Keeping Us Safe from Poker

It’s been an interesting couple of days in the place where money and gambling intersects, otherwise known as Wall Street. Over the weekend, the Internet gambling sites PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker got taken down by Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, which among other things covers lower Manhattan, where the NYSE lives. On Monday, the stock market got taken down by Standard & Poors, which dialed back its outlook on U.S. government debt to negative from stable.

This is hypocrisy doubled down. The connection between the two events is that Wall Streeters absolutely love poker. The big tournaments in Vegas are filled with quants, bankers, traders and other Street beasts. Puritan Preet’s raid on Internet poker sites in a country where gambling is legal in all 50 states, where governments are pushing their own lottery games every day, seems a bit contradictory to say the least—and I’m willing to bet that some of Bharara’s staff have played poker. Prosecutors have to have fun, too.

The outlawing of Internet gaming has excluded a potentially large business from the U.S. that could be mined for tax revenues that could help pay off some of the debt S&P is so worried about. The American gambling industry is chomping at the bit to get a piece of this action, which is now consigned to outposts like the Isle of Mann and Antigua. Wynn Resorts already had a deal with PokerStars, but had to walk on it when two of that company’s executives, Isai Scheinberg and Paul Tate, neither of whom appears to be an American citizen, were charged with bank fraud, money laundering and illegal gambling. Good luck in extraditing them.

Granted, Bharara has to uphold U.S. law, however dumb it is, but who, exactly, is he protecting? The law the poker sites allegedly violated bars Internet gambling not already sanctioned by law. It was pushed by a couple of Republican blue noses and approved only because it was attached to a must-pass Port Security Act in 2006. So much for the Nanny State being a province of Democrats; so much for the Republican/libertarian/conservative conceit that government shouldn’t regulate our personal behavior if it doesn’t harm others.  People love poker and they love to gamble. (That does not include me; I have no interest in either, given that gambling implies a negative return on investment. I’d much rather put my money in…stocks and real estate? ) But hasn’t Bharara now charged more people (11) for running poker sites that people like and that have harmed few, than he has for causing the financial collapse that has harmed all of us?

Meanwhile at S&P, whose intellectually compromised evaluations of mortgage securities helped underwrite the financial meltdown, they are now all worried about the soundness of U.S. government securities despite a rebounding economy and a Congress that, against the odds, has hammered out an agreement on spending and seems capable of doing same on our unsustainable $14.2 trillion in debt. S&P is shocked, shocked, to discover that we’ve borrowed too much to get the country out of the mess that S&P helped get us into.  Thanks so much for the notice. It sent the Dow down 1.14% as investors, who last week were betting on economic recovery, went into full retreat. Did something change in the U.S. economy between Friday and Monday? Not really, and it’s interesting to note that the bond market, the folks who expect to be compensated for long term risk to the economy, pretty much shrugged off the S&P downgrade. The yield on the 10-year bond actually fell a couple of ticks.

So where does this leave us? Politics perhaps. A shot across the bow like this one tells the Obama administration that S&P still has meaning and power and that the regulators should bear this in mind. Likewise, Bhahara may be impotent against the real malefactors on Wall Street, but at the very least he can be a killjoy to one of the Street’s favorite leisure pursuits. Now they’ll have to go back to gambling with our money.

Related Topics: gambling, poker, Wall Street, Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Thomas Patterson / Statesman-Journal / AP

    The Bleak Unemployment Report: Is Europe to Blame?

    For the first time in almost a year, the unemployment rate rose to 8.2% in May as the economic recovery appeared to not only slow but almost completely stall. And it gets worse.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    Getty Images

    Smartphones of the Future: 6 Predictions

    Future mobile devices will change the way you do business–in ways you probably can’t even imagine. Here are a few predictions.

  • http://stephenpoo.wordpress.com stephenpoo

    Bill I like the way you think!

  • thewellnamed

    “That does not include me; I have no interest in either, given that gambling implies a negative return on investment. I’d much rather put my money in…stocks and real estate?”

    This made me smile and I appreciate the joke but I think it’s worth remembering that gambling does not, in fact, imply a negative return on investment. To gamble only means to wager on events with uncertain outcomes.

    Obviously most gambling is done in games where the expected average return of each bet is negative, but that’s not really essential to it being gambling. If I offered to flip coins with you where I pay you $1.25 per heads and you pay me $1 for tails, we’d still be gambling, but you wouldn’t have a negative return on that investment.

    Or, another way to think of it of course is that when you play roulette at the casino, the casino is also gambling as much as you are, despite the fact that it is a mathematical certainty that in the long run they are going to win. But if they weren’t gambling, they wouldn’t need to set betting limits.

    Part of the problem with the way the debate about online poker often gets framed is that it’s so common to think of gambling only in the context of casino games and lotteries, gambles where losing in the long run is a mathematical certainty. But poker isn’t really the same kind of proposition. It’s gambling, but for good players it can be gambling with an edge. In principle it’s not even that different from various kinds of trading on the stock market

    Anyway, thanks for the enjoyable article

  • vstillwell

    This is the first honest take on S&P’s stupid rating move in Time.

    Thank you.

  • ddrew2u

    CASH PAYOUTS: problem solved?! ???

    Say Pokerstars had a cash window (like a racetrack) in England where you could travel to to pick up your payouts. Sounds perfectly legal for you to pick up your own payout outside the US. Matter of fact you could pick up a Pokerstars money order in England and cash it in in the English bank it was drawn or check cashing store (if they have such) — and reconvert the cash into a money order to send to yourself in the US. No foreign bank account needed — just you in person. No gambling enterprise would be sending a financial instrument to a US bank — that is all the law prohibits AFAIK.

    NEXT STEP: Say a player’s personal rep goes and does the same thing for him: same legal payout process. Or, suppose, instead, some smart cookie opens a business in the US where they charge players (plural) a fee to travel to Pokerstars cash payougt window in England — or just as legally open the same business in England to act as player pickup rep — to pick up our winnings in cash for us — not working for Pokerstars; working for us — and then send checks or money orders to us in the US. No gambling enterprise would be sending a financial instrument to a US bank — that is all the law prohibits AFAIK.

    NEXT STEP: Say Pokerstars sends cash to US players. When I worked as a truckers helper for a Wall Street Bank in the early 1970s we took tons of mail to the Post Office some of which was registered mail containing cash going to South America. I was told that Registered mail must to be signed for by every person whose hands it passes through all the way to the recipient. Pokerstars could send small to medium payouts by registered mail right now. Really large deliveries could be done by armed insured messenger (you might want to make an appointment to meet the messenger in a bank). No gambling enterprise would be sending a financial instrument to a US bank — that is all the law prohibits AFAIK.

  • John

    “It was pushed by a couple of Republican blue noses and approved only because it was attached to a must-pass Port Security Act in 2006. So much for the Nanny State being a province of Democrats; so much for the Republican/libertarian/conservative conceit that government shouldn’t regulate our personal behavior if it doesn’t harm others.”

    These people also support the War On (Some) Drugs, anti-flag-desecration amendments, “defense of marriage” laws, government promotion of religion, and on and on. Please don’t tell me you’re just now noticing that Republicans/conservatives are anti-liberty.

  • oldbookguy

    The differnce between “gambling” and playing poker is a skilled player can expect a positive return on investment based on his or her own ability.

    All the skill in the world has minimal effect in gambling on the market.

    Wall Street is like a carny game you are subject to the actions of others (the big players who short markets) rather than your own simple abilities.

  • keillrandor

    There’s a reason WHY there is a difference between poker and most other forms and types of activities that involve or exist to enable and promote gambling:

    Poker, when played for money, is a GAME (of skill).

    Most activities taken part in for the purpose of gambling, are, in fact, COMPETITIONS.

    Game: An activity in which people compete in a structured environment, by doing something for themselves – (writing their own stories).

    Competition (3): An activity in which people compete, (usually in a structured environment), to be told a story – whether or not they have won or lost.

    Anything involving a random draw, a judges opinion, or is reliant on someone else’s actions in order to win in such a manner, is a competition.

    Poker is a game, (esp. when played for money), because it’s possible for a player to counteract the influence of the random draw by their own actions.

    My blog (about the word game and it’s place within the English Language): http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/3291/

  • deconstructiva

    Bill, thanks and kudos; agree with your main points. I’d also add that while I’m 100% in favor of allowing online gaming, for now I’m also wary of actually playing it except for fun. Reason: lack of clear oversight to prevent cheating. There have been online poker cheating incidents, such as 2007 Absolute Poker…
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21381022
    .
    …however, since online retailers such as Amazon can prove secure shopping is possible (and they’re hard to hack into via DOS), I can see safer gaming too. Thanks to Nevada Gaming Board oversight and tight security, we can play at Las Vegas casinos and feel secure that the house is NOT to going to scam us. Let’s make it happen online too.

  • josperkins

    Bill, Fracking A.

  • yurk23

    Great article Bill!

  • ddrew2u

    YOUR MONEY IS SAID TO BE SAFE ACCORDING TO THIS UK LAWYER WHO REALLY SEEMS TO KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/more-bad-news-coming-middle-week-1022712/

    Originally Posted by excession

    OK so I’m a UK lawyer with some knowledge of IOM law (I got involved in some quite heavy timeshare litigation there in the 90′s).

    PS spend a lot of money on city of London lawyers who advise them on gaming regulation compliance.

    They are licensed by the IOM Gaming Commission which is pretty legit and has some pretty strong customer protection regs.

    Most notable are the Online Gambling Participants’ Money Regs 2010

    http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/gambling/…antsmoney1.pdf

    These provide that all customer money has to be kept in a segregated bank account and is deemed to be held in trust.

    The concept of trust monies is very important under UK Insolvency Law as monies held in trust fall outside the estate of a bankrupt individual or insolvent corporate entity and the liquidator can’t get his hands on them.

    Also as they are not the site’s monies judicial orders purporting to seize the site’s monies won’t affect them.

    I suppose the US government can effectively stop payments out to the US player base by banning the banks within their jurisdiction from handling such payments, but I am really struggling to see how they can realistically stop payments out to non-US players of what is legally their money in anything other than the very short term panic that might cause banks holding such funds to freeze funds whilst they go get an order from an IOM or UK court to clarify what they should do with them.

    If PS are governed by the Regs and if they have complied then they SHOULD be no issue in non-US players getting money back out of PS in fairly short order.

    FT is governed by Channel Island regs which will be similar.

    [negative comment about other two sites deleted]

    Your talking like America rules the world…

  • http://robbio8.wordpress.com robbio8

    We need the help of all Poker players. There is now a facebook page that has been started to deal solely with this seriously impacting latest poker issue. It is to be the players voice where they will receive ALL available information and contribute their views. It is committed to firstly retrieving all monies owed and then the long term stability of the game. We care about the players not the owners of the sites or Government. Please support by joining the page and tell others. Once we get the numbers on the page we have ideas to share.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/USA-online-poker-forum/123902074354258

  • staceysantas

    Engaging and well written article! This tops anything I have read lately on the subject at hand. I wonder if this’ll be posted on Twenty-First Tycoon. Although the site has awesome political, business, technology and real estate news, they could use more stuff like this. http://www.21Tycoon.com

  • smpicks

    Some what set back that the Feds returned all the deposits to all three poker sites. I guess they want to keep peace among the online poker players
    http://bit.ly/gQJ3ZP

  • ddrew2u

    Play money poker should be covered by the First Amendment — like passing jokes around — like any board game — recreational speech?

    If so — big if?; but could they outlaw Monopoly? — then poker is covered by the First Amendment per se — including real money poker. Once a constitutional right is involved the legislature may no long outlaw something just because they feel like it is reasonable. Once a constitutional right is involved the legislature must be able to present a “compelling” reason to outweigh the right.

    The snuck-by Congress legislation bars online poker for moral reasons. They waited too long to enforce it. By the time tens of millions from every continent are playing the game online — with no reports of massive (or any) moral collapse — the idea of unfairly infringing freedom of speech is not merely arguable, it is universally laughable.

  • http://iplay2joff.wordpress.com iplay2joff

    Everything in life is subject to some degree of probability. The question is, at what point does it become a gamble? 50% probability of a favourable outcome, 60% or more than this? When I cross a road I prefer to cross when oncoming traffic is far enough away for me to have a reasonable chance of making it across alive. Despite this, it is not an absolute certainty that I will achieve my goal unscathed due to outside factors that I may not be able to account for. It is therefore heartening to know that a law preventing jaywalking is in place to protect me from choosing more risky situations to cross whilst I am in America. Poker, like everything is also subject to the same laws of probability. You are still free to choose the situations where you wish to participate. In poker the outcomes are more finite and predictable. If I placed a bet on the outcome, what degree of certainty would I need for this to no longer be a gamble? If you tell me nothing less than 100% then surely you would have to say that everything we do in life would be classed as gambling. Therefore no money should ever be allowed to be wagered on the outcome of any event. If it is not 100%, then the question still remains, at what point does it no longer become a gamble? Given that we are all born with an innate propensity to survival, it is fair to say we all have the ability to seek out and recognise situations that favour us in their outcome. If I choose to risk my money in situations where the outcome is greatly in my favour am I really gambling? If I bluff and create the illusion of the same situation could I claim that an element of skill has been used? If there are people in the world who are unable to spot these opportunities in life, should those who are able be punished because of this? People who walk in front of moving buses do not need a law protecting them from their own stupidity.

blog comments powered by Disqus