I would love for it to pass, but its chances are very very slim.

Basically, this is correct. But, we should not be so pessimistic, at least there are not one but two poker bills in the Congress at this time.

I think King's bill is not going to get very far, and I prefer Barton's. But he will have a tough road, as always.

The real nitty gritty is that nothing gets passed without it going thru Harry Reid, and I don't see him showing any interest in even introducing a poker bill in the Senate, so the rest is probably moot.

Personally, I think we should all press our Congressmen and women to support the Barton bill (HR2666) and maybe, just maybe, we'll get our 'one time' yet.

 

[curtinsea]

You might want to figure out what blooming idiot is then. In the example that you give, both opponents took a chance; One with AK one w AQ. Odds of probability states;
There are precisely equal chances of "luck" that either the King or the Q will flop or neither or even both.
K flops - 25% chance (AK WINS)
Q flops - 25% chance
Neither flops - 25% chance (AK WINS)
Both flop - 25% chance (AK WINS)

So yes, you can say it was "lucky" that the Q fell. However, it is not over yet. Now probability states that;
Q holds throughout for win - 33% chance
Q is high carded by K for loss - 33% chance (Actually, the chance here is 14%)
Runner runner (depending on rest of the flops composition) - 33% chance

So while you are at (50-50 if no other card that could help the king after runner runner is on the flop) 33%, the guy with the King is more likely to win because he has 66% odds of probability of winning, the Q only has 33% odds of probability of holding. There are additional odds for the Q hitting trips, etc. but I hope you get my point. One random aspect of luck occurring - flopping that Q, does not mean if the guy with the king goes to the river and wins that it is just luck. He is far more likely to win with the odds of probability in his favor. That is not random luck.

I honestly LOL'd who taught you poker math?

AK vs AQ is not equal at all. While the odds of a Q or a K falling are the same, the AQ needs the Q to fall, while the AK does not. AK is a 3 to 1 favorite over AQ.

 

[Michael Paler]

I honestly LOL'd who taught you poker math?

AK vs AQ is not equal at all. While the odds of a Q or a K falling are the same, the AQ needs the Q to fall, while the AK does not. AK is a 3 to 1 favorite over AQ.

It is not just poker math. It is called the odds of probability. That is what I was using. And you can use this type of odds calculation and do so all the time, you do realize that, right? In everyday life you make and use the odds of probability. I like the cut of your jib, so let me explain this in a way that will make sense to you concerning this and what you are calling random "luck".

Say you want to go to eat at Burger King. There are two close to you, and both are about the same driving distance away. So, what do you use to decide which one to go to? Lets say for this example that you know one always screws up your order and has a dirty dining area. The other never screws up your order and is always spotless. So, which one will you go to? The clean one. Why? Because the odds of probability state that if one has screwed up before and one has not, the one that has most likely will yet again. Therefore, you decide to choose the clean accurate one as that will give you a more enjoyable experience.

Now enter the "luck" factor; if you go to that clean one, is the dirty one you do not go to "unlucky" that you chose the other to give your business to? No. You made a conscience choice based on the odds of probability. So while you can say the clean one is "lucky" as they got your business, this simply is not the case. Now is it?

Absent of all this information or knowledge before hand, if you think they are both equal in all aspects, then yes; whichever one you choose is the "lucky" one. You just happened to go south to restaurant A instead of north to restaurant B. That is pure luck. And if you chose the clean accurate one by pure chance, then yes, it is "luck" as well.

Using the odds of probability greatly diminishes the "luck" factor, wouldn't you agree? The odds of probability are highly valuable in poker. Many do not understand it, yet it really is quite simple.

Again, this is the kind of factual logic that makes poker "not gambling" and makes this bill an important one. We should call out to all CC members to contact their reps to make their voices heard in support of this bill. With 100,00 members, this could make a difference. The odds of probability are better that it will help than it will not, lol.

 

[banshee1975]

I dunno if you read the whole post. In his post he said ak is 3 to 1 against aq. Look at the post a little closer

 

[WRLL]

Thanks for sharing this! Hopefully this bill will eventually be passed. It seems like these bills are introduced every year but end up going nowhere perhaps this year will be different.

 

[Michael Paler]

I dunno if you read the whole post. In his post he said ak is 3 to 1 against aq. Look at the post a little closer

No, I get it. It's based on mathematical calcs over a zillion hands. Great. 74% of the time AK should beat AQ. What about the other 26% of the time? Again, it is not simply luck, it's that 26% coming thru. If the last 3 times your AK vs AQ held, you should know the next one might not. 3-1, right? 3 times it should hold, once it will not. Still, it could hold up ten times in a row. Then the odds of probability come into play to say it most likely will not.

This is my whole point. What appears to simply be "luck" is just not luck at all! It's mathematical odds calculations based on past knowledge (3-1) that sooner or later express themselves. It looks like you got unlucky with your AK but you did not. It was mathematically time for it to lose, or else it would be 1-1 each and every time. So you can use those other odds to somewhat accurately predict if it will hold or not.

Get it?

 

[curtinsea]

No, I get it. It's based on mathematical calcs over a zillion hands. Great. 74% of the time AK should beat AQ. What about the other 26% of the time? Again, it is not simply luck, it's that 26% coming thru. If the last 3 times your AK vs AQ held, you should know the next one might not. 3-1, right? 3 times it should hold, once it will not. Still, it could hold up ten times in a row. Then the odds of probability come into play to say it most likely will not.

This is my whole point. What appears to simply be "luck" is just not luck at all! It's mathematical odds calculations based on past knowledge (3-1) that sooner or later express themselves. It looks like you got unlucky with your AK but you did not. It was mathematically time for it to lose, or else it would be 1-1 each and every time. So you can use those other odds to somewhat accurately predict if it will hold or not.

Get it?

You are just engaging in semantics and you really aren't using the math properly to explain what you are getting at. Let me make this simple . . . All in preflop, the AQ has a 25% CHANCE of catching the cards necessary to win the pot.

Chance is the relevant term here, not luck. The word 'luck' does not appear in any poker statutes I've read, but the word 'chance' appears frequently.

While most agree that poker is a game where skill is the predominant factor in long term success, they also agree that you cannot discount the very real element of chance. And that element of chance is what makes it gambling under most definitions.

 

[Michael Paler]

You are just engaging in semantics and you really aren't using the math properly to explain what you are getting at. Let me make this simple . . . All in preflop, the AQ has a 25% CHANCE of catching the cards necessary to win the pot.

Chance is the relevant term here, not luck. The word 'luck' does not appear in any poker statutes I've read, but the word 'chance' appears frequently.

While most agree that poker is a game where skill is the predominant factor in long term success, they also agree that you cannot discount the very real element of chance. And that element of chance is what makes it gambling under most definitions.

Semantics? Semantics you say? I think we all know how I feel about being accused of that.

"Semantics: its what those who cannot understand what youre talking about accuse you of in order to cover up their stubbornness concerning the subject at hand."

Actually, that is not exactly what I say about it, but I am trying to be nice. I try not to call people stupid or idiots as I have been called here if I can at all avoid it.

So, no offense by that, I just think my statements posted in here speak for themselves. The math I am using is being used properly. You are simply not understanding it or ignoring it while at the same time proving my point. Yes. The A-Q has a 25% chance. That is not luck. The fact that it wins is that 25%! Luck would be if the A-Q wins when the A-K is 1-1. Not 3-1. It would behove you greatly to try and understand this if you can. It can make or break a poker decision.

Go back and look at the Burger King example once more. That really clarifies what I am talking about. If not, let us just agree to disagree. You stick to poker being about luck and skill. I will stick to it being about math and skill.

Friends?:handkiss:

 

[Aleksei]

The real nitty gritty is that nothing gets passed without it going thru Harry Reid, and I don't see him showing any interest in even introducing a poker bill in the Senate, so the rest is probably moot.

I actually think he'd have to do it if it had Adelson money behind it. Reid's the senior Nevada Senator, he has to play ball with Adelson.

The problem then would be that House Democrats would team up with as many religious fundies as they can find to bring it down before it reaches the Senate.

 

[curtinsea]

Semantics? Semantics you say? I think we all know how I feel about being accused of that.

"Semantics: its what those who cannot understand what youre talking about accuse you of in order to cover up their stubbornness concerning the subject at hand."

Semantics, it's when your argument hinges on the definitions of words instead of material facts. So, let's get the definitions out of the way . . . .

Luck = Chance = Probabilities = Variance . . . . these terms are synonymous in the context of this discussion. They are the unknown, the 'Je ne sais quoi' as it were. In a poker game, every round of decisions is followed by a random act, where you will have a chance to get lucky or unlucky based on the probabilities of the situation.

But we all, most anyway, realize that poker success is measured in long term results, not turn of any particular card or pot. And it is skill that will determine those long term results. But from a legal standpoint, the Government doesn't have to look at it that way. They can, and in fact do, look at the individual hand and see an element of chance preflop, on the flop, on the turn, and on the river.

And that element of chance (luck, probability, variance) is enough for them to call it gambling.


Friends:handkiss:

 

[Michael Paler]

I actually think he'd have to do it if it had Adelson money behind it. Reid's the senior Nevada Senator, he has to play ball with Adelson.

The problem then would be that House Democrats would team up with as many religious fundies as they can find to bring it down before it reaches the Senate.

Is this a tightrope walk for Reid at all? I mean Adelson's not in great favor with his comments and opinions right now, but Reid is from Nevada and they are pressing forward with OLP despite them both. Can he successfully serve two masters?

To be honest, I cannot imagine Democrats and the mainstream religious funds getting together on this one. They are so often at opposite ends. I would be more worried about Adelson throwing money at it, but it should look like a lost cause to him any day now, right? How much longer will he beat a dead horse?

 

[Michael Paler]

Semantics, it's when your argument hinges on the definitions of words instead of material facts. So, let's get the definitions out of the way . . . .

Luck = Chance = Probabilities = Variance . . . . these terms are synonymous in the context of this discussion. They are the unknown, the 'Je ne sais quoi' as it were. In a poker game, every round of decisions is followed by a random act, where you will have a chance to get lucky or unlucky based on the probabilities of the situation.

But we all, most anyway, realize that poker success is measured in long term results, not turn of any particular card or pot. And it is skill that will determine those long term results. But from a legal standpoint, the Government doesn't have to look at it that way. They can, and in fact do, look at the individual hand and see an element of chance preflop, on the flop, on the turn, and on the river.

And that element of chance (luck, probability, variance) is enough for them to call it gambling.


Friends:handkiss:

By the way, you might want to let the courts that ruled it is not luck based and therefore not gambling in on his stunning revelation. I am certain they will listen to an average poker player who discounts the decision they have arrived at and issue a retraction, immediately.

And I am sure if this widespread ignorance of what poker is or is not, helped in part by the players themselves, helps to see that it is not accepted widespread online in America you will all be vindicated in full. Then you can pat yourselves on each others backs on the way to the brick and mortar casino so you can do your "gambling", ie; play poker. (barf) Be sure to tell Adelson how correct he is. I am sure he will appreciate it. Maybe he will pat you on your back as well on the way into his casino.

As for the math, you know; that "word" my argument hinges on (lmfao), well, I wish you luck ignoring that. You are going to need it.

Good day to you sir.

 

[wydejim]

I really hope this is true and it all passes soon.
usa was treated unfairly.
our freedom to play poker was taken.
our govt in my option has no right telling any one we cant play poker online or live.
they need to get there act together and give us back our poker we all love.

 

[TeUnit]

sheldon is the biggest hypocrit alive

 

[Aleksei]

sheldon is the biggest hypocrit alive

He's a businessman. He perceives OLP as a threat to his domain so he's using the GOP to keep it away.

 

[Skull_Sniper]

If something like this passed, that would be so sweet. The article was pretty clear cut on what we need: Protection and valid options for online poker for U.S. players without any goofy fine print. It's unnerving to think that the site I play on or any other site might not be available to play on at any given time. I also wish there was a U.S. based site that was available for all players of the world.

 

[curtinsea]

It really is just a question of when . . . it was always going to be an American thing in America. No doubt, the crackdown on internet poker was the early steps . . . clearing out the foreign competition to leave a ready-made market, with big casino ready to step in and fill it. the short memories of the people allow the hypocrites to argue the other side of the issue now, and push for legalization.

 

[f0xxaicle0patra93]

I really love all the new poker legislation being brought up, especially the pokerstars news in NJ...yet, I'm still not excited until the day I actually see some things being done! (IE: being able to play on pokerstars/fulltilt, etc.)