A couple of physicists have theorized (and I am not making this up) that the universe really doesn’t want us smashing up protons in a collider. Seems that they think the universe finds this act abhorrent to nature and so God or time-travelers are trying to stop us from doing that. Because it could kill us all. Such an action could create the Higgs boson, which using my own highly technical physics terms may be either a big ass thing (which it might not be since it’s apparently going to be small) or one of those mathematical concepts that can kill us all. And we know how much I hate those. Anyway, either God or time travelers may be thwarting our attempts at this and I think it’s amusing when physicists talk about God and time travelers.

And the author of the article, Dennis Overbye, writes:

Dr. Nielsen and Dr. Ninomiya have proposed a kind of test: that CERN engage in a game of chance, a “card-drawing” exercise using perhaps a random-number generator, in order to discern bad luck from the future. If the outcome was sufficiently unlikely, say drawing the one spade in a deck with 100 million hearts, the machine would either not run at all, or only at low energies unlikely to find the Higgs.

Sure, it’s crazy, and CERN should not and is not about to mortgage its investment to a coin toss.

He calls odds of 99,999,999:1 a coin flip? I want to gamble with this guy.

Under no circumstances will any logo, slogan or promotional language be permitted that Harrah’s, acting in its sole discretion, determines:

[...]

Advertises any non-prescription or non “over the counter” drug, tobacco product, handgun or handgun ammunition;

So, it’s OK to advertise a questionably lawful product like online poker sites, though they do stipulate some convoluted rules to make sure the ads are for free sites. But those free sites go directly to pay sites. But advertising lawful products is forbidden.

Related: Innumeracy tax.

As I said, both luck and skill.

In other news, regulators have simply given up trying to enforce Bill Frist’s onerous Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Denmark’s tax agency is called SKAT. Denmark, like the United States, does tax gambling winnings. For casino gambling (which is where I believe this will be classified) the tax rate is 45% on the first 4 million Danish Kroners; it’s 75% on income above that. Today $1 is worth 5.88907 DKK; Mr. Eastgate won 53,899,250.70 DKK before taxes. Mr. Eastgate will owe about 39,224,438 DKK in tax ($6,660,545). Put another way Mr. Eastgate will keep 14,674,813 DKK ($2,491,871) of his winnings—just 27.23% of his prize. Yes, he faces an effective tax rate of 72.77%. Ouch.

Wow.

Meanwhile, former commies have a flat tax:

Russia has a 13% flat tax rate, so Mr. Demidov will owe about $755,247 to the State Taxation Service of Russia.

From reader BWM.

Barack Obama’s hidden talent: He’s a top-notch poker player. Thank goodness—he’ll need it.

Among the countless blessings conferred by the election of Barack Obama is the energizing fact—until now little-known—that poker will be back in the White House for the first time in 35 years.

I think it’s illegal to gamble in DC. And probably illegal to gamble on .gov property.

Still, it’s pretty cool that he plays poker. Maybe we’ll see an end to Frist’s onerous online gambling bill.

The Poker Players Association has an urgent action item:

Tuesday, the House Financial Services Committee will review a bill, H.R. 5767, that would block the implementation of UIGEA regulations. In order to get this bill out of Committee on onto the House Floor, we need your help. We need you to contact the committee and express your support for H.R. 5767, as well as the King amendment which will refine the bill language. PPA strongly supports H.R. 5767 and the King amendment, but this important bill and amendment won’t pass without your help!

Call or Fax the House Financial Services Committee* Democrats’ Committee Office:* Ph: (202) 225-4247 – FAX: (202) 225-6952 Republicans’ Committee Office:* Ph: (202) 225-7502 – FAX: (202) 226-4301

Overall, the game involves skill but luck is the difference between someone winning a big tournament and not. Don’t believe me? Then let’s play a fun game. It’s a tournament and, lucky you, you will be dealt pocket aces every time. Great! Sign me up! But pocket aces against a random hand still only wins about 85 percent of the time. If you play ten hands in a row, you will lose 1.5 of those hands on average. To win, you’ve probably got to not lose some of that 15 percent of the time. And that involves some luck.

More realistically, though, is that you’ll often be getting all your chips in when you’re about a 70 percent favorite and your hand will have to hold up more often than odds dictate to win a big tournament.

For the record, I think poker is a game of skill but whether or not a court of law would buy it is questionable. So, defining it in the law wouldn’t hurt.

Update and bump: Seems that typing percent signs in wordpress breaks my comment function. Hence, the bump.

More on TN gambling laws here.

And, as is usually the case, Congress passed a bill it doesn’t understand.

A Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) study revealed that the United States has the potential to collect at least $8.7 billion and up to $17.6 billion in the next 10 years if it would tax and regulate online gambling, including poker. And those figures don’t include potential sports wagers.

The study was commissioned by the UC Group, an online payment service provider that currently doesn’t do business with U.S. customers. The UC Group specifically asked PWC to determine how much tax would be generated if two separate bills addressing online gambling in the U.S. were passed: Barney Frank’s H.R. 2046, “Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007” (which would regulate and license online gambling in the U.S.) and Jim McDermott’s H.R. 2607, which would impose a 2 percent licensing fee on online gambling companies who want to operate here. Both bills remain in committee.

Instead, however, your government has decided to sign an agreement to pay billions of your tax dollars to countries that allow online gambling for violating WTO agreements. But you can’t get a copy of the agreement because then the terrorists will win.

Police in San Mateo County, California apparently first spent months investigating the small-stakes poker game. From this firsthand account, it looks like a couple of the officers were playing regularly for several weeks before sending in the SWAT team, guns drawn, last week.

It’s a $20 – $50 game. Sebastian asks:

Can someone explain to me why this is a crime?

Depends. In some places, it’s a crime because you’re avoiding taxes and registration. In other places, it’s because you’re too stupid and untrustworthy to decide how to waste your money.

Also that Ed Miller notes the madness involved in NY:

In my opinion, NYC government has its head up its ass on this one. Not only are they wasting everyone’s time by “enforcing” the law in a way that annoys people but doesn’t actually change anything, they are creating a very dangerous environment for club management, players, and even those who live and work in the vicinity of the card clubs.

I’m betting on the man

Should be interesting. I can’t see a computer being bluffed off a hand or slow-played, which is important against a human.

Told ya so:

In a match of wits between man and machine this week, a software program running on an ordinary laptop computer fought a close match, but lost to two well-known professional human poker players.

The contest, which was billed as the “First Man-Machine Poker Championship” and which offered prize money totaling $50,000, pitted two professionals, Phil Laak and Ali Eslami, against a program written by a team of artificial intelligence researchers from the University of Alberta. They gave it a name that probably no gambler would ever choose as a nickname, Polaris.

Poker is thought to be a more difficult challenge for software designers than games like chess and checkers. Computer scientists have to develop different strategies and algorithms to deal with the uncertainties introduced by the hidden cards held by each player as well as difficult-to-quantify risk-taking behaviors such as bluffing.

Poker champion Phil Laak has a good chance of winning when he sits down this week to play 2,000 hands of Texas Hold’em — against a computer.

It may be the last chance he gets. Computers have gotten a lot better at poker in recent years; they’re good enough now to challenge top professionals like Laak, who won the World Poker Tour invitational in 2004.

But it’s only a matter of time before the machines take a commanding lead in the war for poker supremacy. Just as they already have in backgammon, checkers and chess, computers are expected to surpass even the best human poker players within a decade. They can already beat virtually any amateur player.

“This match is extremely important, because it’s the first time there’s going to be a man-machine event where there’s going to be a scientific component,” said University of Alberta computing science professor Jonathan Schaeffer.

As to details:

The Alberta researchers have endowed the $50,000 contest with an ingenious design, making this the first man-machine contest to eliminate the luck of the draw as much as possible.

Laak will play with a partner, fellow pro Ali Eslami. The two will be in separate rooms, and their games will be mirror images of one another, with Eslami getting the cards that the computer received in its hands against Laak, and vice versa.

That way, a lousy hand for one human player will result in a correspondingly strong hand for his partner in the other room. At the end of the tournament the chips of both humans will be added together and compared to the computer’s.

Should be interesting. I can’t see a computer being bluffed off a hand or slow-played, which is important against a human.

Woohoo. Raise it up to five times the blind. Guy one off the button minimum raises. I call. Then

Flop: J♥, 3♣ A♥

I bet about the size of the pot. He goes all in. I call:

Turn: 8♦

River: 8♥

He had aces. Blech.

The co-founder of NeTELLER pleaded guilty today to a charge of criminal conspiracy.

Stephen Lawrence admitted in court today that the operation illegally helped Americans place bets online, “I came to understand that providing payment services to online gambling Web sites serving customers in the United States was wrong.”

Neteller is a means of transferring funds online, rather like paypal.

By making the case for poker as a skill, aficionados hope to roll back the law, and even win the game newfound freedoms in states where wagering on poker is currently banned.

I gamble. Not a lot but often enough. I enjoy it and I only play with an amount of money I am willing to lose. If I engage in a game, all the money I take to the table I consider already spent. Never gamble more than you’re willing to lose. I’m not encouraging you to gamble and assume no responsibility if you lose money. Now, with those lame disclaimers out of the way, here’s Uncle’s brief intro to gambling.

The way you win is to stake money when the odds are in your favor. And that doesn’t happen often or, with many games, at all. And staking money when the odds are in your favor consistently over time. The classic example is in poker and you have a flush draw with two cards to come. If you hit your draw you will win. In the pot, there is $100. Assume your opponent will do one of two things: (longish post, you’ve been warned.)

He will bet $50 or he will bet $200.

And, you need to know that, with two cards to come, you’re about 35% to make your draw.

If he bets $50, you should call. The reason is that you are risking $50 for the opportunity to win $200 ($100 in the pot, plus his $50, plus your $50). Or 25%. Your odds of making the draw exceed that. So call. Put another way, over the long term, this is a winning bet. If this situation presented itself 1,000 times, you would profit $20,000 (you’d win 350 times for a profit of $52,500 and lose 650 times for a loss of 32,500). If you make this call and hit, your opponent will likely call you names like fish and donkey because you sucked out on him. But remind him he gave the right odds to call. And he should have bet more.

If he bets $200, fold. You’re risking $200 to win $500. Or 40%. Your odds of making the draw are less than that. So fold. If this situation presented itself 1,000 times, you would lose $25,000 (you’d win 350 times for a profit of $105,000 and lose 650 times for a loss of 130,000). (somebody check my math, I did this hurriedly)

It’s all about the odds. Every game. But there’s a trade off. Games with poor odds (lotteries and slot machines) pay out higher if you win. Games in which you have better odds (and by better, they’re still not great) if you know what you’re doing (like blackjack or poker – though poker is a bit different in that you have some control of the odds and the house makes money by taking a percentage of the pot) pay out less. In better odds games, you can pretty much double up and that’s that. Slots and lotteries offer ridiculous pay outs but these are dwarfed by the odds you’ll hit it. On lotteries, you’re probably more likely to get hit by a stray asteroid than score the powerball. The payouts are strictly controlled in these games. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the winnings are controlled with an advantage to the house/state.

All games give the house an advantage. The classic example is roulette. If you play a single number in roulette and bet $1, you have a one in 38 (1-36 and 0 and 00) chance to hit that number (that’s in the US, in other countries they use 37 numbers – no 00). If you lose, you’re even money. You lose $1 for each $1 you gamble. If you win, you get paid (at most places) 35 times the amount. So, your $1 bet would make $35 if you hit. In an even money game, it’d pay you $38. So, even when you win, you lose. These little variances are how casinos make money. To simplify, say you placed $1 on each of the 38 numbers. You would lose $37 for each number you didn’t hit and win $35 for the one that you did hit. You’d be down $2. The casino is happy to make money $2 at a time.

Another thing about gambling is that, though folks dream of a quick score, they are long term games. That is, games that require skill are long term. I’ve made a decent chunk of money playing poker. Sure, I’ll have bad nights and get felted. And I’ll have insanely good nights when I quadruple my money. But, generally, over the long term I am a winning player.

On specific games that I’ve been known to play:

Slots: They’re for suckers. The way to win is to accept the fact that you will lose but go for the big pay out anyway. And the big pay out only comes with the max bet. Don’t ever short bet. The only strategy, really, is to play a lot since, over time, they will eventually hit. If you watch a player and they hit a big jackpot, don’t play that machine. It won’t hit for a while. Slots can be a short term winner when you score. But so can any game. I’m a losing player at slots. And most people are too. I only play slots when I’m 1) bored or 2) had enough to drink so that I can’t pay attention at real games. Heck, a monkey can push buttons.

Video Poker: Learn the rules for optimal play (i.e., what to hold and what to not hold). Most machines are programmed to payout a percentage based on perfect play. In Indian casinos, the payout is usually 97% or so, which is to say that if you play only $100 and play it perfectly (defined by the optimal strategy – there are books about this), you will, on average, win $97 (i.e., lose $3). Even when you win, you lose. Some casinos in gambling towns have payouts of 101% or so but they know that most folks don’t play perfectly. I’m a winning player at video poker but I don’t play at Indian casinos.

Blackjack: Learn optimal play (i.e., when to double, split, hit, stay, etc.). There’s a ton of books on that. The other trick is to bet more when you’re likely to win and bet less when you’re likely to lose. This involves paying attention (or, it’s more nefarious name, card counting), which will get you kicked out if they catch you doing it. That’s kinda silly since it is more strategy than gimmick. It’s also hard to prove and is not illegal. They will suspect such if you vary your bet sizes. The premise is that a higher number of cards with value of ten or greater in the deck is good for the player. How do you do it? Easy but you have to pay attention. Assign cards values (typically, 2-6 get a value of 1; 10 through Ace get a value of -1; other cards are zero). Start at zero and add the numbers as you see the cards. When the number is high (indicating more high cards are in the deck and more low cards have been played), bet more because you’re more likely to hit blackjack or 20 and the dealer, who must hit on 16, is more likely to bust. High is defined as a multitude of usually four multiplied by the number of decks in use. So, if there’s one deck, bet more when the number in your head exceeds four(ish). I’m a winning player at blackjack.

Poker: It’s a bit different in that you control whether you play a pot or not. You don’t have to enter pots or call bets or make bets. So, you can control the odds you give and, to an extent, the odds you get. It’s about odds, calculating pot odds & implied odds, and observation of your opponents. The latter being the most important and the math being secondary. And you’re not playing against the house. You’re playing against people with the house taking a percentage. In other games, the house has rules in place and can’t make mistakes because the rules dictate the house’s course of action. But opponents can and do make mistakes, hence why observation is key. Other than the rake, poker is not inherently stacked against you. Generally, most people will tell you to play a tight and aggressive game (i.e., only play good hands and when you do, bet it strong). And that’s good for beginners but you won’t make a lot of money. You’ll make some, though. There are literally volumes of books on poker strategy and it’s too much to get into here. I’m a winning player at poker.

I don’t play craps or roulette or any other table games. And I don’t do sports betting. But I’m sure there may be some strategy to them. I just don’t know it. When it comes to poker, I only play Hold Em.

And, of course, the tapes that would confirm one guy’s story disappeared.

There appears to be some dispute as to whether poker generally, and a home poker game specifically, is illegal in Tennessee. It’s certainly a valid question, especially for those of us who love to play, and have no ready access to a legal live game (absent driving or flying several hours for one). Given what I do for a living, I thought I’d put some of my training to use, and post this note here. While I don’t like the law, here’s what the statute on this says:

Certain portions not applicable to analysis have been omitted.

Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-501

“As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) Gambling is contrary to the public policy of this state and means risking anything of value for a profit whose return is to any degree contingent on chance, or any games of chance associated with casinos, including, but not limited to, slot machines, roulette wheels and the like.

. . .

(2) “Gambling bet” means anything of value risked in gambling;

(3) “Gambling device or record” means anything designed for use in gambling, intended for use in gambling, or used for gambling;

. . .

(6) “Profit” means anything of value in addition to the gambling bet.”

The statute goes on to note, in the specific comments of the Tennessee Sentencing Commission, more detail to the meaning of the statute’s language. Their interpretation seems pretty clear.

“This section contains the definitions for gambling offenses. The definitions are intentionally broader than those found in prior law. The commission intends to include any scheme by which value is risked upon a chance for greater value as a “gambling” offense. The definition of “gambling” includes lotteries, chain or pyramid clubs, numbers, pinball, poker or any as yet unnamed scheme where value is risked for profit.”

The Tennessee Courts have not often addressed the issue of poker as gambling within the meaning of the statutes on this point. Since 1899, there have only been four reported cases in which gambling on poker (not video poker machines, but actual live games) is considered. The statutes on permissible gambling have changed several times during the last hundred years or so.

The statute is more geared at preventing casinos and card rooms seeking to operate the games for a business. The primary punitive aspects of the law are geared toward operating a gambling enterprise. The law is truly designed to restrict these businesses from operating. The punishment for the players are only somewhat secondary, in my opinion.

In other words, the law really wants to prevent shady backroom casinos operating for a profit which, as you would all suspect, is due to the fact that none of these proceeds would be TAXED. Punishment for the players is just a deterrent trying to keep these folks away from the untaxed card games for fear of a fine and/or jail time.

Saying all of that, I’m not sure that local law enforcement is going to get that worked up about enforcing the law against a group of friends playing a weekly low stakes game. However, under a strict interpretation of the statute, the weekly home game for pennies and nickels would probably be illegal gambling.

So you all know, according to T.C.A. § 39-17-502, “ The offense of gambling is a Class C misdemeanor.

In other words, the “skill” versus “chance” distinction doesn’t mean much in Tennessee. As for my opinion, I believe that poker is largely a skill-based game. Certainly, there is a degree of chance, or pure gambling, involved.

However, I draw the distinction on this simple point. In a game like craps or roulette, the outcome of your bet (and whether you win or lose) is based SOLELY on the roll of the dice or the drop of the ball. In poker, you can win a hand based on your bets, with the worst hand if you are a skillful player. It’s hard to win a Pass Line bet on a bluff.

Thought I’d share it.

Apparently, there is some debate on that in the legal system in the UK.

Update: Some question on what is meant by poker. I mean card games (like Texas Hold-Em) and not video poker (which is 1 – obviously gambling and 2 – typically stacked against the player).

And Ed Miller has 6 Must-Have and Mostly Free Poker Tools You May Not Know About.

Look, this has nothing to do with protecting the morality and sanctity of America. This is about greed and corporate power. Call it what it is. And, any conservative Congressman who supported this should examine his or her own ideology.

I think that I am most bothered by this issue because of its implications. For years now, the U.S. Government has been trying to get its greedy little paws all over Internet commerce. And, moves like this just evidence the government’s intent, even further.

Yes, it could be the opening salvo in the .gov getting its mitts on internet commerce. But, more importantly, it is a merely a protectionist racket likely paid for by brick and mortar casinos to protect their interests. Except horse-race betting, which is still legal because it’s gambling for the wealthy.

FBI investigators have visited Second Life’s Internet casinos at the invitation of the virtual world’s creator Linden Lab, but the U.S. government has not decided on the legality of virtual gambling.

Via publicola.

In a couple of hours, I get a response telling me to send them the front cover and they’ll send me a new book. Excellent customer service!

9♣ 9♥ 9♦

I quadruple up, now have the second biggest stack and take second in the tourney due to bad beat in the coin flip err heads up portion.

Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the powerful House financial services committee, is working on legislation to repeal the sweeping ban that was passed in Congress last year against online gaming, he told the Financial Times in an interview.

Mr Frank called the ban, formally known as the Unlawful Enforcement Gambling Act, one of the “stupidest laws” ever passed and said he wanted to “repeal” the law.

Also, former NY Senator and poker player Al D’Amato has joined the Poker Players Alliance as chairman.

K♣Q♣

I raise it up to three times the big blind. Two callers. Flop:

2♣ 4♥ Q♦

A caller (the short stack – I have at least 20 times his stack) minimum raises. Though the small stack, he’s in no danger of being blinded out yet. Other player folds. Action to me and I think he has a good hand and figure we’re in a kicker war. I put him all in. He flips over 4♦ 2♦. I catch a queen on the river and win. He says: Nice suck out. I say Yeah, but I didn’t call a pre-flop raise with deuce four.

I did suck out. But, ferrchrissakes, who calls a raise with 4♦ 2♦? Even as a short stack, there are better hands to make a move with.

5♥4♣

Crappy hand. I’m first to act. I raise it up to six times the big blind. Two callers and the button raises it to 12 times the big blind. It comes to me. I move my whole stack in the middle. The callers fold. The button thinks for a long time and says You’ve not played all night. You must have me beat. He folds and flips his cards over:

A♦K♦

Stupid play on my part, really. But it worked out. Remember kids: Don’t play poker when bored.

What journalist hears a man say there are 70 million poker players in the U.S., and then tries to argue that by saying only 23 million people played online poker last year? Then goes on to basically insinuate that D’Amato is a liar. Mr. Kriedler, don’t you see the holes in your article? Did D’Amato say that 70 million people play online poker, or did you make a boo-boo? Which is it, because based on what you wrote, you come off though you really don’t have a clue what you are trying to say?

70 million! That’s a lot. There are an estimated 80-100m gun-owners, for reference. And politicos fear the NRA. Poker players would be dangerous to politicians if they managed to get organized. They cost one man his congressional seat in the last election cycle. Negreanu also notes:

Just like liquor, in other words. Well, drinking, gambling, you get the idea. Try to ban card games online, and they’ll only start playing poker in somebody’s living room late at night, buying their own chips or using makeshift materials like pretzels and M&Ms as token “money.” Where will the madness end?”

[...]

What Mr. Kreidler fails to understand is that online poker isn’t going anywhere. There will always be ways to fund online accounts, so while they can make it harder to play by putting pressure on companies like Neteller, they won’t put an end to online poker in this country. In fact, the bill that was passed doesn’t make playing poker on the internet illegal for the player.

Indeed. I have noticed that in my small hometown, many home games are cropping up since the ban.

This hand bugged me. First hand of the night, no reads on anyone:

Eight handed, I’m in fifth position. Blinds are 25/50. Full stack of 4,000. My hand:

J♠ J♣

Sweet. Every body limps in. To me, the pot is 275 I raise 275. Jacks are good but they’re probably only good now. I don’t want over cards flopping. Dealer calls. Everyone else folds. The pot is now 550. I put dealer on either a smaller pocket pair or over cards.

Flop: 3♥2♦7♠

I figure I’m still the best hand. Bet 550 in case he’s on a draw. Called.

Turn. 4♥. I stick with my original feeling that he has a worse pocket pair. Bet 1,500. Called. Groan.

River: Forgot but it was a blank. It didn’t scare me. All-in.

He calls. Flips over 2♠ 3♣

Two pair. I, sarcastically, said: nice hand

Him: Thanks.

Me: I didn’t mean it.

Who calls a pot sized bet with 2♠ 3♣?

Two things: 1) I suck at tournaments and should have stopped betting after the flop. 2) Only in a tournament will someone call you with a 2♠ 3♣.

Thankfully, I got an additional 1,500 in chips for buying an adult beverage. I made quite a come back and placed 9th of roughly 30ish.

This hand bugged both because I played it badly after the river, over bet the flop, and because I was beaten by bad play.

Update: Too late, done added a poker category.

Logos for habit-forming drugs, tobacco or handguns

‘Cause those are similar.

Says Braisted:

Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it…the liberal philospy(sic) of life

Actually, I thought it was If you can’t tax it or ban it, fuck it up to the point where no one wants it anyway.

NETeller execs have announced that the U.S. government has seized “not more than $55 million” in U.S. funds and that those seizures will result in ongoing delays in repaying customers what they are owed.

While NETeller continues to make efforts to find a way to repay its U.S. customer base, there is no timetable for payment.

NETeller’s Ron Martin said, “The return of funds for our U.S. customers is a top priority for NETeller.”

This guy has withdrawn his money.

The US Ban takes effect 270 days after the bill was signed. The bill was snuck into a larger port security bill under cover of darkness. The bill also cost the author of the bill his congressional seat. Seems people don’t re-elect dickheads. The bill is also why Bill Frist will not be our governor, count on it. Some poker sites fought on, like pokerstars and continue to allow US residents to play. Good for them but when the ban goes into effect, no US banks will transfer funds. Enter Neteller.

Neteller, which is not a bank, still offered money transfer services to gaming sites. Well, until this week because US agents arrested the founders of the site for . . . well, I’m not sure what for. The article states it’s for handling billions of dollars in illegal gambling proceeds. Well, that doesn’t exactly sound illegal if you take out the word illegal. And since illegal is undefined, I’m guessing it’s just bullying. Neteller has pulled itself from the US. This is devastating the online gambling industry:

According to gambling portal Gambling911.com, Full Tilt Poker depended on NETeller for 75 percent of transactions, and the world’s biggest site, Pokerstars, used NETeller for around 60 percent of wagers.

CJ has a details on how this affects your neteller account.

No, Mr. Spam Man, the number one rule of investing is Don’t buy stocks based on tips you get from spammers via email.

Fucking windows. No, not that kind but same to them. New house has a lot of windows. Blinds and window treatments cost a small fortune.

The wife wants to put up Christmas decorations this weekend. God help me. She’s cool with the rule and I told her any decorations not going out will go to the trash.

A particular company that processes data with whom I deal with regularly sends me so much mail that I cannot possibly read all of it. They charge fees per task. Each particular task results in a bill. They send me a bill, for example, for $4. They’re called statements, guys. Get with the 1990s.

To the annoyed lady in the Buick at the 4 way stop: Yes, I know it was my turn to go. You were impatient and angry with me as I did not go but instead motioned you go go. You see, you’re driving a Buick, which is nature’s way of warning other drivers that you’re a danger to them. That and the blue hair. So, I did realize it was my turn. I did not let you go first because I was nice; rather, I let you because I assumed you couldn’t drive.

Speaking of 4 way stops, let’s just dispatch with the real legal rule about right of way and incorporate the way it really is into law: shittiest car goes first.

Plasma TeeVees: Despite being thinner than regular TeeVees, they sure do seem to weigh a lot more. And, despite being thinner, the manufacturers put them in boxes about four times the size of the TeeVee.

Never, ever pull someone’s finger. No good can come of it.

I am no longer amazed by statistical improbability in poker games. You’ll recall my bad beat here. I had two more at the GBR in Reno that cost me about $600. But, last week, I was dealt pocket kings three hands in a row (won one, lost two but still came out ahead). Tuesday night, I was dealt 7/4 three times in a row. Each is probably as likely (though, I’d say two kings is slightly less likely due the fact that up to 8 cards make 7/4 but only four make KK – I could calculate it but that’s no fun) but only one amazed me.

Nine states approved eminent-domain measures barring the government from taking private property for a private use.

And hats off to Arizona for being the only state not afraid of gay cooties.

And good for the poker lobby for unseating 15 term congressmonkey Jim Leach. Otis says:

In a race that Republicans ignored because they didn’t think it could be lost, in a race the national media ignored because they didn’t see it as a potential pick-up for Democrats, in a race that even the candidate didn’t think he could lose, Rep. James Leach (R-IA) lost his seat to a guy named Loebsack.

The online poker ban is stupid. It had the effect of devastating a few British companies and the Brits aren’t taking it lying down. There will be a summit:

Britain’s culture secretary on Friday compared the U.S. crackdown on online gambling to the failed alcohol ban of the Prohibition as she prepared to host an international summit on Internet gambling next week.

Tessa Jowell warned that the U.S. ban on Internet gambling would make unregulated offshore sites the “modern equivalent of speakeasies,” illegal bars that opened in 1920s America when alcohol was banned.

U.S. Congress caught the gambling industry by surprise earlier this month when it added to an unrelated bill a provision that would make it illegal for banks and credit-card companies to settle payments for online gambling sites. President Bush signed the law Oct. 14.

The decision closed off the most lucrative region in a market worth $15.5 billion this year in “spend” value – the amount gambling companies win from their clients, or the amount gamblers lose.

First of all, Britain has a culture secretary? Well, it’s broken. Hope you kept a receipt.

As I said, it’s a stupid law and I agree with (shiver) British culture secretary. But I don’t really see the US government giving much of a damn about an international gambling summit.

So, it is with reservation that I even consider talking to the press. Am I paranoid? A bit. The downside, of course, is that I am missing the opportunity to speak truth to power. So, what are your thoughts?

Up For Poker has an FAQ on the new bill.

Neteller, the last hope for online transactions, pusses out.

David Post says outlines the stupidity of the bill.

The NYT says it could cost the Republicans some seats. I hope so.

Also, I am apparently the youngest gunblogger alive.

The banking industry response to the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is something in which we can take some heart. The banks were initially afraid the bill would hold them liable for not enforcing the law. Now, bankslawyers are telling them that it appears the banks’ exposure is limited.

In the short term, we assure you that your online experience at Full Tilt Poker will not change. You will still be able to deposit and withdraw money from the site using the same methods and payment processors you have always used, and your money will remain completely safe and secure. We cannot predict how the online poker experience may change in the future, but we do not expect any immediate impact from the legislation, as the banking industry has 270 days to implement new rules after the bill is signed.

To summarize what was passed, this bill is designed to prevent the use of payment instruments (credit cards, fund transfers, etc.) for certain forms of online gambling that are defined as “unlawful Internet gambling.” The bill requires financial institutions to identify and block payments related to so-called unlawful Internet gambling transactions. If there is a violation, the government may file a lawsuit (known as an injunction) to prevent or restrain the violation. The bill provides a special exemption for three types of Internet gambling: (1) horse racing under the Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA), so OTBs and account wagering systems can remain in business, (2) Indian gambling that takes place on a reservation or between two reservations; and (3) Internet gambling that occurs solely within a state’s own borders, referred to as Intra-state gambling.

The bill doesn’t define “unlawful Internet gambling”. So, I guess he horseracing folks have some pull, since it is a sport for rich dudes. Anyway, it’s a stupid bill.

The bill passed by an overwhelming margin because it was attached to a port security bill. CJ says:

What this Congress is saying, then, is that it is more important to attack the scourge of online gaming than it is to make sure our buses and trains do not blow up. This is the Congress we elected. This is the Congress we have to get rid of.

Terry Frank tells us that all Tennessee congress monkeys voted for it, except for Jenkins. Good for Jenkins. (Update: Terry comments that Jenkins was a no vote and not a nay – that is, the dude didn’t vote not that he voted no. Stupid reading comprehension).

Party Gaming, the largest online gambling site, issued a statement:

After taking extensive legal advice, the Board of PartyGaming Plc has concluded that the new legislation, if signed into law, will make it practically impossible to provide US residents with access to its real money poker and other real money gaming sites. As a result of this development, the Board of PartyGaming has determined that if the President signs the Act into law, the Company will suspend all real money gaming business with US residents, and such suspension will continue indefinitely, subject to clarification of the interpretation and enforcement of US law and the impact on financial institutions of this and other related legislation. Access to PartyGaming’s online gaming sites for the Group’s US free play customers will be unaffected. Access for all of PartyGaming’s non-US customers will also be unaffected.

The back-alley sports-book and poker games will be on the uptick. Poker is now more popular than it ever has been and there will be an expansion of criminal activity as a result of this legislation. Yes, illegal gambling has been around but, with poker’s popularity, it’s bound to increase.

Over the past 24 hours, there have been a series of reports telling us that the dreaded internet gambling bill is both alive and dead. In recent weeks, we’ve reported that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) had hoped to sneak the gambling bill into the massive Defense Department 2007 Appropriations Bill.

That bill has now passed through the conference committee, but it doesn’t seem to be headed for guaranteed passage, nor is it clear that the gambling bill will ever be attached. Currently, House Republican leaders are holding up the bill hoping to add unrelated bills on immigration and court security.

I play Texas Hold ‘em poker with friends on occasion and this really happened. I’m dealt a pocket pair of fours. With a pair (even a low one), I’ll stay in at least for the flop. So, I do and flop is most kind when it reveals another four, a five and a face card. Three of a kind on the flop, I think. Sweet. Now, not to overplay and scare folks whose money I want off, I slow play a bit. Everyone folds but me and one guy. The turn turns out to be another four. Sweet, four of a kind. I am invincible! I bet more aggressively. The opponent stays in. The river, another five. You play four of a kind to win because the odds dictate you do that. I’m all in. My opponent is too. I assume he’s riding a face card full house or he’s overplaying a three of a kind.

He flips over a pocket pair of fives. Son of a bitch. Four fours beat by four fives. He looks at me and says: Look on the bright side. That will probably never happen to you again as long as you live.

Last game, one of my buds said that he thought my posts about Laurie Berkner’s kind-of-hotness were funny. I told him I was serious (girls got moves). He almost fell out of his seat laughing. Then, day before yesterday, my wife asks me who this Laurie Berkner person is that I was yammering on about on my blog. I told her it was some lady who sings kids’ songs on Noggin. She didn’t know who she was. Yesterday, one of Laurie’s videos came on during Jack’s Big Music Show (which Junior happens to love) and I said That’s Laurie Berkner! She looked at me like I was nuts and said she’s not hot. I said She’s kinda hot.

The wife then tells me that it’s not any jealousy sort of thing. And tells me that she knows I find Lucy Liu hot and she concurs that Lucy Liu is in fact hot. However, she says Laurie Berkner definitely is not hot. So, maybe it is just me.