

Federal prosecutors freeze accounts of people who play poker online. - vaksel
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31201075

======
kirse
When I think of dumb laws, the US laws against internet gambling (especially
poker) are high on that list.

I have never played online poker, but if stupid people want to flush their
money down the e-toilet I really see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed
to. We've already got this entirely legal online-based system called Wall
Street where the average guy can place bets and lose tons of cash, might as
well let them do it with poker.

~~~
lonestar
I'm not sure you understand how poker works. It is not negative expectation
gambling like all casino games. A skillful player has a positive expectation
over time, and will be profitable.

You're playing against other people, not against the casino. So, yes, some
people will lose their money, but the more skillful players will win it.

~~~
billydean
> You're playing against other people, not against the casino.

You're playing against other people's bots, not against other people.

~~~
matt1
As someone who spent about 18 months building a No Limit Hold'em bot, I can
safely tell you that the "bot problem" is not as big of a problem as it might
seem like it would be.

Not only do you have to program a winning strategy--which is very hard--but
you have to not get caught--which is also very hard.

~~~
gojomo
Both 'very hard' problems seem best solvable by a tiny bit of collusion with
the site operators: run the bots as shills, disproportionately pair them
against weak-player-heavy tables, drag just a little on enforcement of bot-
detection mechanisms.

I know, I know: "if the operator is dishonest there are easier ways to cheat".
But this looser collaboration between bot-operators and site-operators is
easier to disguise, or to compartmentalize. It doesn't require dishonest
software, for example.

It might even be easier for perpetrators to rationalize. ("These players are
dumping their money anyway; it might as well be to my confederates' bots. Bot-
training is a skill, too!")

------
matt1
The funny thing is that the CNBC article does much more damage to online poker
than the actual prosecution. The sites are very good at finding ways to get
payments to players and have managed to circumvent most attempts in the past.

Online poker depends on new, bad players depositing money. Beginners are like
plankton in the ocean--kill them and you kill everything up the food chain.
When the media makes a big hooplah like "OMG people can't deposit their
winnings" it spreads like wildfire by word of mouth at weekly poker games and
before you know it, sign up rates take a major dip. In the long run, that's
what going to kill online poker, not the legislation itself.

------
tptacek
What's surprising to me is that the government is actually demonstrating
_competence_ by doing this. Gambling is against the law. The executive's job
is to enforce the law. That they hadn't clued in or figured out a way to
handle this problem before is a "happy" accident. Similar accidents, less
happy, got us stuff like GITMO and black sites.

(Clearly, we should fix the law here.)

~~~
dminor
Actually, gambling itself is generally not against the law. Anti-gambling laws
usually target businesses that derive profits from gambling, not the gamblers
themselves.

------
req2
Is there a particular reason you didn't write out payments?

~~~
vaksel
80 char limit, so I had to edit the title a number of times to make it fit

~~~
Confusion
A suggestion for another time: call the guys 'Feds'.

~~~
gojomo
Further headline-style compression can drop connector words:

Feds tell banks: freeze poker payments

