Poker News

iMEGA Readies for Kentucky Supreme Court Internet Gambling Hearing

In one week, attorneys for the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) will take to the floor of the Kentucky Supreme Court to argue why the Commonwealth did not have jurisdiction to seize 141 internet gambling domain names, including those belonging to PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker.

Next Thursday marks an important day for the internet gambling industry in Kentucky and around the world. One year ago, the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, under the leadership of J. Michael Brown and the direction of Governor Steve Beshear, seized domain names belonging to some of the online poker industry’s giants. Arguments are scheduled for 11:00am on Thursday, October 22nd. Each side has 15 minutes to state its case and the proceedings are the final order of business on the docket for next week, leading iMEGA officials to believe that arguments may run longer than the scheduled time.

iMEGA Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “Since there’s no law as to how to approach this, the Governor and his attorneys went out and came up with a process on their own. They never named who was being served and basically asked people to come to court and identify themselves.” A total of 141 internet gambling domain names were seized under the grounds that they were “gambling devices,” a term that commonly refers to roulette wheels, dice, and other tangible items found in an underground casino.

In January, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled by a 2:1 margin that the Commonwealth did not have jurisdiction to act, while the lone dissenting judge argued that a domain name was part of a larger “gambling device.” Brennan explained, “Appellate Courts tend to take a conservative, narrow, statutory look. The gambling device statute is one thing, but there is ample case law regarding due process. I am absolutely certain that you’re going to see the Governor’s attorneys get up and talk about what crooked operators we’re dealing with.”

The trade organization argues that the Commonwealth violated due process by seizing the 141 domain names in question. Its brief to the Kentucky Supreme Court explains, “No real defendants were named, no process was issued, and no owner of any domain names was notified. In short, this was an action by the Commonwealth to seize property without the slightest pretext of complying with the fundamental dictates of due process.” Judge Thomas Wingate upheld the Commonwealth’s actions in a court ruling submitted last October.

Kentucky law describes a “gambling device” as “a machine or mechanical device… designed and manufactured primarily for use in conjunction with gambling.” iMEGA added in its brief that if Kentucky does not wish to permit internet gambling within its borders, then it should pass laws through the General Assembly. Brennan expects a decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court to be handed down in “a matter of months” following Thursday’s hearing, which will take place in Frankfort. A diverse group of organizations have submitted amicus briefs, including the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet Commerce Association, eBay, and Network Solutions.

iMEGA is fresh off a mostly positive ruling in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which clarified the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) by noting that internet gambling’s legality depends on the laws of individual states. iMEGA claims that legal internet gambling is possible in 44 states, while its brief to the Kentucky Supreme Court explains that eight criminalize the industry to some degree: Illinois, Indiana, Washington, Louisiana, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, and South Dakota.

The Third Circuit disagreed with iMEGA’s assertions that the UIGEA trampled on First Amendment and privacy rights and dismissed the notion that it should be void for vagueness. Neither the Federal Government nor the trade organization has announced an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We’ll have a full recap of the iMEGA Kentucky Supreme Court hearing right here on Poker News Daily.

Mike Sexton Previews the WSOP November Nine

The entire poker world is anxiously awaiting the final table of the 2009 World Series of Poker (WSOP) Main Event, which will be played this November.  The finalists have been dubbed the “November Nine” because of the four-month delay of the final table.  It’s a final table that has created tremendous interest because it has everything – an amateur with a massive chip lead, three guys in their 20s, and great players from around the world.  It’s also got Phil Ivey – and that is huge for the WSOP.

I often get asked, “Who do you think is the best poker player in the world?”  Well, when asked the same question years ago, Doyle Brunson said, “You judge a hunter by the number of furs he brings home”  (I love that phrase).  Well, nobody has brought home more “fur” than Phil Ivey.  I consider Phil Ivey to be the best player in the world.

Ivey is the best in every poker category you can come up with – cash games, tournament poker, and online poker.  I would bet that he’s the most successful cash game player of all-time and he will become the all-time tournament money leader if he finishes in fourth place or better at the WSOP Main Event final table.  If he’s not the most successful online player out there, then he’s certainly one of them.  When it comes to playing poker (and that includes all games), put Ivey at the top of your list.

One thing’s for sure – in addition to most players, Harrah’s, the WSOP, and ESPN are thrilled that Phil Ivey is at the final table. Because he’s there, I look for ratings for the WSOP final table to at least double from last year.  And that’s good for poker.

OK, here are the November Nine and their chip counts:

Darvin Moon – 58,930,000
Eric Buchman – 34,800,000
Steven Begleiter – 29,885,000
Jeff Shulman – 19,580,000
Joe Cada – 13,215,000
Kevin Schaffel – 12,390,000
Phil Ivey – 9,765,000
Antoine Saout – 9,500,000
James Akenhead – 6,800,000

The November Nine chip leader is Darvin Moon.  He’s a 45 year-old amateur poker player from Oakland, Maryland.  Playing in his first-ever big-time tournament, he could become the next Chris Moneymaker.  Moon is an amazing story.  He won his seat in a qualifying tournament in West Virginia and thought about taking the $10,000 first place prize and putting it in the family business.  His brother talked him out of that and encouraged him to go ahead and enter the WSOP (brother knows best).  Experience or not, with nearly 60 million in chips, I can’t imagine anyone being a bigger favorite than him to win.  Will it be a “Full Moon” in November?

Starting in second chip position with nearly 35 million is Eric Buchman.  Eric is a 29 year-old pro from New York.  He’s been a pro for about 10 years and this marks his 23rd cash at the WSOP.  Prior to this tournament, he had nearly $1 million in career tournament cashes.  With his experience and chip count, he could be the man to beat.

In third chip position with nearly 30 million is 47 year-old Steven Begleiter from Chappaqua, New York.  He was a strategist for the investment bank Bear Stearns for nearly 25 years.  He qualified for the WSOP Main Event on the Newcastle Poker Tour and poker league.  He’s really popular there, as he plans to donate 20% of his winnings to his poker league.  Now that is a friendly game!

The only guy who has been to the WSOP Main Event final table before is 34 year-old Jeff Shulman, the editor of CardPlayer Magazine.  He’ll be starting out in fourth chip position with nearly 20 million.  Shulman created a controversy by saying he would “throw the bracelet in the garbage if I win”  (that’s because of his strong opinion of unfair media treatment by the WSOP).  Like most, I’m shocked by that statement considering Shulman is in the business of promoting poker.  Shulman’s experience could bode well for him in November, but hopefully he’ll change his mind about throwing the bracelet in the garbage.

On a side note, that 2000 WSOP Main Event is still vivid in my mind because I felt I had a real shot to win it.  I ended up finishing in 12th place and was knocked out by Shulman (who was the big chip leader at the time and won a race for all of my chips).  It turned out to be a heartbreaking tournament for Shulman as well because, for the first time in WSOP history, only six players made it to the TV table and Shulman was the massive chip leader with seven players left.  He ended up going out seventh.

The youngest player at the table, 21 year-old Joe Cada from Michigan, will be starting out in fifth chip position.  If he wins, he will break Peter Eastgate’s record of being the youngest WSOP Main Event champion ever.  Cada plays a lot of heads-up poker and likes his chances if he gets short-handed.  He’s young, confident in his abilities, and believes he’s got a good chance to win.

Kevin Schaffel, 51, has been playing poker for 30 years.  This super nice Floridian claims to be “semi-retired,” but he is a scratch golfer and plays a lot of poker.  Do you think he works much?  Kevin recently finished second in the WPT’s Legends of Poker at the Bicycle Casino and, I can tell you, he played very well there.  If he doesn’t dub any shots on the green felt in November, he could very well be crowned champion.

Phil Ivey is “the man” at any poker table.  Although he’s starting in seventh chip position with less than 10 million in chips, many are wagering on him to win.  I’m sure he feels pretty good about his chances and why wouldn’t he?  He’s already won two bracelets at the 2009 WSOP and then bet $20,000 on himself to win the Main Event at 100-1 odds when there were still 2,400 players left!  Like many, I would love to see Ivey win.  I think it would be great for the poker world if the greatest player in the game won the biggest event in poker.

Antoine Saout, 25 years-old and from France, will be starting in eighth chip position.  He qualified for this tournament by winning a $50 online satellite.  Word has it that he crushes online tournaments.  I know some French players who really respect his game.   When he told his mom he wanted to become a poker pro, she was not happy.  With this finish and becoming a guaranteed millionaire, mom has changed her mind.  “Bon chance,” Antoine!

James Akenhead, 26, from England, discovered poker a few years ago while he was pursuing his other love, pool.  He practiced pool 10 hours a day and was ranked 15th in the U.K. in nine-ball at one time.  Akenhead has been a poker pro for three years and several top players from England have told me that he’s a very tough player.  Although he’s starting on the short stack, if he can double up early, they really like his chances.  A Hall of Fame poker player once said, “Poker is like pool.  Some days you make every shot and other days you hit nothing but the rail.”  Can this pool player parlay the short stack into the title?

One thing’s for sure:  It’s going to be a great final table in November.  Like all poker players, I can’t wait.

South Carolina Judge rules poker a game of skill

We love it when the judge sides with the good guys - i mean isn't that how the judicial system is supposed to work? In America, a judge in South Carolina has ruled that Texas hold’em is a game of skill and not chance after reversing the convictions of five people convicted of playing the pastime and violating state law.

Prahlad Friedman Raps Again

Prahlad Friedman is back. Some of you might remember Friedman from 2006 WSOP Main Event when he made a rap called Poker Is Fun. His new song is called In the Main Event.

After 2006 many considered Friedman to be one of the best cash players around. Then the “Spirit Rock” (his online nick) vanished and it is believed that Russ Hamilton “took” all his money. After that Friedman kept low profile until he made a great comeback on this year’s WSOP Main Event only to win an WPT event just a month later.

You can judge by yourself. Did Friedman make a good choice with poker or should he venture into the music business?

Source: Wicked Chops

You just read Poker News from HighStakesNews.com

Prahlad Friedman Raps Again

Poker deemed “skill game” by judge

Poker News in Brief: Sept. 28-Oct. 4, 2009

Plus, by finishing second, Daniel Negreanu became poker's all-time leading money winner.

With all the news out of London, it was easy to forget about the rest of the poker world. Fortunately, as part of our ongoing Poker News in Brief feature, we've broken down some of the lesser-known stories below.

This week we'll take a look at a renowned poker player going cosmic, five poker players getting a big relief and a new WSOP promotion from Milwaukee's Best Light.

Guy Laliberte blasts off

Cirque du Soleil founder and alleged high-stakes fish Guy Laliberte became the first Canadian space-tourist on Wednesday.

Laliberte, along with a Russian cosmonaut and an American astronaut, successfully blasted into space aboard a Soyuz spacecraft headed for the International Space Station.

The French-Canadian billionaire is isn't just along for the ride and on Oct. 9, if all goes according to plan, he will be the master of ceremonies for a global performance involving 14 cities and noted celebrities like Bono, Shakira, David Suzuki and former vice-president Al Gore.

The show is to promote the One Drop Foundation for access to clean water.

Laliberte is scheduled to return to earth on Oct. 11.

Milwaukee's Best Light starts poker promotion

Milwaukee's Best Light, the official beer sponsor of the WSOP, is giving their customers a chance to win a seat in the 2010 WSOP Main Event.

The promotion is part of the brand's two-month "Online Poker Challenge" which will see two seats awarded to the 2010 Main Event.

From now through Nov. 22, those 21 and older can visit www.wsop.com and click the Milwaukee's Best Light banner to register and compete in Texas Hold'em online.

At the end of each week, the 1,000 participants with the highest point totals will be eligible to participate in that week's final tournament, which will determine the top 100 point holders.  Those top 100 qualifiers will advance to the month-ending grand prize tournament.

Players will also have the opportunity to earn bonus points by referring friends, answering trivia and obtaining codes inside specially marked boxes of Milwaukee's Best and Milwaukee's Best Ice.

Pro-online poker bill hits 60 co-sponsors

Rep. Barney Frank's Internet Gambling, Consumer Protection & Enforcement Act of 2009 reached 60 co-sponsors this week. Among the newest to sign on board with the bill are Rep. Lyn Woolsey, William Clay, Adam Schiff and Christopher Murphy.

The bill is currently waiting to be heard before committee, but support is starting to grow in the Republican Party.

Frank originally said the bill would be heard by Easter this year, but it was pushed back to July and then September. It's now likely the bill won't be discussed until the new year.

In the meantime, Frank has introduced a second bill that would postpone the coming enforcement of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act Dec. 1, 2009.

Judge dismisses case against Mt. Pleasant poker players

The decision to convict five South Carolinian poker players has been reversed.

Bob Chimento, Jeremy Brestel, Michael Williamson, Scott Richards and John T. Willis were originally found guilty of violating South Carolina's anti-gambling laws for running a private Texas No-Limit Hold'em game in 2006.

The group didn't profit from running the games, but money was raked from the pot to help cover expenses.

Earlier this year, South Carolina Circuit Judge R. Markley Dennis ruled that poker was a game of skill, not chance, but the five were still found guilty of operating a gambling house.

Thursday Dennis released a letter stating he had decided to reverse the convictions of all five players. The municipal court found the evidence "overwhelming" that Texas Hold'em is a game of skill.

Poker advocacy groups like the Poker Player's Alliance are touting it as a victory for poker players in the U.S.

Visit PokerListings.com

Poker Community Responds to Amazing Race Premiere

Professional poker players Maria Ho and Tiffany Michelle are quickly becoming the talk of reality television fans and poker enthusiasts alike after just one episode of the new season of the CBS series “Amazing Race.”  These two racers, who each made their claim to fame by being the last women remaining in the World Series of Poker (WSOP) Main Event, are quickly gaining fans and critics after the two-hour premiere, during which they went from first to last place, impressing and irritating their competitors along the way.

Poker News Daily sought the opinions of those on both sides of the issue in order to gain more insight into why the Ho/Michelle team has such a polarizing effect on people.  In addition to discussing some of the pros and cons of their appearance, we also picked up behind the scenes information that sheds more light on how the two young women are being portrayed.

The Skeptic

It didn’t take long for occasional poker journalist and online poker regular Jon Wein to decide that he did not enjoy the duo of poker ladies participating in the show.  He tuned in to watch the show, but Wein claims he “had to turn it off after [Tiffany Michelle] and Maria Ho implied they were rich for the like eighteenth time.”

His biggest issue with the two women appearing on the show is that it deprives other, ostensibly more deserving, poker players from time in the limelight.  “It literally makes me sick that Tiffany Michelle gets this much coverage and publicity for one Main Event run. She’s done nothing else,” he explained.  “Ultimate Bet has all of these talented pros like Matt ‘mattg1983’ Graham and Adam ‘Roothlus’ Levy and then they have her… It’s a complete slap in the face to them.”  Wein even took a playful jab at Michelle’s former Poker News employer Tony “Tony G” Guoga.  “I literally curse Tony G’s name to this day because he put her in the Main Event,” he joked.

While Wein has a very clear opinion on Michelle, he has less to say about her partner.  “I don’t know Maria and have never spoken to her.  I only know what the media portrays her as,” he said.

Considering poker players do not get too many opportunities at mainstream media exposure, an appearance on a reality show can have a major influence on how the game is perceived by those who are not fans of it.  Wein is skeptical that the team, Michelle in particular, will grow poker’s popularity.  “Even if [Michelle] is the sickest ‘Amazing Race’ contestant ever, I just don’t understand how anyone can be like, ‘Wow, what a great ambassador for the game. What a humble person about their successes’…I think she is a poor example of what a poker player should be.”  His opinion is based not only on the first episode of “Amazing Race”, but also last year’s Main Event coverage and his own personal experiences over the course of several summers in Las Vegas.

He may just be one viewer, but the presence of Michelle and Ho on the show has actually convinced the longtime “Amazing Race” fan to take some time off from tuning in, as Wein said he had no plans to watch future episodes this season.

The Supporter

Like Wein, longtime tournament reporter B.J. Nemeth knew Ho and Michelle long before their appearance on “Amazing Race.”  In fact, it is only because of their presence on the show that he tuned in this season.  “I have never watched ‘Amazing Race’ before this season and I am watching primarily because I am friends with Maria and Tiffany,” Nemeth explained.  “I am also watching (to a lesser extent) because of my weekly appearances on PokerRoad’s ‘The Poker Beat,’ where I am sure we will discuss and analyze the show at some point, just as we did with Annie Duke on ‘Celebrity Apprentice.’”  He is a fan so far and even suggested that he might tune into the show for future seasons.

The show has made a fan of Nemeth, but he thinks it will have little impact on bringing new fans to poker.  He explained, comparing their appearance to Duke’s memorable run on “Celebrity Apprentice”:

“Amazing Race” is a unique game and the specific job skills that people bring with them will have little impact, whether they are a doctor, a lawyer, or a poker player.  “If [Michelle and Ho] perform well or win, it won’t be because they are poker players. If they embarrass themselves and lose, it won’t be because they are poker players. And I don’t think mainstream fans will judge the poker industry by how they finish… The impact on poker is very different from Annie Duke’s presence on ‘Celebrity Apprentice,’ where she was only on the show because she was a famous poker player, and it was brought up repeatedly from a strategy standpoint and in the boardroom with Donald Trump.”

Nemeth also conceded that any publicity was good publicity though and, unlike Wein, believed that the appearance of the young female poker players would more than likely help rather than hurt the poker cause.  When it comes to Wein’s concerns that their behavior will come off as indicative of the poker industry as a whole, Nemeth disagreed.  “Even though ‘Amazing Race’ fans identify Maria and Tiffany as the ‘poker players’ or the ‘poker girls,’ that’s just an identifier because it’s tough to learn names of 10 to 12 two-person teams,” he pointed out.  “They refer to the other teams in similar ways – ‘the asshole lawyer,’ ‘the interracial couple,’ ‘the father-son team,’ and ‘the gay brothers.’ Reality TV fans are smart enough to know that personality traits are unique to individuals and not to entire professions or sexual preferences.”

The Scoop

Ho and Nemeth had a lengthy chat after the show’s Sunday premiere and Nemeth shared behind-the-scenes details of the first episode with Poker News Daily.  “Maria and Tiffany have agreed that they won’t be answering their critics or talking about specific things until the show is complete. It’s not easy, because they’ve seen a lot of the criticism and want to respond, but they know it would be counterproductive at this point,” Nemeth explained.  However, he did clear up a couple of early points of criticism on behalf of his friends.

He immediately addressed a major issue that both reality television fans and poker enthusiasts were quick to criticize the girls for - their rolling luggage.  Historically, backpacks have proven to be the most popular way to travel on the show and avid fans suggest that rolling luggage slows players down too much during crucial periods of the race where they may have to run.  Nemeth explained that their bags convert into backpacks and the clip showing Ho rolling it down the street was during a three mile walk from one location to the next.

Nemeth also filled us in on the controversial decision by the pair to conceal their occupation from their opponents.  According to Nemeth, the producers encouraged them to keep their status as poker pros under wraps since previous contestants like former “Survivor” winners Rob Mariano and Amber Brkich were highly criticized by their fellow racers for already being rich and famous.

As for their false claim that they worked with a non-profit group?  This is not entirely a lie.  Both women have done a lot of charity work, so there was more truth to their statements than the show depicted.  “The homeless charity that Tiffany mentioned on the show is a real charity that she has worked with and its director called her on Monday to support her,” said Nemeth.  He also said that the girls received less flack from their competitors about their tiny fib than the show implied and that they are still in touch with over half of the teams from the season.

These are just two of several opinions on a show that still has a long way to go to reach the finish line.  In every season of reality television, there will inevitably be heroes and villains.  So far, Ho and Michelle are netting their fair share of criticism compared to the other participants, but picking up a few new fans as well, so it will take a little more airtime to get a better idea of how they will be remembered on “Amazing Race” and whether or not it will have any bearing on the world of poker.

Federal Officials Seize Additional Internet Gambling Funds

Recent seizures of internet gambling funds related to the payment processor Account Services do not appear to be the end of the U.S. Government’s war against the industry. This week, it was revealed that funds in six more accounts had been seized.

The six accounts, according to the Baltimore City Paper, are held by Wachovia and appear under the name Forshay Enterprises. In July and August, other funds were seized in branches of Interstate Net Bank, Bank of America, and First Premier Bank belonging to Electracash and HMD. Regina Mignogna, a Maryland State Trooper, signed the warrant affidavits for the HMD accounts, which were obtained by Poker News Daily. Each of the warrant applications was ordered seized “until further order of this court or until January 20, 2010, whichever is earlier.” The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore.

Richard Gunn, an Anne Arundel County Police Detective, signed the warrant applications for the Wachovia accounts, which were numbered 2000042478410, 2000042478070, 2000042478452, 2000042478300, 2000042089414, and 2000042089427. The City Paper linked Forshay Enterprises to TransactSvc.com. Meanwhile, Electracash was tied to Edward Courdy, who many might remember as one of the defendants in Maryland’s Bodog case in 2008. That news broke last July, when $24 million was seized from the popular online poker site. Funds were taken from four publicly traded U.S. banks, including Wachovia, Bank of America, SunTrust, and Regions.

Account Services, which processed payments for PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker in 2008 and 2009, filed a motion in July for return of property, namely $14 million seized by the U.S. Government. The money was held in Union Bank and Wells Fargo branches in California. In retaliation, the Government indicted Account Services’ Douglas Rennick, a Canadian, on charges of bank fraud, money laundering, and illegal gambling. He faces up to 55 years behind bars and $1.75 million in fines for his actions. As of the time of writing, he has not settled with U.S. authorities.

In August, Judge Jeffrey Miller denied Account Services’ motion for return of property, instead electing to wait for the criminal case against Rennick to pan out. The seizure was part of a larger effort by the Southern District of New York in June during which over $30 million was frozen. The funds in question were allegedly destined for more than 24,000 online poker players and not connected to online wagering on sports. Bodog operates a full online sports book, an option that does not exist on PokerStars or Full Tilt. The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) filed an amicus brief on behalf of Account Services, a decision the organization stuck by despite Rennick’s criminal indictment.

Many in the online poker community assumed that the election of U.S. President Barack Obama, a poker player, would ease the attack on the industry. However, the opposite has been true so far, with federal agencies going on the offensive. For example, FBI Special Agent Dana Conte swore to the affidavits relating to Account Services.

In the closing months of the Bush Administration’s stay in Washington, D.C., the regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) were ushered into effect as “midnight rules.” Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) was instrumental in attaching the UIGEA to an unrelated port security measure in 2006. The SAFE Port Act passed through the House with ease and was approved in the Senate by unanimous consent. Speaking out during the debate in the House was Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D-NV), who questioned why internet gambling appeared in the bill.

As a result of the June seizure, which coincided with the running of the annual World Series of Poker (WSOP) in Las Vegas, paper checks and e-checks temporarily bounced, leading to reimbursements and cash bonuses from some of the world’s largest online poker sites. What effect the latest round of seizures will have on the industry is anyone’s guess.

Same Hand, Different Game: Small Pairs

In poker, the hand you hold has different possibilities depending upon the game that you’re playing: what would be a great hand in one form of poker will, in essence, be total junk in another discipline of the game. In this continuing series of articles, we’ll examine particular hands and what strategies a player should put in place, because the same hand isn’t always the best in different games.

Small Pairs - Hit Or Get Out

When it comes down to the small pairs – and in this instance, we are talking about pocket fives through pocket deuces – your basic option of play is to look for hitting the set. Because these particular pocket pairs are so small, the flop could – and more than likely will – bring any card that can crush your hand. The proper approach that we will discuss, dependent on the game, will help you to maximize the value and, when you are in a difficult situation, get away with the least amount of chips lost.

Texas Hold’em

In Texas Hold’em, the pocket pair can be wielded pretty easily. You can, unless betting gets vastly out of hand, make the call. When you have the small pair, though, you have to adopt the philosophy of “hit or get out.” Unless you catch that set – about a one in eight chance – you will more than likely have to exit the hand when the board will present cards that will put your opponents ahead. Unless you have a great read on your opponent, you will more than likely have to muck your hand if you do not hit that set.

The reason for this quick muck is the simple mathematics that having the small pair presents. Pre-flop, the small pair is a slight favorite over A-K or A-Q, but it is crushed when it comes to higher pocket pairs to which it is about an 80/20 underdog. Thus, if the flop doesn’t bring that set card and there are paint cards or an Ace, you can pretty much figure that you have been out-flopped.

If you catch your set, a player has a multitude of options available to them. You can either slow play the set looking to draw some more chips from your opponent, or you can pound the board with bets (especially useful if you are against an aggressive player). Slow playing is dangerous as it is possible that, if you allow your opponent to draw, they could catch a better set if they are playing a larger pocket pair. Be mindful also as to the board texture and be on the lookout for either straights or flushes that come to light.

Omaha Hold’em

With Omaha, the small pair is even more problematic than in Texas Hold’em. This is a game in which, if you don’t catch a set on the flop – or at least the turn – you are looking at getting rid of the hand because you more than likely won’t take it down with your small pair. When you add in the factor of playing High-Low, then the decisions take on another turn.

While hitting the set in High-Low may be good enough to take the high half the pot, you really are looking for the board to pair to make a boat (and try to dodge an opponent who is sitting on their own pair that makes quads). Caution should be at the forefront of your mind here, as you can get into a betting war that depletes your stack when you are sitting there with the second best hand.

If you have any of the small pocket pairs, you have to take a look at your other two cards to judge whether you can make a solid low hand. If you have a suited Ace to go along with one of your pair cards, you have a possibility of drawing to the low hand if the board falls right or to a nut flush for the high. You could also potentially have some sort of running combination that could draw into a straight (if you had 4-3-3-2, for example) which would be worth playing.

Razz

As we talked about earlier in this series, pocket pairs are something that has to be avoided in Razz. With the small pairs, however, there are some options that open up for bluffing and/or for taking the hand outright.

The small pairs have a great deal of potential because, if your combination is good, you are two-thirds of the way to earning the low. You should preferably be gated – with one of your pair in your hidden cards and the other showing, such as (3-2) 3 – and have your opponents all showing cards higher than yours to make a move on the pot. If you have your pair hidden, you would need an Ace or six showing to be aggressive and be the low card showing.

In Razz, however, you have to remember that you have to almost draw perfectly over the next four cards to catch the low hand. If your pair hits another like card on Fourth Street – using the example above, let‘s use (3-2) 3-2 – then you have a complicated decision. If you have shown strength and bet your hand, fellow players may give you credit for being four-fifths the way to making a low hand. If you get called or raised by someone, however, you have to be ready to ditch the hand as your two pair is death in the game of Razz.

Although you may be able to bluff with another low card on Fifth Street - such as (3-2) 3-2-A - you still have not made a hand and are looking for the last two cards to hit perfect. A bet here may well take the pot but, once again, if you are played back at, you have to be ready to get rid of the hand. As always with the game of poker and especially with non-community card games, be aware of the potential that your opponents are displaying and get out when it looks as though you are beaten.

Seven Card Stud and Seven Card High-Low

In these games, the small pair can be a very effective tool, especially if they are a hidden pair. If you are fortunate enough to be able to pull a third card on one of the streets, you can be aggressive with them and often get players who have two pair to come along with you to the river. In this instance, your payoff would be quite large. But there are some factors that you have to keep in mind before you start counting those chips, however.

If the two other cards to your pair are part of the other face up cards, then you have to consider whether it will be wise to continue on with the hand. If you are holding pocket fours, for example, and both of the fours you covet are up in two other players’ hands, the best you are going to be able to do is two pair (barring hitting trips somewhere over three of the next four cards). In most cases, the small pair is not going to be enough to win the hand as someone else will have built a much better holding.

For the most part, your opponents are going to be showing a great deal more than you can muster with your small pair. You also have to consider the texture of an opponent’s displayed cards and judge whether you can beat what they are showing or, in some cases, insinuating that they have. If someone is showing four suited cards or has two pair already in the up cards, your measly pair should have already been in the muck. Remember that you want to be able to have some ammunition when you have your larger hands; calling along and looking to hit aren’t going to conserve your chip stack to be able to do that.

In Hi/Low, you have to consider the same options that you did in Razz. Unless you catch a card to make the set and take the high, you shouldn’t be in the hand. If you are looking at the low hand, you have to have that Ace in the mix to allow you to go on in the hand. Always remember your goal in a Hi/Low game is to scoop the entirety of the pot rather than split it, though.

Summary

The small pocket pair, if played correctly, can win large pots when you hit and have a minimal expenditure when you miss. The most important thing to remember when playing the small pocket pair is to get away from it when you miss either the set or your draw; if you have a mindset that says “well, I might catch on another street,” the small pocket pair can be devastating to your play. When you do miss, the small pair is definitely not the best hand to have, no matter which game you’re playing. In the next segment of this series, we will take a look at big Aces and how in different games they can be used to their ultimate capabilities.

Industry Reacts to Kentucky Supreme Court Taking Internet Gambling Case

On October 22nd, oral arguments will be heard in the Kentucky Supreme Court in Frankfort. Attorneys for the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) will argue why Governor Steve Beshear and company did not have jurisdiction to seize 141 internet gambling domain names.

The festivities will kick off at 11:00am local time and 15 minutes are allotted for each side to lobby their points. Despite the case centering on internet gambling, it has attracted a variety of interested parties, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The organization’s Bill Sharp told Poker News Daily, “We are pleased that the Kentucky Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case because its implications for free speech on the internet are extremely important, not just in Kentucky, but also globally.” A three-judge Court of Appeals panel ruled in favor of the industry in January. Counsel for the Commonwealth of Kentucky appealed one day later.

Also closely monitoring the developments in the Bluegrass State is the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative (SSIGI). The Washington, D.C.-based organization has been involved in numerous issues on a national level and its spokesperson, Michael Waxman, told Poker News Daily, “We stand united in opposition to the Governor’s misguided attempt to prohibit internet gambling activity. Prohibition has failed before and is not likely to stop Kentuckians or anyone in the U.S. from continuing to find a way to gamble online. The Kentucky Supreme Court should make the right decision and end the illegal seizure of gambling domain names.”

iMEGA claims that it has received support from a broad coalition that includes the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), ACLU, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Commerce Association, eBay, and Network Solutions. PPA Executive Director John Pappas is looking forward to iMEGA’s arguments in the Kentucky Supreme Court on October 22nd: “I think iMEGA will make strong a case before the court. The PPA has filed amicus already and we hope our reasoned amicus talking about poker as a game of skill will hold weight in the justices’ eyes.”

As it currently stands, iMEGA’s case is the third of three on the docket for October 22nd and the final one to be heard that week. A lawsuit between Auto Owners Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company will kick off the proceedings at 9:00am, followed by a hearing about Miranda rights at 10:00am. A total of seven justices appear on the Kentucky Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Minton, Jr. The remainder of the panel includes Lisabeth Hughes Abramson, Bill Cunningham, Mary Noble, Wil Schroder, Will Scott, and Daniel Venters.

The Commonwealth seized the 141 internet gambling domain names in question on the grounds that they constituted illegal “gambling devices,” a term that traditionally refers to objects like slot machines and roulette wheels that you’d find in an underground casino. The list of sites at risk includes some of the industry’s giants like PokerStars, Ultimate Bet, and Full Tilt Poker. Judge Thomas Wingate upheld the Commonwealth’s actions in October, prompting iMEGA and company to seek the involvement of the Court of Appeals in Louisville.

The Bluegrass Institute held an emergency summit when the seizure first broke last September. Its Director of Policy and Communications, Jim Waters, told Poker News Daily, “Hopefully, the Supreme Court will protect the freedom we’ve enjoyed on the internet in Kentucky. If nothing else, maybe this action will force the State to clearly share its stance on online gambling.” A recent ruling in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the legality of internet gambling may ultimately depend on the state a player is located in.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest from the Kentucky internet gambling case.

Kentucky Supreme Court to Hear Internet Gambling Case

In January, the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruled by a 2:1 margin that the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet did not have jurisdiction to seize 141 internet gambling domain names. In October, the Kentucky Supreme Court will hear the case.

The Cabinet appealed immediately following the Court of Appeals decision, which kicked off the 2009 calendar year in the online poker world. Now, attorneys for the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) and Commonwealth of Kentucky will take to the floor of the state’s Supreme Court on Thursday, October 22nd at 11:00am local time. On the 10-month turnaround, iMEGA Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “My understanding is that the October 22nd date is fairly expeditious when it comes to the Kentucky Supreme Court. Usually, appellate courts don’t hear things that quickly when there’s nothing driving it. The fact that the court is going to hear oral arguments so soon confirms that it has an interest in the subject matter.”

A bevy of organizations have submitted documents supporting iMEGA’s challenge against the Commonwealth of Kentucky, including the Poker Players Alliance (PPA), eBay, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). iMEGA is represented by Jon Fleischaker of Dinsmore and Shohl, which is based in Louisville, Kentucky. Brennan forecasted, “We saw the briefings that the Governor’s attorneys brought to the table and they don’t have a lot they can hang their heads on other than making a claim for a Federal ban on internet gambling that doesn’t exist. There’s no Federal law against gambling on the internet and no law in Kentucky. I’m pretty sure we’re going to beat them again.”

Last September, the Commonwealth seized the 141 internet gambling domain names in question, including those belonging to PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Ultimate Bet, on the grounds that they constituted “gambling devices,” a term traditionally reserved for physical objects like dice and slot machines that you’d find in an illegal casino. In October, Judge Thomas Wingate upheld the Commonwealth’s actions, which were prompted by Governor Steve Beshear. iMEGA then sought the intervention of the Court of Appeals, which agreed with the trade association by a 2:1 vote in January.

The news comes on the heels of iMEGA falling short in its constitutional challenge of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). A three-judge panel in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with many of the organization’s basic arguments, but ruled that internet gambling may be legal in the U.S. dependent upon state law. On the UIGEA, the Court declared, “The Act itself does not make any gambling activity illegal. Whether the transaction… constitutes unlawful internet gambling turns on how the law of the state from which the bettor initiates the bet would treat that bet, i.e., if it is illegal under that state’s law, it constitutes ‘unlawful internet gambling’ under the Act.” IMEGA claims the decision could pave the way for legal internet gambling in 44 states.

iMEGA can appeal the Third Circuit’s ruling, although no decision has been made as to whether the organization will pursue that course of action. Brennan explained, “If we were to do something, it’d be applying to the Supreme Court or starting a new challenge against the UIGEA regulations. At this point, I wonder what the best use of our resources is. The Government managed to get the UIGEA upheld in a way that the states have a right to determine what kind of gambling is allowed within their borders.” The Third Circuit dismissed iMEGA’s claims that the UIGEA should be “void for vagueness” and that the 2006 law tramples on privacy rights, among other arguments.

Kentucky’s economy thrives on the presence of horse racing, whose premier event is the annual Kentucky Derby, held each May in Louisville. The parent company of Churchill Downs, the venue of the Derby, also owns and operates TwinSpires.com, which accepts real money wagers from Kentucky residents. Moreover, the state’s lottery offers an online second chance option.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest from the Kentucky internet gambling case.

Art of the Bluff

A couple of decades ago, billionaire entrepreneur Donald Trump wrote a book called “The Art Of The Deal.” In it, he detailed out how he went about creating, executing, and finishing many of the major real estate transactions that made him who he is today. The same idea can be applied to one of the most difficult tasks in poker, bluffing.

For the most part, the bluff is overused when it comes to online poker. Because of the lack of human contact - the ability to physically look at your opponent and make determinations of their intentions - bluffing is more prevalent and doesn’t work, in most cases. Even in the live game, the bluff can be easily picked off if three basic tenets aren’t observed.

Telling the Story

Bluffing is, in part, telling a story to your opponent. The art of the bluff is in telling a convincing story that will make him think that his hand isn’t going to beat you. But you have to be able to convince your opponent that the story is true, otherwise he is going to read it for the fictional tale that it is.

Say, for example, that the flop has delivered two cards of the same suit. Your opponent has a high pocket pair, leads out post-flop, and the decision is in your hands. If you are holding air, most of the time you’ll want to let it go. However, if you have been able to build a decent reputation at the table, you can re-raise and put the decision back on him. The power here is in that you have been able to state, “I’m four-fifths of the way to the flush; you should just let it go here.”

Even if you are called, you have to continue to tell the story. The turn card comes off and doesn’t complete the flush draw. If your opponent checks, then you have to be willing to put another bet into the pot and continue to tell the story. By checking behind him, you are essentially saying that you aren’t on the flush draw and just want to see the next card for free. The bluff bet on the turn continues the story and could very well win the hand.

If the river brings you the final card for the flush, then you should win easily with another bet. This also works well if you actually are on the flush draw and hit it because your opponent may come back with a bluff of his own on the river, making more money for you. If the river blanks, then you have to end your tale of bluffing and release your hand, as you probably don’t have enough to win.

The board will more than likely provide you with enough information to determine if you should take a shot at a bluff. A coordinated board, with three of a suit or sometimes even paired cards, is much easier to concoct a story to than one that has no symmetry to it. Thus, you have to judge for yourself if the story behind your bluff is believable.

When telling the story, you also have to be convincing with your bets. A minimum bet in No Limit Hold’em is only going to give your opponent pot odds to follow you to the river. This is especially true in the case of Limit Hold’em, where there are the pot odds in most occasions to justify a showdown.

Building Your Credibility

Much like in his book, Trump would bank on his reputation and credibility when he was pushing a deal. The same is true at the poker table in that you need to have a solid table image to be able to push your bluff through.

If you have been splashing around in pretty much every pot that has been contested at the tables, then the likelihood of pushing a bluff by someone is greatly reduced. Even if you have been showing down strong hands and winning, the general nature of people is that they want to get back at you. Thus, you have a larger difficulty in bluffing if you have been providing a great deal of action.

If, however, you have been playing at or around a respectable number of hands, between 15% and 22%, the likelihood of a bluff working improves tremendously. Because you haven’t shown a willingness to gamble it up and instead have been showing strong hands, players are more likely to give you credit for the story you are telling.

Where are You?

Bluffing more often than not works from a position of strength. Trump didn’t build an empire because he wasn’t working from such a position. With bluffing, the same thing is true in that you have to be able to have the final say in the action at the table.

The power in poker, in general, is from the later positions and the same is true for bluffing. If you are first to act in a pot, it isn’t the time to be pushing with air, as you do not have the final say in what is going on at the tables. Even if you are in the middle of multi-way action, your bluffing power is reduced because there are players yet to act.

The art of the bluff works the best if you are the last player to act in heads-up action and sometimes if you are last to act in a multi-player pot. Once again, the story has to be in connection with what the board says and must be convincing. If you aren’t in a position of strength, then it is best not to be involved in the hand, let alone bluff.

Summary

Bluffing should be a staple of your poker toolbox. When you do decide to take it out, however, you have to be conscious of many factors at the table and in the cards on the board. Only by using a position of strength, telling a complete story, and building credibility can the art of the bluff work for you.

Internet Gambling Law Expert Reacts to UIGEA Decision

The story of the week in the internet gambling industry has been the constitutional challenge to the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) brought on by the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA). Internet gambling law expert I. Nelson Rose comments on the ruling, which was passed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Third Circuit tossed out iMEGA’s arguments that the UIGEA violated the First and Tenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as privacy rights and international treaties. However, the judicial body asserted, “It bears repeating that the Act itself does not make any gambling activity illegal. Whether the transaction… constitutes unlawful internet gambling turns on how the law of the state from which the bettor initiates the bet would treat that bet, i.e., if it is unlawful under that state’s law, it constitutes ‘unlawful internet gambling’ under the Act.” The bet must also be legal in the jurisdiction in which the internet gambling operator is located.

Rose was perplexed by the Third Circuit’s ruling, which seemed to, in part, shed light on the UIGEA’s meaning. He told Poker News Daily, “This decision was written by judges who appear to know absolutely nothing about gaming law.” Rose reiterated that only two states, Hawaii and Utah, ban commercial gambling. The 10-page court ruling cites Oregon as a state in which it may be problematic to conduct internet gambling. However, Rose noted, “It is bizarre to use Oregon as an example. Oregon has more forms of legal gambling than Nevada.”

Deferring to the states, therefore, may not be a straightforward endeavor. Rose explained, “I practiced law in Hawaii for over three years and I can tell you that neither these nor any other existing Hawaiian statutes clearly make all forms of internet gambling illegal.  The Oregon statute cited merely makes it a crime to transfer money for ‘unlawful gambling using the internet,’ which brings us back to the question of whether any other existing law covers internet gambling.” The U.S. Department of Justice, for example, may assert that online poker is illegal under the Wire Act, although organizations like the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) would deny such an interpretation.

If internet gambling’s legality varies on a state-by-state basis, then a long road may be in store for financial services outfits like Visa and MasterCard. Rose forecasted, “The reality is that some forms of internet gambling are expressly legal, such as pari-mutuel bets on horseracing in most states. In every other case, it would take a detailed analysis by a competent gaming lawyer to know whether the state’s anti-gambling laws might apply.” A handful of states allow permit lottery purchases, further complicating the matter. For example, TwinSpires.com, a site that offers online wagering on horse racing, is owned by the same publicly traded parent company as Churchill Downs in Kentucky.

A press release issued by iMEGA shortly after the Third Circuit’s decision noted that some forms of internet gambling were “potentially lawful” in 44 states. The organization added, “There are only a half-dozen states which have laws against internet gambling.” The Poker Voters of America (PVA) is leading the charge for licensed and regulated intrastate online poker in California. The PVA is also pushing for intrastate wagering in Florida. California offers a bevy of card rooms sprinkled within its borders, including the Commerce Casino and Bicycle Casino, which host World Poker Tour events.

iMEGA may appeal the Third Circuit’s decision in an effort to overturn the UIGEA, which was its primary goal. However, no decision has yet been made. The U.S. Department of Justice can also appeal the ruling.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest on the iMEGA UIGEA challenge. A wealth of information on U.S. internet gambling statutes can be found at Rose’s website, GamblingAndTheLaw.com.

iMEGA, Poker Players Alliance React to UIGEA Ruling

Twenty-four hours ago, the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) came up short in its bid to overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). In the process, internet gambling may now become an industry governed by state law.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that the legality of internet gambling transactions may ultimately depend on where the bettor and operator are located. If the industry is permitted in both jurisdictions, then online poker players may be able to return to the felts in droves. The opinion, which was penned by Judge Dolores Sloviter, read in part, “Whether the transaction…constitutes unlawful internet gambling turns on how the law of the state from which the bettor initiates the bet would treat that bet, i.e. if it is illegal under that state’s law, it constitutes ‘unlawful internet gambling’ under the Act.”

In a press release distributed by iMEGA following Tuesday’s historic ruling, Chairman Joe Brennan noted, “The court made it clear - gambling on the internet is unlawful where state law says so. But there are only a half-dozen states which have laws against Internet gambling, leaving 44 states where it is potentially lawful. It’s not perfect, but it’s a good start.” Internet gambling law varies by state based on the type of transaction, number of times the consumer is raked, and game type, among other factors. Several states allow online lottery transactions and wagering on horse racing, while others like Utah and Hawaii ban all forms of commercial gambling.

What happens next is anyone’s guess. States may soon find it prudent to clarify laws and statutes related to internet gambling. In the meantime, a push by the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) on Capitol Hill for legalized and regulated online poker may come to fruition through future passage of a bill by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA). PPA Executive Director John Pappas told Poker News Daily, “While I am disappointed that iMEGA’s full arguments did not prevail, it was encouraging to see the courts reaffirm that the UIGEA does not make playing internet poker illegal. The PPA and our legal team have long argued that the UIGEA should not force banks to block poker transactions in a vast majority of states. This decision might very well help as banks make those determinations on what to block; simply follow state law.”

On handing over the determination of whether internet gambling is permissible to the states, Brennan commented in the same press release, “States have always held the power to regulate gambling in this country, not the Federal government. The court’s ruling seems to say ‘back to the future’ when it comes to regulating internet gambling, so we will turn our attention to the states to make the case that this industry can be properly regulated and produce badly needed tax revenue.” Land-based gambling is already governed at the state level, with Nevada, New Jersey, and Mississippi leading the way. A bevy of riverboat casinos have also sprung up in states like Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri.

Brennan told Poker News Daily that the organization has not yet decided whether it will appeal the three-judge panel’s decision. The magistrates dismissed iMEGA’s claims that the UIGEA violated the First Amendment, Tenth Amendment, privacy rights, and treaty obligations over the course of its 10-page ruling. In the end, the cloudy law, which was passed during the waning moments of the 2006 Congressional session, was not declared unconstitutional, as iMEGA had hoped. However, the court’s ruling may have ultimately led to the same endgame, clarification of the legality of internet gambling and online poker in the United States.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest reaction to iMEGA’s UIGEA challenge.

UIGEA Clarified: Legality of Internet Gambling Depends on State Law

A three-judge panel disagreed with many of the arguments made by the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) on Tuesday as to why the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) should be deemed unconstitutional. In the process, however, internet gambling may now be a states’ rights issue.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals passed down the historic ruling on Tuesday morning, which included the following text that should be of interest to online poker players: “It bears repeating that the Act itself does not make any gambling activity illegal. Whether the transaction… constitutes unlawful internet gambling turns on how the law of the state from which the bettor initiates the bet would treat that bet, i.e., if it is illegal under that state’s law, it constitutes ‘unlawful internet gambling.’” In essence, internet gambling apparently may be treated the same as brick-and-mortar gambling, which is governed at the state level. As it currently stands, six states have laws on the books outlawing internet gambling to various degrees.

The judges also indicated that the legality of internet gambling also depends on where the company accepting the wager is located: “The Act prohibits a gambling business from knowingly accepting certain financial instruments from an individual who places a bet over the internet if such gambling is illegal at the location in which the business is located or from which the individual initiates the bet.”

The panel, while seemingly clarifying the 2006 law, rejected iMEGA’s claims that the UIGEA was “void for vagueness” and violated First Amendment rights. On the latter point, the court explained that “acceptance of a financial transfer” is not a First Amendment right.

Despite the UIGEA not being overturned as a result of Tuesday’s actions, iMEGA Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily, “The judges went to pains to clarify that the law did not make internet gambling itself illegal. The UIGEA made no act illegal other than the payment processors taking money. The UIGEA defers to state laws to make the determination.” As long as the bettor and the internet gambling outfit are both located in jurisdictions where the activity is not outlawed, the UIGEA is not violated.

Brennan told Poker News Daily that he had not determined whether iMEGA would appeal the Third Circuit’s decision. It is also unclear whether the U.S. Government would appeal. Still also at issue is the Wire Act of 1961, which some would argue makes online poker and other forms of internet gambling illegal in the United States at the federal level. Brennan explained, “The Wire Act only affects businesses. Is the Wire Act still a problem? Yes, but it doesn’t make it illegal.” A feature by the CBS news program “60 Minutes,” for example, labeled online poker illegal multiple times, even though organizations like the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) contend that the 1961 law does not apply to internet poker.

The three-judge panel also rejected iMEGA’s claims that the UIGEA violated privacy rights and the Tenth Amendment. The latter asserts, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Third Circuit instead claimed that as a third party, iMEGA lacked standing to argue the point.

What effect Tuesday’s decision will have on the internet gambling industry in the United States remains to be seen. Congress returns from session after Labor Day, when the PPA plans to push Barney Frank’s (D-MA) HR 2266, which delays financial services industry compliance with the regulations of the UIGEA by one year to December 1st, 2010. The measure has 35 co-sponsors and was introduced in early May.

iMEGA plans to release additional analysis on its UIGEA challenge later today. Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for the latest poker legislation headlines.

Online Poker Funds Remain Seized in Account Services Case

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, online poker funds seized by the Southern District of New York belonging to Account Services will remain under guard for what the newspaper claimed “could be years.”

On August 21st, a hearing was originally scheduled featuring lawyers for the online poker payment processor Account Services arguing why $14 million should be returned to the company. The funds were seized as part of a June raid by the Southern District of New York and were contained in Wells Fargo and Union Bank accounts in California. Account Services filed a motion for return of property in the Southern District of California and the case was assigned to Judge Jeffrey Miller. However, the hearing was later cancelled indefinitely.

On Saturday, the Union-Tribune published a story claiming that Miller “denied a bid Thursday by lawyers for the company, Account Services Inc., and the Poker Players Alliance to return the money. The players group is an advocacy organization that represents some 1 million online poker players.” It added, “Now, after Miller ruled against them, it could be years before they see any of the money.” The Southern District of New York seized well over $30 million in total, affecting more than 24,000 online poker players.

Paper checks and e-checks began bouncing in June, leading to concern on popular online poker forums about the security of player deposits. In many cases, the online poker sites, including PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, compensated players fully and oftentimes awarded a cash bonus for any inconvenience. The warrant to seize funds from the Union Bank accounts identified Full Tilt and PokerStars by name as clients of Account Services. The document read, “Account Services has previously provided payment services for companies providing online gambling services, including PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, the largest internet poker businesses in operation.”

The Wells Fargo account was used to pay online poker players in 2008 and 2009. Still redacted (crossed out) in its warrant application is evidence that led the Southern District of New York to finger PokerStars and Full Tilt in the first place.

Account Services’ Douglas Rennick was indicted earlier this month on bank fraud, money laundering, and illegal gambling charges. He faces up to 55 years in jail and up to a $1.75 million fine plus forfeiture of funds obtained. The San Diego news outlet explains, “Prosecutors then argued the indictment made the San Diego lawsuit irrelevant and that Miller should not hear it. The judge agreed, saying the players could try to recover the money after the criminal case is resolved.”

Rennick is a Canadian citizen and, as of yet, has not surrendered to U.S. authorities. The indictment issued by the Southern District of New York revealed that Rennick had been in the business of processing internet gambling payments since 2007. Over $350 million was transferred from a bank account in Cyprus for this purpose and “Rennick… provided false and misleading information to various United States banks about, among other things, the nature of the internet gambling-related payments being processed by the companies under Rennick’s control in order to induce banks to engage in financial transactions that they otherwise would not have facilitated.”

The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) filed an amicus brief on behalf of Account Services despite Rennick’s indictment. The 1.2 million member strong organization argued that poker is a game of skill and therefore not illegal gambling. Account Services added that funds in the Union Bank accounts were seized without a warrant, which was issued about a dozen days after the asset freeze took place. FBI Special Agent Dana Conte swore to both warrant applications.

Poker News Daily is seeking comment from the PPA and Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA).

Account Services Hearing Cancelled

A hearing scheduled for Friday to address Account Services’ motion for the return of property, namely $14 million seized by the Southern District of New York, has been cancelled. The future of the case is now in jeopardy.

Attorney Jeff Ifrah told Poker News Daily that counsel for the U.S. Government filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was to be heard in the Southern District of California. Ifrah candidly explained, “The Government is in New York and they don’t want to travel to California.” Both sides have submitted briefs in the case, with the Government arguing that Account Services’ request for return of property should be rolled into its case in the Southern District of New York.

Account Services attorney Michael Pancer told Poker News Daily, “Motions like this are not uncommon.” On the future of the case, which no longer involves a hearing tomorrow, Ifrah claimed, “The judge may deny the Government’s motion and instead schedule an evidentiary hearing to listen to witnesses and arguments. Then, he can make a determination of whether the Government had probable cause to seize funds.” The funds in question were taken from Union Bank and Wells Fargo branches in California as part of the Southern District of New York’s actions against online poker payment processors in June.

Earlier this month, Account Services’ Douglas Rennick was indicted on charges of bank fraud, money laundering, and illegal gambling. He faces up to 55 years in jail and up to a $1.75 million fine plus forfeiture of funds obtained as a result of his actions. The Account Services hearing was originally scheduled for last Friday before a judge postponed the proceedings by one week. In a memo to both parties outlining the hearing date change, Judge Jeffrey Miller also granted the request of the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) to file an amicus brief on behalf of Account Services.

Rennick’s indictment alleges that he created several businesses to provide payment processing for internet gambling outfits, including My ATM Online, Alenis Limited, KJB Financial Corporation, Check Payment Financial Company, and Account Services. The document claims, “Rennick and his co-conspirators receive funds from offshore internet gambling companies, cause those funds to be wired into United States bank accounts, and then cause the funds to be disbursed through checks payable to United States residents who are seeking to cash out their gambling winnings.” A sum of $350 million was transferred from a bank account in Cyprus to pay out funds to online poker, blackjack, and slot machine players.

Rennick and company claimed that the funds in question would be used for affiliate checks, rebates, refunds, sponsorship checks, and payroll. However, the indictment notes, “The… account was used by Rennick and his co-conspirators almost exclusively to process internet gambling related payouts.” In the case of Union Bank, Rennick told officials that Account Services was “a ‘rebate check processor’ for ‘large retailers’ and ‘auto dealerships.’”

In June, the Southern District of New York seized over $30 million belonging to more than 24,000 online poker players. In many cases, the affected sites, which included PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, reimbursed players and doled out cash bonuses for the inconvenience. In its reply brief seeking return of property as a result of the seizure, attorneys for Account Services noted, “ASC and Mr. Rennick are separate and distinct legal persons, despite the Government’s assertions to the contrary.” The warrant application filed by FBI Special Agent Dana Conte revealed that Rennick was one of the signers on the Account Services account.

The future of the Account Services motion is now up in the air. We’ll keep you posted right here on Poker News Daily.

Poker TV Producer Loses Case Against Phil Gordon

According to Courthousenews.com, a federal judge in Manhattan has sided with former Celebrity Poker commentator and Team Full Tilt member Phil Gordon after television producer Tony DeRosa-Grund failed to provide evidence supporting his case against...

PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker Named in Online Poker Warrant Applications

Last week, Judge Laura Swain of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) asked attorneys for the United States Government to explain how the indictment of Account Services’ Douglas Rennick affected information contained in the warrant applications used to seize over $30 million from more than 24,000 online poker players.

As a result of the document filed by the Government last Wednesday, new information was released on the background of Account Services, including the company’s association with PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker. Half of the warrant applications used to seize funds from California branches of Wells Fargo and Union Bank were redacted (crossed out) when the documents were unsealed and released last week. However, Judge Swain commented, “The Court finds that certain other previously redacted portions of the materials should now be unsealed.”

In a section of the warrant application entitled, “Account Services’ History of Providing Payment Services for Online Gambling Companies,” the text reads, “Account Services has previously provided payment services for companies providing online gambling services, including Pokerstars and FullTilt Poker, the largest internet poker businesses in operation.” Dana Conte, the FBI Special Agent who swore to the affidavits, noted that the Wells Fargo account was likely used to transfer payments from PokerStars and Full Tilt, both of which accept players from the United States.

The document also profiles Rennick’s involvement with Account Services. The newly-released warrant application reveals, “There are multiple links between the Defendant Account and Douglas Rennick, a Canadian citizen who has previously processed winnings for the internet gambling industry. Rennick is one of the signers of the Defendant Account. Rennick is also associated with Alenis Limited.”

Rennick had indicated that the funds contained in the bank accounts would be used for activities like processing rebate checks and affiliate checks. J.P. Morgan closed the Wells Fargo and Union Bank accounts in December of 2008. Rennick had been associated with KJB Financial Corporation, Account Services, My ATM Online, Alenis Limited, and Check Payment Financial.

International money transfers from Cyprus were used to finance the Account Services operation. Conte noted, “I also learned that in April 2009, the individuals who applied to have the Defendant Accounts opened instructed Union Bank to list ‘Check Payment Financial Co.’ as the entity issuing checks… rather than ‘Account Services Corp.’” The Union Bank warrant application is dated June 24th, nearly two weeks after the seizure of funds took place.

Still redacted is the SDNY’s evidence for identifying PokerStars and Full Tilt. After fingering the two online poker behemoths, the warrant application notes, “There is probable cause to believe that the Wells Fargo Account Services Account was providing payment services for these online gambling companies in 2008 and 2009.” Then, a page of redacted text appears. In the Wells Fargo warrant application, sections entitled “The Defendant Account is Used to Transmit Gambling Payout Checks,” which continues for several pages, is fully redacted.

In July, Account Services filed a motion for return of property, namely $14 million in funds destined for online poker players. A hearing in the Southern District of California is scheduled for this Friday in the matter despite Rennick’s indictment on bank fraud, money laundering, and illegal gambling charges. He faces up to 55 years behind bars and $1.75 million in fines. The Poker Players Alliance (PPA) has filed an amicus brief on behalf of Account Services asserting that poker is a game of skill and therefore not illegal gambling.

PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker are the two largest online poker sites in existence. According to PokerScout.com, which monitors online poker room traffic, PokerStars boasts a seven day running average of 25,000 real money ring game players, with a 24 hour peak of 35,239. Full Tilt owns a seven day running average of 15,400 cash game players, with a 24 hour peak of 22,259. Trailing the duo is the iPoker Network, a non-USA friendly family of sites operated by Playtech.

Setback in Colorado — Judge ‘Disapproves’ Poker Ruling

It was hailed as a monumental victory for poker. A jury had ruled that poker was a game of skill, and a man was exonerated as a result of the decision. Now, just over a year after this tumultuous story began, an appellate judge has disapproved of a trial judge’s decision that allowed expert testimony in support of poker being

Setback in Colorado — Appellate Judge ‘Disapproves’ Poker Ruling

It was hailed as a monumental victory for poker. A jury had ruled that poker was a game of skill, and a man was exonerated as a result of the decision. Now, just over a year after this tumultuous story began, an appellate judge has disapproved of a trial judge’s decision that allowed expert testimony in support of poker being

Players Alliance backs Colorado appeal

"Given the Weld County District Court judge's ruling that poker is gambling because of the small element of chance in the dealing of cards, one could easily presume that any game that depends even a little on chance - from Monopoly to Yahtzee to Candy Land - is gambling and therefore illegal in the state of Colorado," said John Pappas, executive director of the PPA.

"We clearly think this is the wrong interpretation of the law, especially in regard to poker."

In 2008, five people were arrested and charged with illegal gambling at a $20 buy-in No Limit Hold'em tournament held in a Colorado bar, including tournament organizer Kevin Raley.

After arguing that poker is a game of skill, and therefore not gambling, Raley was acquitted and charges were dropped against the other four defendants.

During the trial, University of Denver professor Bob Hannum was called to testify that poker is indeed a skill game.

In an effort to clarify Colorado's laws regarding poker, the state appealed the ruling that Hannum be allowed to testify.

On Aug. 4 a County District Court Judge ruled poker is already considered gambling under Colorado law and Hannum's testimony should not have been allowed.

Although the state will not re-file the charges, Raley is now planning to appeal of the decision in the Colorado Supreme Court.

"The choice to petition the Colorado Supreme Court is about more than me or my friends," Raley said. "It's about all poker players' opportunity to ensure that current Colorado law recognizes that poker is a game of skill and is based on much more than the luck of the draw.

"So much has changed regarding poker and how the game is perceived publicly; it is disheartening to see this great game treated as a crime because of a misapplication of the law."

The PPA has more than one million U.S. members including more than 13,000 in Colorado and is standing firmly behind Raley.

"The PPA is going to do everything in its power to support Mr. Raley's efforts in order to protect PPA members and all poker players in the state of Colorado," said the PPA's Colorado State Director, Gary Reed.

"I am especially alarmed because this ruling ignores the abundance of research that proves poker is a game of skill and confuses rather than clarifies the matter for law enforcement."

Visit PokerListings.com

Online Poker Warrants to be Unsealed as Judge Sides with Gambling911

In breaking news out of the Southern District of New York, Judge Laura Swain has sided with Costigan Media, the parent company of Gambling911, and ordered the warrants and affidavits associated with the seizure of over $30 million in funds destined for online poker players to be unsealed.

Swain submitted 14 pages in support of Costigan Media and the online poker community. In Tuesday’s ruling, she decreed, “The Court is required to order disclosure absent compelling reasons to deny access and even then must employ the least restrictive means of doing so.” Several sections of the warrants and affidavits are redacted, while the complete versions will remain under seal. In addition, Judge Swain mandated, “The Government is directed to make a report to the Court… as to the status of the relevant investigative and seizure activities, within 120 days… and in any event within seven calendar days of any occurrence that obviates the need for continued redaction.”

Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily why Judge Swain’s ruling on Tuesday was groundbreaking: “Costigan Media was afforded the same right of access that the New York Times and Washington Post sometimes receive. The Department of Justice has to report back to the Court on an ongoing basis in order to determine whether the remaining information can be released.” On what information was axed from the warrants and affidavits before they were made public, Brennan speculated, “It’s more than likely names of people who are cooperating witnesses or the targets of investigation.”

Poker News Daily has obtained a copy of the affidavit sworn to by FBI Special Agent Dana Conte for the seizure of funds located in a Wells Fargo branch in California. It reads, “There is probable cause to believe that the Defendant Account Services contains property involved in actual or attempted money laundering transactions… In addition, there is probable cause to believe that the Defendant Account contains property that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the operation of an illegal gambling business.”

The affidavit reveals that the FBI has been tracking “illegal internet gambling businesses” since 2006. The target sites offer online poker, sports betting, and casino games. A six-page section outlining the issuing of payment checks and funds transfers was marked out. Conte’s document concludes with, “I also respectfully request that this Affidavit be sealed until further order of the Court, so as to not jeopardize the investigation of this case.” Conte swore to the affidavit on June 2nd. The document was signed by Judge Theodore Katz, who then ordered it sealed until further notice.

The affidavit filed by Conte relating to funds held in a Union Bank branch discusses the Wells Fargo seizure that took place three weeks prior. On the offshore internet gambling outfits, Conte comments, “Although these gambling businesses are based offshore, the vast majority of their customers are in the United States. Consequently, the internet gambling businesses necessarily rely on the United States financial system to move funds.” Once again, a six-page section was redacted from the record. The Union Bank affidavit was filed on June 24th, 12 days after the actual seizure occurred, and signed by Judge Henry Pitman.

Brennan explained that attorneys for Costigan Media will review the redacted documents and can appeal: “They could appeal to have the documents fully released. Their legal team will take a look at it and decide.” Each affidavit is 13 pages long; half is redacted.

Judge Swain had originally indicated that she would release a decision on the motion to unseal the records last week after lawyers for both sides debated the issue on July 27th. On Thursday, Costigan Media issued a letter to Judge Swain outlining the indictment of Account Services’ Douglas Rennick on bank fraud, money laundering, and illegal gambling charges.

Ruling Handed Down in Costigan Media Online Poker Case

Judge Laura Swain handed down a ruling in the Costigan Media online poker case on Tuesday, although its contents had not yet been released. Her decision may have been influenced by the indictment of Douglas Rennick by the Southern District of New York. Costigan Media, the parent company of Gambling911, is seeking to unseal the warrants and affidavits related to the seizure of more than $30 million destined for over 24,000 online poker players in June.

Rennick was indicted last week for opening bank accounts under the names KJB Financial Corporation, Account Services, My ATM Online, Alenis Limited, and Check Payment Financial and using them for online poker and casino payouts. The indictment explains that Rennick told bank officials that he would use the accounts for transactions like rebate checks, sponsorship payments, and “minor payroll processing.” One of his companies, Account Services, filed a motion for the return of property, namely $14 million held in Wells Fargo and Union Bank accounts in California seized by the U.S. Government.

A letter sent by attorneys for Costigan Media to Judge Swain focuses on Rennick’s involvement with Account Services. It asserts, “We bring the indictment to your attention because it suggests that there is no longer a need on the part of the Government to keep the seizure warrant documents sealed. The filing of the indictment also changes the constitutional setting for the motion to unseal… All courts agree that there is some right of access post-indictment.” Baruch Weiss of New York-based Arent Fox authored the letter, which is dated August 6th.

Attached to the letter is a copy of the indictment and the press release distributed by the Southern District of New York. The latter document notes that the Government began tracking Rennick in 2007 and asserts, “Rennick and his co-conspirators provided false and misleading information to United States banks about the purpose of the accounts because the banks would not have processed the transactions had they known they were gambling-related.” More than $350 million was transferred from a bank in Cyprus to accounts in the United States in order to process payments “from offshore internet gambling companies that offered… poker, blackjack, slots, and other casino games.”

Rennick was charged with one count of bank fraud, one count of money laundering, and one count of illegal gambling. The bank fraud charge carries a maximum of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The money laundering count carries a maximum of 20 years behind bars and a $500,000 fine. The illegal gambling charge carries a maximum of five years in jail and a $250,000 fine. The Government is also pressing for the return of $565 million, which it claims “represents the proceeds obtained as a result of the illegal gambling and bank fraud conspiracies.” The case was assigned to Judge Sidney Stein.

The response by the Government to Costigan Media’s motion to unseal the warrants and affidavits associated with the seizure revealed, “The Government… is actively investigating matters discussed in the affidavits that Costigan seeks to unseal. Under these circumstances, granting Costigan’s motion would be unprecedented.” FBI Special Agent Dana Conte swore to the affidavits used to seize funds from Union Bank and Wells Fargo branches in California. Judge Theodore Katz issued the warrant for the Wells Fargo funds, while Judge Henry Pitman issued the warrant for Union Bank.

Judge Swain had originally indicated that she would hand down a ruling last week. Weiss told Poker News Daily that he received a copy of Judge Swain’s decision on Tuesday around Noon ET, but had not yet read through it. We’ll have a full update as it becomes available.

Testimony in Colorado Poker Case Comes Under Fire

District Court Judge James Hartmann recently ruled that the testimony of University of Denver Statistics Professor Robert Hannum proving that poker is a game of skill should not have been allowed in a case involving Kevin Raley in Colorado.

Despite the ruling, charges will not be re-filed against Raley, according to Poker Players Alliance (PPA) Colorado State Director Gary Reed, who told Poker News Daily, “We went to trial, won, and the State appealed. All they appealed was allowing the testimony of Hannum. Now, we’ve gone to the Appellate Court saying that we want to appeal Judge Hartmann’s ruling. Having been acquitted at trial, Raley can’t be retried and charges won’t be re-filed.” The timeline for an appeal has not been announced.

In January, a jury found Raley not guilty of illegal gambling for operating a poker league in a bar. According to a PPA statement released earlier this year, illegal gambling in Colorado is defined as follows: “Risking any money, credit, deposit, or other thing of value for gain contingent in whole or in part upon lot, chance, the operation of a gambling device, or the happening or outcome of an event, including a sporting event, over which the person taking a risk has no control, but does not include bona fide contests of skill.”

The PPA dispatched Hannum to testify on Raley’s behalf that poker is a game of skill and therefore not subject to Colorado gambling statutes. Hannum presented the results of a December study by Cigital and PokerStars that examined 103 million cash game hands on the world’s largest online poker site. In the end, three-quarters did not go to showdown. Instead, the process of betting and bluffing won pots prior to the cards being turned over. In the remaining 24.3% of hands, the player with the best five card hand won just 50.3% of the time. In the other 49.7% of pots, the player with the best five card hand folded prior to showdown.

An article that appeared in the Greeley Tribune explained the fallout from the appeal of Hannum’s testimony: “Anyone else charged with gambling for hosting or playing in a poker tournament will not be able to use Raley’s argument.” The news outlet summarized Judge Hartmann’s ruling: “The fact that the participants were playing for money — and the fact poker was partly a game of chance — meant the participants were gambling.”

Reed, however, told Poker News Daily that additional pressures contributed to Judge Hartmann’s ruling: “Politically and economically, the big casinos here in Colorado do not want to see open poker. They’ve been putting pressure on the government to shut down poker games outside of their locations. You have politicians’ pressure brought to bear and I think that’s why the judge ruled the way he did.”

In January, the PPA boasted 13,000 members in Colorado, including Raley. Before the case can be reviewed, Reed explained that the Colorado Supreme Court must first give the Appellate Court permission to do so. On a timeline, he explained, “Courts run on their own clocks and it depends on their case load.”

Reed explained the benefits of legalized poker in Colorado: “The more people we introduce into the game, the more people will sit down at a licensed poker room. While they’re doing that, they’ll feel more comfortable. Most poker room managers agree.” He explained that the conflict stems from the casino ownership, which is leery of any un-raked form of poker that could potentially lure customers away. Reed cautioned, “You don’t grow your base by denying the game to people, who will then be less comfortable when they come to casinos.”

The PPA filed an amicus brief on behalf of Raley when it learned that the State would dispute Hannum’s testimony. The brief quotes a bevy of poker literature, including books by Doyle Brunson (“Super System”), Gus Hansen (“Every Hand Revealed”), Dan Harrington (“Harrington on Hold’em”), David Sklansky (“The Theory of Poker” and “Tournament Poker for Advanced Players”), and Blair Rodman and Lee Nelson (“Kill Phil”).

We’ll keep you posted on the latest from the Colorado poker case on Poker News Daily.

Senator Robert Menendez Introduces S 1597 Legalizing Online Poker

On Thursday, Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) officially unveiled S 1597, the Internet Poker and Games of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act. Congress remains on recess until after Labor Day in the United States.

As its name implies, Menendez’s legislation explicitly legalizes and regulates games of skill like online poker, which should come as a welcome sign to players in the United States who question the legality of the game. The bill notes that poker, bridge, mahjong, backgammon, and chess are examples of games in which a player’s skill dominates the outcome: “While each of these games contains an element of chance, over any substantial interval, a player’s ultimate success is determined by that player’s relative level of skill.” Menendez’s measure weighs in at a hefty 89 pages.

The bill focuses heavily on online poker, noting, “Poker is part of the cultural and recreational fabric of the United States and has been since the founding days of the United States. United States poker aficionados have included presidents, judges, and statesmen.” S 1597 calls for the continuance of laws against sports betting online in a similar fashion to Congressman Barney Frank’s (D-MA) HR 2267, which establishes a complete licensing and regulatory framework for the internet gambling industry in the United States. HR 2267 was introduced exactly three months ago and is up to 54 co-sponsors.

The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for overseeing the licensing process for skill game operators and prescribing regulations. Each applicant for a license must submit a comprehensive financial background, an outline of the company’s structure and that of its affiliates, criminal and credit histories of executives, and how each licensee plans to combat underage gambling and compulsive gambling. In addition, they must convey how the games offered will be fair. All gamblers must be at least 21 years-old.

Licenses run for five years and can be renewed at the end of each term. Like other recent internet gambling legislation, Menendez’s S 1597 calls for a list of “persons self-excluded from gaming activities at all licensee sites.” States have a period of 90 days to opt out of the legislation after it becomes law; Indian tribes can also exempt themselves from the bill. S 1597 addresses problem gambling, allocating $14.2 million per year between 2010 and 2014 for awareness, treatment, and research.

S 1597 clearly states, “Nothing… shall be construed to repeal or amend any provision of State or Federal law prohibiting, restricting, or otherwise addressing bets or wagers on sporting events.” Professional sports leagues like the NFL have expressed a desire for Frank’s HR 2267 to contain clearer language outlawing sports betting. During a working dinner as part of National Poker Week, the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) claimed it was part of a “broad coalition” that included the NFL.

The Federal Government and State Governments will each reap 5% of a licensee’s deposits during each calendar month in taxes. Unauthorized gambling is subject to a 50% fee. Menendez’s S 1597 is similar in scope to last session’s S 3616, the Internet Skill Game Licensing and Control Act. However, Thursday’s version focuses on consumer protections. The PPA reviewed a draft of the bill in mid-July with what the organization called a “commitment” from Menendez to introduce it. The online poker measure was scheduled to be released before August 1st. However, it was ultimately revealed to the world on Thursday.

The 1.2 million member strong PPA will likely push its members to call their Senators and urge support of Menendez’s S 1597. As of the time of writing, no companion bill exists in the House of Representatives. Frank’s HR 2267 encompasses all forms of internet gambling except sports betting, whereas Menendez’s only legalizes games of skill. Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced the Skill Game Protection Act (HR 2610) during the last Congressional session. It exempted player versus player games from internet gambling law, including the Wire Act of 1961 and Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).

The PPA had not released an official statement on S 1597 as of press time. We’ll have full industry reaction to Menendez’s online poker legislation on Poker News Daily.

Dusty Schmidt (Leatherass) Drops USGA Lawsuit

Poker News Daily has learned that Dusty Schmidt, known in the online poker world as “Leatherass,” will drop his lawsuit against the United States Golf Association (USGA). He will likely play professional golf and continue his poker career.

A preliminary injunction originally scheduled for Monday, July 13th was delayed one day. The U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon heard arguments as to why Schmidt should have his amateur status reinstated after USGA officials revoked it due to his now-infamous poker/golf challenge. The prop bet focused on whether anyone could defeat Schmidt over 72 holes of golf and 10 heads-up poker matches. No poker player or golf pro took Schmidt up on his challenge. However, the USGA still revoked his amateur status. Schmidt’s challenge was worth $1 million.

Schmidt told Poker News Daily on Wednesday, “I lost the preliminary injunction on July 14th. I didn’t lose it because I was in the wrong from a golf rules perspective. The judge gave the impression that what the USGA did to me was not right. But from a legal perspective, I did not have a strong enough legal remedy for him to rule in my favor. He equated it to a church excommunicating a member unfairly and there not necessarily being a legal remedy under which a judge can force the church to reinstate that member.”

The USGA’s website has a section devoted to gambling that reads, “The definition of an amateur golfer provides that an amateur golfer is one who plays the game as a non-remunerative and non-profit-making sport. When gambling motives are introduced, problems can arise which threaten the integrity of the game.” Promotions designed to “create cash prizes” are frowned upon by the USGA, which is located in Far Hills, New Jersey and serves as golf’s governing body in the United States and Mexico.

According to the Oregonian, a trial date in Schmidt’s lawsuit was set for September 22nd. He candidly told the Northwest news outlet, “The USGA is pretty ingeniously designed. The way their rules are set up, they’re almost impenetrable from a legal perspective. I don’t think I could win with O.J.’s lawyers. No matter what angle you tried to go for, they had the loophole covered. There was just no way.” His amateur status was officially revoked in mid-June after an e-mail received three days earlier cautioned Schmidt that participating in the challenge could jeopardize his amateur status.

What’s left for Schmidt now that playing golf as an amateur is no longer an option? The golfer and poker player told Poker News Daily, “At this point, I am going to continue to work with my instructor, two-time PGA tour winner Brian Henninger, and when the time is right, likely make the decision to reenter pro golf.” According to stats posted on PGA.com, Henninger has over $3.3 million in lifetime earnings from PGA events, including 44 finishes in the Top 25. His wins came in the Deposit Guaranty Golf Classic in 1994 and the Southern Farm Bureau Classic five years later.

In an article that appeared in July, the Associated Press noted that the USGA gave Schmidt the green light to reapply for amateur status, but “the process wasn’t timely enough because of the registration fees he’d already paid to compete in events over the summer.” In a July interview, Schmidt told Poker News Daily why maintaining amateur status was vital: “They have no professional events here [in Oregon]. I have a baby girl on the way and want to enjoy playing competitive golf close to home. If I have to play only in professional events, I’ll be forced to go on the road. I have no opportunity to play competitive golf here.”

Three Kansas City Men Jailed for Contempt Regarding Internet Gaming and Poker

When it comes to laws regarding Internet gaming and poker, there has never been an attempt to prosecute any violators. Even the state of Washington, with the most draconian laws there are, has yet to arrest, try and convict someone of what the state considers a felony equal to that of child molesting – even though many have tried to get arrested. The federal courts in Kansas City, however, could be making the first steps in the prosecution of a case regarding online gaming and poker.

Last week, Tom Cascone (the owner of a popular local restaurant), Dominic Cervello and an unidentified third man, were sent to jail on contempt of court charges in the Federal Court of the Western District of Missouri in Kansas City. The trio have refused to testify before a grand jury in the court regarding a subject that, to this point, had not been disclosed. Local newspapers such as the Kansas City Star and television stations such as KMBC, after discussions with Cascone’s family, have found out that the case is about internet gaming and poker.

According to media reports, the beginning of the case goes back to March of this year. On March 31st, several homes, supposedly belonging to people tied into multiple previous investigations of organized crime from previous years in Kansas City, were raided by police allegedly investigating Internet gaming around the city. Although Cascone’s home was not one of the homes raided, he was called in to testify in the case as a witness, as he allegedly knew some of the people under question.

In July, Cascone, Cervello, and the unnamed third person were called in front of a grand jury to testify in the case and all three refused. The prosecution offered up immunity from prosecution to the trio, which was accepted, and they returned to court last week to begin what was thought to be their testimony in the case. Once on the stand, however, Cascone, Cervello, and the third party again refused to testify and were held in contempt of court by the unidentified judge overseeing the proceedings.

Unless they testify at the grand jury hearing, the trio could sit as long as 18 months in jail. There is the possibility of an earlier release if the grand jury completes its investigation into the shadowy charges or the grand jury’s term expires. The U. S. Attorney’s Office, through a spokesman, refused to answer questions from Kansas City media and the only reason that Cascone and Cervello’s names were exposed was because they requested public hearings.

Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Chairman Joe Brennan told Poker News Daily that he believes the issue is a local one and not related to other internet gaming cases. In June, the Southern District of New York seized over $30 million in online poker players’ funds from banks in California.

Previous court attempts to stop online gaming and poker have gone after the providers rather than the citizens. The now infamous case in Kentucky, where Governor Steve Beshear attempted to seize online gaming domain names, is currently on its way to the state’s Supreme Court. Minnesota, who attempted to force Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block gaming domains from access, dropped their challenges after legal action from the Poker Players Alliance and iMEGA. The case in Kansas City looks to be the first time that the U. S. Attorneys Office has brought a case to a federal court regarding online gaming and poker.

Same Hand, Different Game: Middle Pairs

In the game of poker, sometimes the hand you hold has different capabilities depending upon the game that you’re playing: what would be a great hand in one form of poker will be mere junk in another discipline of the game. In this series of articles, we’ll examine particular hands and what strategies a player should put in place; because the same hand isn’t always the best in different games.

Middle Pairs - Tricky And Dangerous

When it comes down to the middle pairs – and in this instance, we are talking about pocket sixes through pocket pairs – you can find yourself in a very tricky circumstance. You are starting with a pocket pair, but it is very susceptible to being outdrawn. Unless you hit the set (in most games, as you will see), it is a hand that will often be beaten by players who sit on face cards or Aces. The proper approach, dependent on the game, will help you to maximize the value and, when you are in a difficult situation, get away with the least amount of chips lost.

Texas Hold’em

In Texas Hold’em, the pocket pair can be wielded pretty easily. When you have the middle pair, though, you have to delicately walk through the board. Unless you catch that set - about a one in eight chance - you have to be able to read the board correctly and judge whether you are sitting good or have to muck the hand.

Pre-flop, pocket tens through pocket eights can be played for a raise with some semblance of confidence. The pocket sevens and sixes, however, don’t have the same level of strength that a player should look for when raising a hand. This doesn’t mean that you should throw these hands away, though; all of the middle pairs are worth calling a raise unless there is a huge amount of action in front of you, and you can at the minimum take a look at the flop.

After the flop is where things can get a bit tricky. If the flop comes down with overcards to your pair - and especially if the flop contains one or more face cards or Aces - you have to definitely consider the playing style of your opponent and judge whether to continue on in the hand. This is a spot where conserving the chips, either through check-calling or folding, will work out well for your future at this particular table.

If the flop comes under your middle pair, you have to find out where you are at very quickly. A bet or raise should get the information you are looking for here and, if you are raised or three-bet, then you have to make a decision as to whether your opponent is pushing his big Ace or has actually caught a set against your pair. It is a hand that you can go to the river with but be sure to control the betting on future streets.

If you catch your set, there are a multitude of options available to you: you can either slow play the set and look to draw some more chips from your opponent or pound the board with bets (especially useful if you are against an aggressive player). Be mindful of the board texture and be on the lookout for either straights or flushes that come to light.

Omaha Hold’em

With Omaha the middle pair is even more problematic than in Texas Hold’em: in Omaha if you don’t catch a set on the flop - or at least the turn - you are looking at getting rid of the hand, because you more than likely won’t take it down with your middle pair. When you add in the factor of playing High-Low, then the decisions take on another turn.

While hitting the set in High-Low may be good enough to take the high half the pot, you really are looking for the board to pair to make a boat (and try to dodge an opponent who is sitting on their own pair that makes quads). Caution should be at the forefront of your mind here as you can get into a betting war that depletes your stack when you are sitting there with the second best hand.

If you have pocket eights, sevens or sixes, you have to take a look at your other two cards to judge whether you can make a solid low hand. Unless you have a suited Ace to go along with one of your pair cards, you shouldn’t be looking at making the low and even then you don’t have what could be considered to be a playable hand. This is a common mistake that players will make in the Omaha game – continuing to play the hand when they should have gotten out long before the river – and you should look to conserve your chips for a position where you have much better holdings.

Razz

Pocket pairs are something that definitely must be avoided in Razz. With the middle pairs, however, there are some options that open up for bluffing and/or for taking the hand outright.

Pocket tens through pocket eights should be avoided at all costs, but there is potential in the pocket sevens and sixes. You should preferably be gated – with one of your pair in your hidden cards and the other showing – and have your opponents all showing cards higher than yours to make a move on the pot. If you have your pair hidden, you would need an Ace, deuce or trey showing to be aggressive.

In Razz, however, you have to remember that you have to almost draw perfectly over the next four cards to catch the low hand. If your pair hits another like card on Fourth Street - for example, (7-7) 2-7 - then you need to quickly run away. If, however, you are drawing with a (6-3) 6-2-A, you can continue cautiously to Seventh Street to try to catch your low cards. As always with the game of poker and especially with non-community card games, be aware of the potential that your opponents are displaying and get out when it looks as though you are beaten.

Seven Card Stud and Seven Card High-Low

In these games, the middle pair can be a very effective tool, especially if it’s a hidden pair. If you are fortunate enough to be able to pull a third card on one of the streets, you can be aggressive with them and often get players who have two pair to come along with you to the river. In this instance, your payoff would be quite large. But there are some factors that you have to keep in mind before you start counting those chips, however.

If the two other cards to your pair are part of the other player’s face up cards, then you have to consider whether it will be wise to continue on with the hand. If you are holding pocket sevens, for example, and both of the sevens you covet are up, the best you are going to be able to do is two pair (barring hitting trips somewhere over the next four cards). In most cases, the middle pair is not going to be enough to win the hand, as someone else will have built a much better holding.

You also have to consider the texture of an opponent’s displayed cards and judge whether you can beat what they are showing or, in some cases, insinuating that they have. If someone is showing four suited cards or has two pair already in the up cards, your measly pair should have already been in the muck. Remember that you want to be able to have some ammunition when you hit larger hands; calling along and looking to hit aren’t going to conserve your chip stack to be able to do that.

In High-Low, you have to consider the same options that you did in Razz. Unless you catch a card to make the set and take the high, you shouldn’t be in the hand. If you are looking at the low hand, you have to have that Ace, deuce or trey in the mix to allow you to go on in the hand. Always remember your goal in a High-Low game is to scoop the entirety of the pot rather than split it, though.

Summary

The middle pocket pair can be one of the sneakiest hands in the game of poker. Played correctly, it can score a nice sized pot into your chip stack; played incorrectly, it can wreck not only your stack but your confidence. Be sure to wade into playing the middle pairs carefully, as the same hand is sometimes not the best hand in different games. In the next segment of this series, we will take a look at the baby pairs and how they can be highly useful in different games.

Motion in Online Poker Seizure May Be Decided Next Week

The motion by Costigan Media to unseal the warrants and affidavits associated with the seizure of over $30 million in online poker funds may be ruled on next week. Lawyers for the parent company of Gambling911 and the U.S. Government took to a New York courtroom on Monday.

The funds in question belonged to a Wells Fargo branch in San Francisco and were part of a seizure that affected over 24,000 online poker players. Costigan Media’s motion notes, “Although the warrant was issued a month ago and although the funds are now safely under the control of the government and in no danger of dissipation, the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant still remains under seal. So do any supporting documents relating to this Court’s decision to seal the warrant application.” FBI Special Agent Dana Conte swore to the affidavit, while Magistrate Judge Theodore Katz issued the warrant.

Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) Executive Director Joe Brennan, who spoke to Costigan Media representatives following Monday’s hearing, told Poker News Daily, “The judge had a hard time understanding why she should keep a warrant sealed after it’s been served. She said that she could understand the Government not wanting to reveal names of informants, but other than that, she didn’t understand why it should be kept sealed.” Following the hearing, attorneys for the U.S. Government met with the judge for an hour and 15 minutes behind closed doors. A decision should be handed down next week.

Many in the industry have expressed concern about the contents of the warrants and affidavits. However, according to Brennan, they are important in order to prevent future seizures by the Southern District of New York and other bodies: “The Government has seized $40 million from payment processors, but it’s actually online poker players’ money. No one knows why the Government did it. I think the players would want to know why their money has been seized. It’s better to know if the Southern District of New York will go after more money.”

Costigan Media, which owns the popular website Gambling911, filed a motion to open the warrants and affidavits associated with the seizure citing First Amendment rights. Brennan explained, “After a warrant is served, it’s supposed to be public record. The Government wants to keep it secret for some reason. That’s a violation of everyone’s rights.” Costigan Media’s motion cites cases involving other media outlets such as the Baltimore Sun, New York Times, Newsday, and Gannett, the latter of which publishes 84 daily newspapers in the United States.

At the helm of Costigan Media is Chris Costigan, who was upbeat following yesterday’s hearing. Brennan noted that the judge did not look down upon Gambling911 bringing a complaint under the First Amendment. Instead, she carefully tried to ascertain why the Government would want to keep documents under wraps. Brennan revealed, “The fact that the judge did not look down at Costigan Media doing business as Gambling911 was encouraging. Instead, she thought, ‘I have a media outlet that is making a First Amendment application and am taking them very seriously.’”

The United States Government cited “law enforcement concerns” as a contributing factor to keeping the seal on the warrants and affidavits. It also charged that First Amendment rights do not apply to seizure warrant applications. Now, it will be up to the judge in the case to decide if the reasons for the online poker funds seizure in early June will be brought into the public spotlight.

Stay tuned to Poker News Daily for more information.