The GameMaster's Editorial Page:
A Bold Plan for Iraq
(07-18-07)

by The GameMaster

In November, 2006 I sat down and tried to solve the puzzle of how to approach the situation in Iraq in such a way that everyone involved can come out winners. My primary motivation is that I have a very brave nephew serving as a Blackhawk helicopter pilot over there and I want him to come home ASAP. After formulating what you'll read below, I sent it off to talk shows, Congressional representatives, Senators; even my local paper, but other than a polite rejection from the Op/Ed editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, I heard nothing back from anyone. Now that tells me my idea is either really stupid or maybe just ahead of its time. Well, the joy of owning a website like this is that I can pretty much publish anything, so here it is: my solution to ending the war in Iraq.

It's really all in the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report and one need only "connect the dots" to see the strategy required to get the situation in Iraq on a much firmer footing. My very simple, yet powerful solution is to require that every drop of oil produced in Iraq be sold to a joint Iraq-United States company, which will then resell it to Iraq's current customers, such as France, Germany, etc. as well as Iraq itself. The difference from the way it's being done now is that the oil will be sold to all current buyers at the prevailing rate (about $70 per barrel), but the payment will be made to this U.S.-controlled entity. When you control the gold, so to speak, you get to make the rules.

According to the ISG report, Iraq's oil production is about 2.2 million barrels per day, with exports being 1.5 barrels per day. At current rates, that's roughly 100 million dollars of gross income each and every day, or about 3 billion dollars per month, just from exports alone! The report also states that this income represents 95 percent of government revenue and yet production is below prewar levels, "and far short of the vast potential of the Iraqi oil sector."

Is it possible to take over the oil business in Iraq? It seems to me that we can quickly and rather easily redeploy our armed forces to the oil fields and take control. Sure, many Iraqis will protest and our critics will say, "See, we knew you wanted the oil all along", but when the 4th Infantry Division shows up, the oil fields will be under their control in just a matter of days, if not hours. Yes, we will be "grabbing" the oil, but it'll just be temporary and will give everyone involved a fair shot at making Iraq a stable country. U.S. military units would guard the ports, pipelines and other vital oil transportation hubs. Guarding things is something our military does very well and occupying defensive positions will greatly reduce the casualty rate, as opposed to patrolling the streets and fighting insurgents. Also, the military, preferably an Armor division, should be established as a blocking force along the Iraq-Iran border, in case Iran thinks of making any "provocative" moves against Iraq. Further, other units should be placed along the Iraq-Syria border to act as some sort of filter to keep "undesirables" from entering Iraq that way. Since Baghdad is so important, the U.S. could establish the type of unit we had in Berlin, Germany for so many years: the Berlin Brigade. This Baghdad Brigade would protect the Green Zone, which is the seat of both the Iraqi federal government and the U.S. Embassy, but would not try to secure the rest of the city; once again reducing casualties dramatically.

While this plan may provoke increased violence in the beginning, once everyone understands they'll receive their cut of the revenue only if they "behave", the violence will likely drop off. About three or four weeks of no-food-because-we-got-no-money, sectarian violence will become less important than starving. Cruel? Maybe, but it'll eventually work and it's a lot less cruel than what the Iraqis are doing to each other. The Kurds won't be thrilled with this idea, but they're basically on our side and will cope since they'll trust our word that this is just temporary. The Shia in the south will freak out, but with our military guarding the installations, there's not much they'll be able to do about it.

This takes us to Central Iraq, the oil-poor home of the Sunnis. I'm no geologist, but from what I understand, oil is there but production has never been attempted, basically because they never needed it. By controlling the purse strings, an exploration effort can be made, thus giving the Central area the possibility of their own oil production in time. In any event, if the oil revenue is shared on the basis of population, as is recommended by the ISG report (see page 24), all Iraqis will then have a stake in seeing this plan succeed. Done the right way, everyone in Iraq could be rich or at least well-off, which will make the day the new Mercedes models come out more important that who belongs to what sect or tribe. Money - big money like Iraq can have - has a way of calming people down, so long as it's divided fairly.

If a policy like this is implemented, the U.S. will have to do a certain amount of diplomatic negotiation, but at least it'll be with the Iraqis (Kurds, Sunnis and Shia) and OPEC, but not with Iran and Syria - unless they get oil from Iraq - which will make the whole situation much simpler. If Iran and Syria do get oil from Iraq, the fact that the U.S. controls its flow just might make them more receptive to staying out. And I'd tell OPEC that Iraq is going to sell as much oil over the next few years as possible, so if you want to keep the price up, the rest of you are going to have to cut production. It won't win any friends for us from that group, but how many of them are true friends anyway?

Certainly, this plan does not allow a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in the short-term, but it does allow a rapid "redeployment" that the Democrats have been talking about and you just have to think that placing the majority of our forces into defensive positions will greatly reduce the casualty rates. As for who should be the "Oil Czar" of Iraq, I would suggest that it be someone selected by a joint committee of Congress, as opposed to being a Presidential appointment, if for no other reason than to give this person a direct line to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, etc. Plus, it'll keep Halliburton out of the picture, thank you very much (although I have to admit this job is right down their alley.) On the operations level, undoubtedly a retired oil executive would be a good choice as the Chief Operating Officer. Putting the right people in there could stimulate investment in Iraq's oil industry, just as the ISG report suggests.

It's time for us to stop doing the same thing in Iraq that has already been proven does not work. A new plan is obviously needed. What I don't understand is that I have never heard a discussion about this, either on the political-type of shows on TV or in the news magazines. Surely, it can't hurt to talk.

The GameMaster's Editorial Page:
Speak Softly and Carry a Big Pocket Pair
(03-13-07)

I just hate the idea of elected officials - who, as a reminder, serve the public - trying to impose their vision of morality upon us. Some people think gambling is immoral and that's their right; I obviously disagree and, because gambling of one form or another is legal in 48 of our 50 states, if I want to visit a local casino and gamble away my family farm, it's okay because that's my "pursuit of happiness." But if I want to do it online, the U.S. government basically says I can't. That's not okay.

We need to change their attitude, because they work for us. Just as the voters showed their disapproval of the Iraq war in the November, 2007 elections, so we poker-playing voters must show our disapproval of the various attempts by our legislators to make online poker illegal. The time to start is now and the way to do it is for you to join the Poker Players Alliance (http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/). It's free, so you have no excuse - go there now and sign up in the free category only (more about that later). I'll wait right here.

All signed up? Good. Now tell your friends, because we need to get about one million U.S. voters on board in order for the PPA to have any clout with Congress (membership is 160,000 at this point.) Unfortunately, that's how it works - the squeakiest wheel gets the grease - and a million wheels make a big squeak. If our democracy really worked the way it should, then even a lone voice would be heard, but our population's grown a bit since the Constitution was written, so it takes a few voices speaking in unison to be heard these days. With poker being our "national card game", more or less (Yes, I know Blackjack is pretty popular, too), it should be a cinch to get 1,000,000 U.S. voters on the membership list of the PPA so the PPA's new Chairman can get to work.

The PPA recently announced that former Senator Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY) has been hired to lead the fight. Because I'm originally from New Jersey, I know who he is, but many of you may not. Mr. D'Amato is not just some lobbyist who's looking to make a few $$$ from this situation - he's been an avid poker player for many years; his Thursday night game on Capitol Hill was legendary; not unlike that good ol' Missouri boy, Harry Truman's games at the White House. Can Mr. D'Amato change things overnight? Probably not, but the sooner he begins, the sooner it'll happen.

One fine day, Internet gambling will be legal here in the U.S. Whether it'll just be "games of skill" like poker, Blackjack, Backgammon, etc. or all casino games, I can't say, but it's going to happen, trust me. Our nation's thirst for new taxes is just too big for this idea to die. One day - maybe during this new Democrat-controlled Congress - somebody's going to wake up and see what an opportunity legalized Internet gambling truly is, at least from a tax point of view. But I'm also realistic. With a brave, heroic nephew serving as a U.S. Army Blackhawk pilot in Iraq and with news that our brave, heroic wounded from that conflict are not getting the best of care here; I know Congress has more important issues to deal with, but I'm confident they can walk and chew gum at the same time. It'll take a while, but it can be made to happen because the vast majority of the American people want it to happen.

Okay, now let me pitch this one more time. If you haven't joined the PPA yet or if you joined only on the free level, it's probably no surprise to hear me to tell you that the PPA will need some $$$ to get this done. Along that line, the nice people at Full Tilt Poker - one of our recommended poker rooms here - are offering you the opportunity for bonuses if you upgrade your membership status. At the PPA, a Full Member pays $20, a Supporting Member pays $40, a Contributing Member pays $100 (I'm in that category) and a Distinguished Member pays $1000. If you upgrade from a free membership to a Full Member, Full Tilt will pay you a $50 bonus after you've accumulated 1000 Full Tilt Points, which are kind of like frequent flyer miles. Hell, even if you join the PPA as a free member, Full Tilt is hosting a freeroll tournament that you can enter, but if you can give more, please do so; an upgrade of any type pays a bonus of up to $1200, depending upon how high you go. All of the details can be found here:

Please, please, please join the Poker Players Alliance today!!

The GameMaster's Editorial Page:
The Squeeze is On
(01-19-07)

(Note: As of January 19, 2007 Click2Pay is no longer accepting accounts from residents of the U.S.A.)

This press release recently appeared on the Neteller Web site:

16 January 2007 - NETELLER Plc (LSE: NLR), the leading independent online money transfer business, today issued the following statement regarding the speculation surrounding two of its former directors and founder shareholders, Mr Stephen Lawrence and Mr John Lefebvre:

While travelling separately in the US, Mr Lawrence and Mr Lefebvre, both former directors of the Company, were detained by US authorities on Monday, 15 January 2007.

Other than as shareholders, neither Mr Lawrence nor Mr Lefebvre has any current position with or connection to NETELLER.

The Group has not received any communication or correspondence from any US authority regarding this or any related matter.

Pending clarification of the situation the Board has sought immediate temporary suspension of NETELLER's shares.

Further information will be issued in due course.

The next day, Neteller announced it would no longer make transfers of money to or from online gambling websites for residents of the United States, which has left a lot of people with $$$ on deposit at various card rooms and/or casinos with no easy way of getting the funds back. In their panic over the arrest of two major shareholders, the executives of Neteller chose to abandon the people that had essentially made them successful - ever since PayPal left the marketplace. Instead of announcing a "window" wherein people could transfer funds from a casino or poker room back to their Neteller account, they just stopped the service altogether! If you have $$$ in your Neteller account they are safe, I'm sure and you may still transfer them to your bank account, U.S.-based or otherwise, or you may transfer them to any Neteller merchants that do not offer gambling (I'll bet there's a ton of those) or you may leave the funds at Neteller.

But many players have $$$ sitting in casino or poker room accounts and if they want to transfer those funds out of there, either to their bank or to another casino/poker room, they need to find a way of doing it. So far, virtually every casino or poker room that has continued doing business with U.S. residents up to this point - Poker Stars, Ultimate Bet and Full Tilt, among others - has sent their customers an email about the Neteller situation and each has alternative ways of moving your funds. One common thread I've found is an e-wallet company called Click2Pay, so I opened an account with them by first going to their Web site, which is www.click2pay.com/ The process is about as you'd expect, but I must say I was impressed with the security measures they employ.

The "usual stuff" comes first, name, address, etc. and your Social Security number, which is going to freak out some people, but as I recall, Neteller required it so if you had a Neteller account, your number's already out there in cyberspace. Anyway, the primary identifier for your account is your email address, so make sure you give them a working address; they also need a working phone number. In fact about 10 minutes after opening my account with Click2pay, they called on the main number I gave them to confirm it was really me who was doing this; the caller asked for the answer to my security question (you know, like what was the name of your first dog). But even more impressive were the security questions they asked in the account-opening process, which revolved around information that's available in your credit report - things like, "Which of these addresses are a previous address for you?" and they actually had my previous address in the multiple choice list. I won't list all of the security questions here, but you better be who you say you are when you open the account or it's not likely to happen. Oh, I know the thieves of the world are aware of this stuff and it's mostly to keep honest people honest, but it did give me a lot of confidence.

Moving on, I then needed to link a bank account to the Click2pay account and they'll be making a small deposit, like 3 or 4 cents in there, which I will then verify at the Click2pay Website. But we're still not ready to start swapping $$$ around. As I see it, I'll need to fund the Click2pay account from my bank account before doing anything else. For starters, Click2Pay gave me a $100 limit (!!!), but that can be raised to $750 after one week, which is still too small. It's kind of weird to impose such low limits because these are all cash transactions, but I'm obviously no expert, so we'll see how it goes. Anyway, once I've funded my Click2pay account, it appears that I'll have to make a small deposit at each poker room or casino in order to establish that I have a Click2Pay account and then I'll be able to start swapping $$$ around. I might be wrong about this sequence of events, but the best thing I can say is, try it for yourself to see how it goes.

Of course, I now have to wonder if Click2Pay will panic like Neteller did, thus making all of this a futile effort and putting me back to square one. If you think my use of the word panic is too harsh, let me remind you that the rules of engagement, so to speak, for the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" (UIGE) have yet to be put in place by the U.S. Treasury, which is the entity designated to set up the framework that's supposed to stop the flow of $$$ to "illegal" gambling sites. They have until July, 2007 to put the rules and procedures in place, but the Federal Government, in what we all used to believe was The Land of the Free, is definitely putting on the squeeze. You'd think that the November, 2007 mid-term elections sent a message to those who espouse less government (the Republicans) that they're just paying lip-service to the idea, but that's obviously not the case. Here we are trapped in the "tar baby" of Iraq and the Feds are worrying about some of us playing poker online. Ridiculous.

There's nothing quite so frightening as a person in power trying to impose morality upon others. Things like that never seem to end in a peaceful way because it's just a matter of time before someone starts believing, "God is on my side" and far too many wars have been fought over that idea. For me, I just want the least-known, least-discussed and least-celebrated right we all have: the right to be left alone.

The GameMaster

The GameMaster's Editorial Page:
An Update on the Online Gambling Legislation
(10-17-06)

As you undoubtedly know, in a last-ditch effort by conservative Republicans, a bill entitled the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act" (UIGE), was attached to an unrelated bill just prior to the the Congressional recess and it passed without discussion or debate. As expected, President Bush signed the bill into law, so where do we stand now?I'm not a lawyer nor an expert in legislative matters and I have an obvious vested interest in seeing online casinos and poker rooms thrive, so if you're concerned about how all of this may affect you from a legal point of view, I urge you to contact someone who really is an expert. But it should come as no surprise that I have an opinion and, at least up to now, Congress hasn't taken away my right to express it. You probably didn't come here for my opinion on having your rights trampled on by neo-conservatives that hold - for the moment - most of the legislative power here in the United States, but we're hopefully going to change that in the November elections.

What I'll do instead of verbally beating up the Congress and Administration is update you on the companies that I know of who are no longer accepting casino and/or poker room patrons from the U.S., plus tell you about some that are going to "stay the course" and then offer an educated opinion on how all of this might eventually play out. First of all, bear in mind that this law does not make criminals of those U.S. citizens who patronize online casinos and poker rooms. What the law is going to attempt to do is use the U.S. banking system to stop the transfer of funds to those entities that are viewed as being illegal enterprises that offer "games of chance" (the specific wording in the law), which is what has given some sites that offer poker a bit of hope that they can continue to operate as they are now.

I certainly agree that poker is a game of skill, as is Blackjack, Video Poker and Backgammon - all topics I've written about before. But I'm not the one who gets to make that determination and if the past is any indication of the future, those who do ultimately make the determination will start by using a very broad definition and lump all casino-type games together as "games of chance" and that includes Hold'em poker, Seven Card Stud poker, Blackjack and Video Poker. I honestly believe that it can and will be proven in a court of law that these are, indeed, games of skill but that's not going to happen overnight unless those who benefit the most - the casinos and poker rooms that offer those games - get really aggressive and begin filing law suits right away. I don't think they'll do that, but hope I'm wrong.

Who's Out

Speaking of poker in particular, the most notable "pull out" was Party Poker, who stated they will no longer accept real-money players that reside in the U.S. and they were quickly joined by Cryptologic software, which powers such operations like InterPoker. Both of these companies were advertisers here, so we're naturally disappointed that they made this decision. Hopefully they'll cooperate with the poker rooms that have decided to continue operating as before in an attempt to stave off a blanket prohibition of online poker play. I also know that Noble Poker is out and I believe they use Playtech software, so any other poker room using that brand may also pull out; Titan Poker being one of them. Another notable pull out is Pacific Poker, also a former advertiser here. By the way, this is not meant to be a complete list of who's staying and who's going - I'm just addressing those sites that have advertised here or where I've played in the past. The last one going that I know of is Paradise Poker, but this list was made on 15 October 2006, so it may have changed by the time you're reading it. The Legislative forum over at Twoplustwo.com has been tracking this situation very closely, so you might want to check that out before making any decisions.

Who's In

Full Tilt has stated that they're going to continue to operate, at least "in the short term" as they study the issue. Poker Stars, the only place where I've played that does not advertise here has decided to stick it out, as has Ultimate Bet, which appears to me to be the "parent" organization of Bet21.com, the new Blackjack Tournament site. That site continues to operate normally, at least as this is being written. Full Tilt Poker was one of the first to say they were staying and I believe their enthusiasm will carry over to the legal aspect of this - hopefully they'll be the first to challenge the new law in court. With their All Star lineup of professional poker players, Full Tilt can be a very effective force in righting this wrong. There are many other poker rooms that are staying, but once again, I'm not trying to compile a complete list, so check out the Legislative forum over at Twoplustwo.com before making any decisions.

Cooperation Needed

Unfortunately, many in the poker world are trying their best to disassociate themselves from the "casino" market, which is understandable to one degree or another, but is - in my not-so-humble opinion - a big mistake. As I mentioned earlier, poker is not the only game of skill to be found in a casino and, if my assumptions are correct, the online casino category has a lot more $$$ with which to do battle than the online poker sites. And make no mistake; it will take a lot of $$$ to turn this situation around.

The "skill" versus "chance" debate took place right here in Missouri when the state was considering the legalization of casinos back in the early '90s. Because the Missouri Constitution had to be amended in order to allow casinos, a vote by the people was required in order for it to pass (see how that works, Senator Frist?). Well, the amendment that passed had a flaw in it that allowed only for games of skill, which were determined to be Blackjack, Video Poker, "table" Poker, (like Stud and Hold"em) and - believe it or not - Craps. That's right; when the first casino opened here in 1994 (??), the only games available were those - no slots, no Roulette, no Big Six wheel - just BJ, VP, Poker and Craps (The thinking being that there is a certain amount of skill in Craps, such as which bets to make; some are better than others. Yes, I'm chuckling as I write this, but at least it got the casinos open here.) It took another state-wide referendum-type of vote to correct the amedment so that "games of chance" - which the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act addresses - would be allowed here in Missouri.

So, that's at least one precedent for differing the games, but there's an even better one. In New Jersey, the State Supreme Court ruled, in 1986, as I recall, that Blackjack was a game of skill and those who played it skilllfully could not be forced to leave the casinos. Of course, that basically ruined the game of BJ there because the casinos were allowed to take "counter-measures" against skillful players, like cutting the shoe in half, restricting the bet spread and so forth. It's only been recently that a half-way decent game of BJ has been available in A.C., and it's still not exactly a garden spot for card counters. But, it's a very positive statement the Blackjack is a game of skill, which presumably does not fall under the provisions of this new law. That's the good news; here's the bad:

The Bad News

As I said earlier, those who make the specific rules and regulations required under this law are most likely, in my opinion, to use a broad definition for everything; they'll say all of the casino games are games of chance - Poker, BJ, VP, whatever - and it'll take court decisions to straighten that out. To be sure, the poker-is-a-game-of-skill crowd will ultimately prevail but that's going to take a long time, especially when you consider that the rulemakers have 9 months to do their work. How can you fight a rule that hasn't been written yet? Sure, it'll allow the poker rooms to continue to operate and that's a good thing, but it'll drag out the process and as we used to say in the stock market, "uncertainty is never bullish."

Now, let's look at the brick-and-mortar casino industry, like A.C., Las Vegas, Tunica and those guys. They don't know if they should be happy or sad. Happy because the $$$ that don't go to offshore casinos and poker rooms might find their way into "real" casinos and sad because they would have immediately become the 800-pound gorilla of online gambling if they had been allowed to offer casino games on the 'Net. After all, who's going to deposit their hard-earned $$$ at some virtual casino in Costa Rica when they can deposit them at Harrah's or MGM?

Okay, here's the really bad news in the form of a prediction. Although most U.S. banks would rather not be placed in the position of playing "cop" in this situation, I predict that the rulemakers will tell the banks to not honor any withdrawal or deposit requests from such entities as Firepay, Neteller, Click2Pay and other so-called "electronic wallets" that have any agreements with online casinos or poker rooms. Believe me, they already know these companies exist, so I'm not giving away any secrets here; just look at the Deposit section of any poker room's software and you'll have a list of at least 6 of these companies. Now consider this: I would imagine that a private individual residing in the United States probably cannot make an Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) to, say, the 1st National Bank of North Korea or the Havana Savings and Loan because it'll be blocked by the bank, or at least the Federal Reserve system somewhere along the way. If there is such a list of "banned" banks, what's to stop them from adding all of the e-wallet companies to it? There are only a handful, so it's not that big a deal.

Oh, I realize these e-wallet companies will argue that they're just like PayPal, in that they deal with many other merchants besides online casinos and poker rooms, so transactions to and from these e-wallets don't necessarily mean someone is depositing or withdrawing funds from a casino or poker room. Riiight. I mean, how many non-casino businesses actually accept payment via these e-wallets? And don't forget a key point here: These e-wallet companies are, by design, located outside the U.S., which means they pay no taxes here and have no protection under U.S. law, so the rulemakers really won't care how loudly they yell. But, let's just say that Fred's Antiques in Anytown, USA does accept Neteller and he has nothing to do with online gambling. Is he to suffer the loss of his preferred payment system? The short answer is yes. Good ol' Fred can always switch to PayPal and besides, there aren't enough Freds out there to raise much of a stink.

Like it or not, the U.S. banking system is the biggest and most important in the world. There aren't many banks out there that are willing to fight it, so everyone will eventually fall into line and that will leave the U.S.-based patrons of online "games of skill" sites between the proverbial rock and hard place. If I'm correct in my prediction, anyone that has $$$ in one of those e-wallets will be able to deposit and withdraw funds from the casinos or poker rooms, but will not be able to access the $$$, nor fund their account in the way it's mostly done now, by EFT from or to your checking account. A few e-wallets have debit cards and those might still work, but that remains to be seen.

Okay, now let's say you win a big online poker tournament and the prize is $10,000. You can easily transfer the $$$ from the poker room to your e-wallet, but then what? Request a check? Don't you think checks from these places will be banned, just like EFTs? You can deposit the check at your local bank, but from there it will go through the Federal Reserve system to a correspondant bank and somewhere along the way, a red flag will pop up. At best, the check will bounce and your local bank will send it back. At worst, your account will come under scrutiny for some sort of attempt at an illegal transaction and who knows what may follow? Okay, so you don't request a check, what's next? Hop on a plane and fly to wherever the e-wallet is located and request cash? Fair enough - if it's a large amount, the trip might be worth it. But now you have to get back in the U.S.A. while carrying a "reportable" amount of $$$. Good luck with that, especially if you're of Middle Eastern extraction or appearance. Even your average white guy has problems these days carrying large amounts of cash on airliners - just ask almost any Blackjack card-counting team or Daniel Negreanu, the poker pro who was stopped in Miami while returning from the Bahamas with a bunch of cash that he declared. Daniel made it through okay, but it took some effort as he explained in his blog at cardplayer.com/

The way it looks to me is that U.S. residents who have $$$ at online poker rooms, casinos or e-wallets will not be able to put more $$$ in them, nor easily get any of them back. That means the U.S. participation at these sites will gradually dwindle, since most players lose and they'll eventually zero out their accounts. Sure, the Swedes, Danes and our British cousins will be able to play on, but there won't be the huge participation that we've seen in the past. Speaking of "huge participation", what poker event benefits more from online satellites than the Main Event at the World Series of Poker (WSOP)? Just the other day, Harrah's - which owns and operates the WSOP - stated that they would "likely" no longer accept entries from online poker sites, in light of this new law. Full Tilt Poker responded that their satellites for such events will be paid in cash to the winner, so that the winner can register at the event like any other individual. That's great, but what if the scenario I'm predicting comes true? You now have $10,000 or $12,000 in your Full Tilt account with no way to get at it. See what I mean about the brick-and-mortar casinos being happy and sad? Harrah's makes a nice profit from the WSOP, but those profits won't be nearly as big if this law is strictly enforced.

What to do?

The optimist in me says to play on and hope that A) the rules are not as onerous as I've predicted, or B) the industry finds a way around it, either through decisions in the courts or by way of another other legal maneuver. In any event, there is some time available because the new rules must go into effect no longer than 270 days from the signing by President Bush. But understand that you could get "blindsided" by this - there's nothing in the law that says the rulemakers have to take the entire 270 days - so it could literally happen overnight.

The pessimist in me says to get your $$$ in hand and just play at your local, friendly brick-and-mortar casino. That's a real bummer for someone like me, who's "physically challenged" (the politically-correct way of saying "handicapped") and cannot drive a car, but we may not have a choice in the matter. But, I do have a honey of a VP game near me, so all is not lost - plus everybody tells me that it's much easier to win a poker tournament "live" than online, so what I've learned will not be lost - although getting there will be a problem.

The super-pessimist in me says to move - Canada, Mexico, Great Britain - if I want to keep playing online and Las Vegas or A.C. (my old stomping grounds) if I want to play "live". Transportation would still be a problem, unless I get a condo on the Vegas Strip and use taxis to get around. Hmmm....that's starting to sound good.

- The GameMaster

The GameMaster's Editorial Page:
Senate Approves Online Gambling Ban(10-1-06)

A backdoor move by the Senate Majority leader, Senator Frist (R-TN.) has allowed the bill designed to curb online gambling to pass.

Sen. Frist got the Internet gambling ban attached to a defense bill designed to boost security at nation's ports, which was passed on Saturday, October 1, 2006 in such a way as to circumvent the normal process that new laws follow. Normally, a bill that has been passed by the House of Representatives must have a companion bill introduced in the Senate, which allows for debate and discussion, but that was not the case here.

Basically what happened is that the House bill was attached - in its entirety - to an unrelated bill, one that strengthens port security here in the U.S., for which there was (and should be) strong support by all Senators, be they Republican, Democrat or otherwise. It then came down to a "vote for one, vote for all" situation. Well, nobody wanted to kill the port security legislation, so it passed.

No wonder the American people have such a low regard for our legislators. Rather than go the route that allows all of us to have our say, the "I know best about how you should spend your $$" faction of this Congress hijacked the process to ram it through. If you're an American citizen and this doesn't piss you off, you're in for a rude awakening. It won't stop here.

The United States Congress has a reputation for trying to legislate morality; the most the most famous being the Volstead Act ("Prohibition") that tried to make America an alcohol-free zone between 1919 and 1933; a period of time that saw the rise of organized crime, bootlegging, and bathtub gin. Prohibition doesn't work here in the U.S., unless what you're trying to prohibit is disliked by a majority of the people. And our system of government is - in spite of the way it looks right now - a government of the people, by the people.

This little political trick is going to come back and bite Congress in its butt; trust me. The American people aren't fools. We are lazy at times and complacent at times, but we don't like anybody who messes with our rights and that's exactly what's happening here. The Republicans are scared to death that they're going to lose their majority in the 2006 mid-term elections and so they should be. I know I'll be doing all I can to make sure that happens and I hope you will, too.

GM

Is Internet Poker Dead?(7-15-06)

The United States House of Representatives recently voted to pass H.R. 4411, commonly called the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act," which is a bill that basically prohibits banks and credit card companies from transferring $$$ to Internet gambling sites. It must be mentioned that playing poker online is not even mentioned in the bill, although it does address games "predominately subject to chance" like slot machines, Roulette, Baccarat and so forth. Blackjack, Video Poker and "table" Poker are, at least arguably, games of skill much like Backgammon and Chess, so even if this bill were to become law, there'd undoubtedly be many court cases to test that notion. As most of you know, virtually all U.S. banks and credit card companies currently refuse to process online gambling transactions, so the main thrust of this bill is already obsolete; the online financial community has already worked its way around that by establishing so-called "e-wallet" companies like Firepay and Neteller. But one needs to remember that for this bill to become law, it first must be passed by the U.S. Senate and be signed into law by the President. While I have no doubt that our current President would sign such a bill, the U.S. Senate does not at this time have a similar proposal in the works (although I'll bet that Senator Kyle, R-Arizona, is rubbing his hands with glee) and it's very doubtful that such a bill will be introduced there before Congress takes its recess for the 2006 elections. And, in my not-so-humble opinion, that's the true motivation behind this bill. Many Republican members of Congress are worried about their reelection chances, so they're trying to motivate their conservative supporters by addressing emotional issues like gay marriage, flag burning and, yes, Internet gambling. Emotion works better than stark reality: a bogged-down war in Iraq, gas at $3 a gallon, etc., so I can understand where they're coming from, but I hope the public recognizes what's really going on here.

Some members of Congress seem to think they know how to run our lives better than we do - why else would they try to legislate morality? If we assume for a moment that gambling is immoral, then why does this bill include "carve-outs" for horse racing and lotteries? I guess some forms of gambling are not immoral, especially those two, which carry "house" edges of 18 and 50 percent, respectively. But the bigger issue is this: Who are they to tell you and me what we can or cannot do with our time and money? I live within a 30-minute drive of five casinos where I can gamble myself into a stupor (or bankruptcy, whichever comes first) and it's all perfectly legal because the state of Missouri has made it legal, as has the state of Nevada and New Jersey, Illinois, Iowa and many others.

Gambling is a state issue - some allow it, some don't - so why is Congress even involved? I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that our Federal government has better, more important things to do with their time than mess around with my personal freedoms and choices. So long as I don't hurt anyone, why should they care whether or not I choose to play poker on the Internet? Now, if Missouri - much like Washington State and other states - wants to make Internet gambling illegal, that's fine; I'll fight that battle when the time comes. But the sheer hypocrisy of this bill is what frosts me. "Gambling ruins lives," they say. But not all gambling, obviously, just the type that actually costs less (in terms of house edge) and is more convenient for someone like me who cannot drive a car.

But don't kid yourself - while I doubt anything will happen this time around, those who are trying to take away your freedom of choice will be back. This is an issue we'll have to fight again, at least until Congress comes to its senses and starts passing bills to regulate the Internet gambling business, which is something we all want. Gambling isn't immoral or it wouldn't have grown as it has over the years, ever since New Jersey became the 2nd state in the nation to allow it. But trying to regulate the Internet, a network built by the people of the world - a network that belongs to all of us - is immoral.

To the citizens of the United States who read this: Get out and vote in November - your vote is ultimately the only thing that will keep us free.

GM

-Note from the GameMaster

We never seem to throw anything away around here. Below are a bunch of GameMaster Editorials going back to early 2001, most of which now read like historical documents. Try one out, to see how it used to be.

What you might of missed...

Blackjack Touraments
(9-05-05)

It really wasn't my intention to turn this into an in-depth discussion of Blackjack tournaments, but that's the joy of owning your own site - say what you want to say, when you want to say it. As the brick-and-mortar casinos struggle with Blackjack tournaments (see my article "Blackjack Tournaments - A new Era?" on the GameMaster's Secrets page here) due to a lack of profits from them, the Internet casinos will become the most viable alternative for the public to participate in these events. I suppose there will always be some appeal to playing in a tournament "live", but the Internet tournaments are signaling the beginning of the end for them, unless a lot of changes are made. People in the Blackjack tournament industry like to point to the way poker tournaments at brick-and mortar casinos have enjoyed spectacular growth in the past few years, but I doubt that Blackjack tournaments will enjoy the same type of growth, at least in the near future.

Taking Care of the Player
(4-15-03)

I recently received a press release (reproduced in full below) about a new organization that hopes to provide online gamblers with "high levels of assurance of fair, honest, and responsible gaming", which is certainly a noble goal and one that will be welcomed by all of us in the industry. To be sure, this is not the regulation by law that we'd like to see, but Internet gambling is still (as difficult as it may be to imagine) in its infancy, so any effort to make it more legitimate cannot be a bad thing. My choice of words, "more legitimate", makes me wonder if I've created a new oxymoron or am just using poor English. Either way, it's an interesting phrase. It seems to me that something is either legitimate or it isn't - just like being pregnant; you either are or you aren't.

Doing The Right Thing
(10-15-02)

While I never think for even one minute that it's my job (or right) to tell someone how to run their business, I definitely feel it's my right and perhaps obligation to tell my readers when I think some person or company is running their business in a way that could be harmful to their customers, especially when those customers may also be my readers. At the same time, I also have an obligation to try and tell my story in an honest and fair way so that all concerned will get the most value from it.

Goodbye, Pay Pal. Hello, Neteller.
(8-20-02)

It never fails to amaze me how companies that make a profit off my business also like to tell me what I can and cannot do. Take Mastercard, for example. Some time ago they decided they no longer wanted to handle online casino transactions and, while I don't gamble online because of where I live, it still pissed me off that they took such a stance. Hey, it's my money and I'll spend it as I damn well please! I did have one Mastercard account, so I paid it off and cut up the card. Screw those guys! Fortunately, it was a CitiBank Mastercard, so when they folded under pressure from the New York State Attorney General and stopped making any online casino charges, I didn't have to burn them in effigy, because I had already stopped doing business with them. Screw them, too.

Can the Tail Wag the Dog?
(6-20-02)

I have just finished reading an article that is posted on The Prescription (www.theprescription.com) entitled "Sports Book Owners Furious Over Posting Forums", which was written by Sting. I don't know Sting personally and, to the best of my knowledge, he and I have never even corresponded by e-mail or in any other way. But, I have enjoyed many of Sting's articles, which always seemed to be written from an "insider's" point of view. From what I gather, Sting often travels to the various countries where many of the sportsbooks he writes about are domiciled, particularly Costa Rica.

Innovation and Online Gambling
(4-10-02)

It almost goes without saying that the entire Internet gambling industry is one big mass of innovation and I am continually amazed by what the "techies" can do. I'll never forget having the opportunity to play at the very first, very simple - almost crude - Microgaming-powered casino when it was in beta mode as I was doing an article for Rolling Good Times. That was probably in April or May of 1995 and I recall being utterly fascinated by the whole thing. I was allowed to wager only in play-money mode, but it was still a "Buck Rogers" type of feeling for me, having played only at brick-and-mortar casinos since the early '70s. At a rate which applies, it seems, only to the Internet, the industry grew to what we have today: well over 1400 sites where one may bet on all types of casino games, not to mention sports and sporting events.

All Is Well in Iggy-Land
(10-14-01)

Hot too long ago, I found myself at the double-deck game Blackjack game at a local brick-and-mortar casino, in order to try a new "trick of the trade". Normally, I wouldn't go within ten feet of this table because the rules suck, the penetration sucks and it's just a lousy game, but I needed a game where the shuffle would occur on a fairly frequent basis and we don't have any single-deck games in this area. Anyway, this game requires a $25 minimum bet, so you might think that those who play it are fairly savvy. You would be wrong in that assumption.

The Next Trick
(9-13-01)

The world of Blackjack seems very, very trivial compared to the tragedies that have been suffered by our people and our country at the hands of terrorists, but we all deal with horror in our own way and, because this forum is the primary way I express my opinion, it's impossible for me to let these events pass without sharing some thoughts.

Bonus Madness
(6-11-01)

It seems to me that players patronize a certain brick-and-mortar casino for some pretty basic reasons, the primary one being location. If your state or country allows casinos, you probably play mostly at the one that is closest to you and if they offer poor-paying games, well, that's the price of convenience.

A Tale of Two Cities
(4-17-01)

Actually, this is more a tale of two states, but the cities of San Francisco and Las Vegas play a big part in new legislation that has begun the process of approval in the legislature of California and Nevada. At this point, both of these bills have been approved by only the appropriate committee of each governing body, so neither may become law, but I'm placing my bets right now.

Exciting Events
(3-16-01)

I don't know if this is an editorial so much as a promotional piece, but I hope you'll find it interesting anyway. What I want to talk about is several aspects of the amazing technology that is part of the Internet as we know it today and how we will be using that technology.

No Place For Amateurs
(2-14-01)

In my years of involvement with the Internet gambling business, I've come to the conclusion that there are three types of people who become casino operators. The first type is those who understand Internet technology and the casino business. A prime example of that is Global Player Casino, which is, without a doubt, the most innovative company in the business today. Also, companies like Cryptologic, Microgaming and Real Time Gaming obviously understand the business very well, although some of their franchisees occasionally leave something to be desired in that area. However, the tight controls placed upon them by the software manufacturers keep most of the casino operators out of trouble.

The World is Yours
(1-22-01)

Earlier today, I went to the Internet site of my bank and made a transfer of funds from my checking account to my savings account. It took about one minute to do this and it got me to wondering why a similar system can't be set up by online casinos. I fully understand that transferring $$$ between accounts at a bank is a lot different than transferring $$$ between two different businesses, but the first casino company that figures out how to do it will have a hard time handling the business they'll get.

Are The Wheels Coming Off?
(1-08-01)

The expression about the "wheels coming off" is often used in describing sporting events, especially golf, where one competitor who had the lead begins to falter and, in an attempt to stay ahead or regain the lead, starts spraying golf balls all over the course. The "wheels" part is an analogy to a cart or wagon that is racing along and the wheels start wobbling, then one or more comes off and the wagon crashes to a halt.