This Op-Ed by Michelle Minton in today’s Washington Times is probably the single most favorable piece to online poker that I’ve seen in any mainstream media outlet ever. After profiling a few very sympathetic professional or semi-professional online players, she concludes,
Limiting online poker or banning it altogether will not stop the problem gamblers, who will continue to find ways to gamble – legally or illegally. But it will hurt the honest professionals who rely on their poker earnings to supplement their incomes. It is time for Congress to reverse the damage done by UIGEA and fully legalize online poker. More important, it is high time that lawmakers respect and protect individuals’ right to spend their time, money and careers as they choose.
Minton also does a nice job of providing an argument for poker-as-skill-game that ought to be clear and compelling to a general audience:
A 2009 study by Cigital, a leading software-security consulting firm, analyzed 103 million cash-game hands from an online card room and found that the best cards won just 12.5 percent of the time. That means the other 87.5 percent of the time, a better card player got players holding better cards to fold. This clearly demonstrates that the “luck of the draw” has little to do with a player’s ability to win.
Sidenote about the Washington Times: At the 7-11 in Baltimore County where I used to work, we sold not just the Baltimore Sun but also the Washington Post and the Washington Times. The Post is by far the best of those papers, but the Times is the most conservative, and some for that reason it had its share of fierce loyalists. We didn’t keep many on hand, and if one of the loyalists came in to buy one but found we were sold out, he would complain about being forced to choose between, “The BS and the ComPost.”
Great post. Although I would love to see the full legalization/regulation of poker. I’m not sure it does much good for the low/mid stakes grinder with the upfront tax/fees, etc…they talked about? Andrew do you have any thoughts on this. Rakeback gone? 20% off the top of raked hands the sites would have to pay? I mean that is a big chunk for all players but especially if you are a low stakes grinder looking to make $40 to $100 every week or so.
Why would rakeback be gone? Also my understanding is that the gov’t wouldn’t be pulling 20% out of every pot but rather 20% of revenues. From what I’ve heard, that is not drastically different from what it costs the sites now to work around the legal barriers. Apparently payment processing in particular has gotten very expensive.
OK, that is correct. 20% of Revenues. It was late and I had not remembered it clearly. Yes the processing is very expensive. Full Tilt is having to wire tranfer pretty much all withdrawls at this time. Processors taking a big chunk and Full Tilt is reimbursing players $50 or more to cover the fees taken out on both ends. Thanks for the clarification.
WOW 12.5% of best cards won alot of bluffing LOL must be Ipoker or something.
Yeah I really don’t get how they reached this statistic at all – unless they’re saying someone who started with A2o and flatted a raise OOP vs KJ was the ‘best hand losing’ when he c/f’d the flop
I was curious about how they defined best hand as well. Is it the best hand at the start of the hand, when the money goes in, when the hand reaches its conclusion, or something else. Also how do they classify draws; if you fold to me on the flop with a pair of 2’s, and I have straight and flush draws with overcards what is the better hand?
I am pretty sure the “best hand” is the two hole cards that that forms (or would have formed) the best hand after the river is dealt, even if it was folded pre-flop. (eg: I fold Q4o preflop, and the board ends up KQ344. I folded the “full house” preflop.)