by Wendeen H. Eolis

The battle for supremacy in the emerging online poker market, stateside, is in full swing with a series of gambits by the American Gaming Association (AGA). The AGA has effectively delayed PokerStars’ anticipated acquisition of the Atlantic Club Casino & Hotel in Atlantic City by its letter and legal brief in opposition.

PokerStars is perceived as a white knight among poker players but as a black sheep by members of the AGA.

The various bones of contention are coming into sharper focus but some relevant matters of fact are becoming more murky. Lawyers supportive of the AGA stance and of AGA members most likely to be affected sooner than later have become increasingly vocal in response to this reporter’s request for help in dissecting the issues—in plain English.

Questions and Answers

More than a dozen lawyers representing both sides of the issues contributed questions and comments last week. This week the AGA supporters (on condition of personal anonymity)  reviewed their position and various documentation in an effort to flesh out the general consensus among them. One of the participants stepped up to provide  a voice on behalf of the prevailing views of AGA supporters interviewed.    PokerStars supporters in the group are expected to provide enhanced responses with references to legal documents, shortly. In the interim some of their initial comments are repeated to remind readers there are two sides —if not more— in this evolving story.

Note: For the avoidance of doubt, readers are advised that both PokerStars and the AGA declined to comment   on the Q & A  for this article  through their respective communications offices and none of the responses reflect authorized comment by either organization.  

 1. Why did Poker Stars conclude affirmatively that their online poker fare was legal in America after enactment of UIGEA?

By Rhue R Reis

A total of 192 players entered the $2,500 No-Limit Hold’em event in the 2013 Foxwoods Poker Classic with a total prize pool of $433,007 on the line. The final table’s two initial chip leaders maintained their positions to the end, and battled heads up for only a few hands. Ryan Eriquezzo of Danbury, CT realized 2nd place earnings of $69,541 while Justin Schwartz of Milford, CT captured the Trophy, Watch and the $112,582 Top Prize for the 2013 Foxwoods Poker Classic $2,500 No-Limit Hold’em Champion.

 21-Year-Old College Student Wins First Gold Ring and $174K

WSOP Circuit’s Last Stop on Jersey Shore has concluded. Joseph McKeehen put on the most dominant display of the 2012-2013 World Series of Poker Circuit season on Monday, winning the Main Event Championship at Caesars Atlantic City McKeehen made a shambles out of the poker proceedings, scorching the hopes of each and every would-be rival in his shining path to victory. Consider that when play reached the final table, the 21-year-old college student had nearly half of the total chips in play. The old line about everyone else “playing for second place” gets overused in poker tournament liturgy. However, if ever there was an appropriate use for the aphorism, it was most certainly the final table of the Main Event in Atlantic City.

 In fact, McKeehen was never in serious danger of elimination. Like an alley cat toying with its prey, the young semi-pro poker player from North Wales, PA made it rather obvious that the mice in the dispute had no real fighting chance. The rush of cards didn’t hurt McKeehen’s prospects either.

AGA PETITIONS NEW JERSEY REGULATORS TO BAR POKERSTARS, ONLINE GIANT FIGHTS BACK

 In an unprecedented move, the American Gaming Association (AGA) filed a brief with the New Jersey Casino Control Commission in an attempt to convince the state’s gambling regulators that PokerStars is a “criminal enterprise,” operating in violation of US law, and that the state should thus rule against the application of Stars-related entity Rational Holdings US to operate the recently purchased Atlantic Club casino in Atlantic City. Lawyers for Stars responded immediately with a brief of their own, alleging that the AGA had no legal standing from which to petition, and was engaging in blatant market protectionism. New Jersey regulators postponed a scheduled hearing on the AGA petition to consider the matter in greater detail.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ANNOUNCES CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR FOR FULL TILT REMISSION PROCESS

By David “THE MAVEN” Chicotsky

 It’s common to hear poker players complain about bad beats. So much so, that bad beat stories have become a staple of the poker culture. There are some things we can control and others we can’t. We definitely can’t control certain bad beats, but on a macro level we can manipulate the frequency and distribution of bad beats we encounter.

 What I mean by this is that every poker player has a different ratio of the amount of bad beats they take in comparison to the amount of bad beats they deliver. The least risk tolerant players will inevitably have the highest bad beats taken to bad beats delivered ratio.

by Ashley Adams

I’ve reported on five poker rooms I played at during a recent trip to the Gulf Coast of Mississippi. This concludes the four-part series [Read the other parts of Gulf Coast Poker Report], with a look at the Hard Rock and the Beau Rivage in Biloxi.

 Hard Rock Casino, 777 Beach Blvd. 228-374-7625. The Hard Rock is the area’s room for young players; I was there at 12:30 on a Saturday night. The casino was crowded with guys and gals in their 20s – many of them drinking heavily. Some of them had found their way into the poker room – which had two $1/2 no limit hold’em games going.

 The games are raked at 10% up to a maximum of $4 with a $2 drop for the bad beat and other promotions. Players earn $5 off their meal bill for every two hours of play. My visit was characterized by what I can best describe as the tale of two tables.

by Barbara Connors

It’s no secret that poker players can be their own worst enemies. When we’re not calling too often with borderline junk, we’re shoving out too many raises in an effort to steamroll the opposition. Or folding too frequently in the face of such raises. We stubbornly keep on playing the game even when we’re fatigued or full-out on tilt. We play in stakes that are too high for our bankrolls, against opponents who are too advanced. And through all of this, we know perfectly well that we shouldn’t be doing it.

 This is hardly unique to poker players. Every dieter who eats a pint of Ben & Jerry’s, every shopaholic who goes on another spending binge, every procrastinator who invents another excuse to postpone getting a job done understands this feeling all too well. We know the behavior is bad for us. We know it’s going to cause problems in the future. And knowing this, we do it anyway.

by Wendeen H. Eolis

Over the past two weeks the American Gaming Association and PokerStars have sparred over the future of the online gaming company’s activities in Atlantic City. There is no end in sight for a battle that has AGA pressing the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) on behalf of its members into a long methodical examination of the merits of PokerStars’ entry into the United States casino market.  

While the plot thickens and the legal issues unfold, more than a dozen lawyers are responding to my call for help to dissect in plain English what is happening. Lawyer sources for this article have intimate knowledge of the online and live casino industry. Many have represented one or more of the following: PokerStars, MGM, Caesars, other brick and mortar casinos and online gaming companies and/or the AGA. They weigh in today on a few of the questions they have brought to the table for discussion. 

Author's disclosures: The  writer is a a legal consultant but not a lawyer and therefore does not offer legal advice and  does not express any legal conclusions in the matters presented in this article.This acknowledges without specific reference that the writer and/or EOLIS companies have had business dealings at one time or another with most of the businesses mentioned in this article and necessarily, have retained confidences provided in the context of those relationships.

Please also note: For the avoidance of doubt, readers are advised that no spokesperson for either PokerStars or the AGA was solicited for comment with regard to this article and none of the responses reflect authorized comment by either organization

The questions and the summarized answers provided as a result of consulting with a wide variety of gaming law experts and white collar crime specialists follow:

1. Why did Poker Stars conclude affirmatively that their online poker fare was legal in America after enactment of UIGEA?

What’s all this talk about “missing a bet” in poker? You hear it often, but is it real science, just jabber, or both?

 That’s the topic for today’s self-interview.

Question 1: What does missing a bet mean?

 It means that a player declined the opportunity to make a bet when it would have been profitable to do so.

Question 2: So, missing a bet sounds like a bad thing. Do you agree?

 In theory, missing bets can cost money. Just like any other judgment mistakes, betting is often a close decision. And the answer to whether a bet has been missed or not isn’t always obvious.

 What is obvious is that many poker players are so worried about missing a bet that the entire concept is damaging their bankrolls. I was there when this craze started. It was back in the 1980s when I first heard the term, I think.

 It began as an infrequent way for players who envisioned themselves as superior at poker to point out mistakes others were making: “You missed that bet!” This prodding quickly became a plague that remains with us today – embedded deeply in our consciousness.

 Sometimes the scolding was done in a friendly way and sometimes it was done to embarrass. It became so common that players would immediately point out their own missed bets, before they could be criticized by anyone else: “I missed a bet. I’m so sorry. I know better, really. Now I’m going to cash out, go home, and ponder my wasted life, because I’m an unworthy player.” Well, maybe not, but almost.

Question 3: So, wasn’t that a good thing – being conscious of missing bets?

Last Thursday, Poker Player Newspaper proposed five questions for consideration in PokerStars suitability hearing before the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement. A further article to discuss these questions was delayed Friday
after PPN asked PokerStars for comment and was advised by automated response that Poker Stars spokesman, Eric Hollreiser would “have access to email, only sporadically.” PokerStars has chosen not ro comment 
Note: For the avoidance of doubt, readers are advised that neither PokerStars nor the American Gaming Association has authoized anyone to respond to questions  posed by PPN as of this time.