GameMaster Special Report:
Review of the Movie "21"

So we dragged ourselves away from our computers, ventured out into the light of day and went to a brick-and-mortar theater to see the new Sony Pictures release,"21", starring Kevin Spacey and others, notably the very attractive Kate Bosworth, the likes of which I've never had on any of my Blackjack teams.

This film is an adaptation of the book "Bringing Down the House" by Ben Mezrich (Free Press, 2003) that I wrote about in my series on team play at Blackjack, which is currently linked off the front page here under this heading: BLACKJACK TEAM MONEY MANAGEMENT SERIES. (If it's been moved by the time you read this, check the Blackjack Archives page.) The book tells about a group of students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who were taught how to win at Blackjack by an MIT professor and details their adventures of actually making a bunch of $$$ in the effort. It is mostly a true story that has been done before, is happening as you read this and will happen again in the future, although not necessarily by MIT students.

The movie's producers and the screenwriter did an adequate job of showing how a Blackjack team functions in a general way and they were careful to point out that card counting is legal, although most, if not all casinos don't like card counters especially when they team up. Unfortunately one gets the impression this card counting stuff requires the brain power of MIT students or mathematical geniuses, but that's not true at all. As I've always said, if you can do some simple addition along with some slightly more difficult division in your head, you can be a card counter.

Naturally, Hollywood feels compelled to place drama in situations that are - in real life - rather boring and this is no exception. Card counting is boring in reality and most casinos that suspect a player of counting simply ask them to leave; very few ever get "backroomed" and even less are the subject of any sort of physical abuse. But the movie makes it appear that counters are punched out on a regular basis by evil men in suits. It's not to say that hasn't happened before, but in most cases the culprits have been overzealous security guards who were more concerned with showing who's in charge rather than any concern about the rights of casino patrons, be they counters or otherwise. The movie also implies "new" facial-recognition software is the beginning of the end for counters, but that certainly is not the case as I write this. Sure, a person can be identified by such programs, but many more are missed. Trust me on that one.

The big argument I have with the movie - and the MIT team, if this is an accurate portrayal - is the specific tactics used in the casino. First of all, the signal used to call the Big Player (BP) to the table has all the subtlety of a flashing neon sign. (If you don't know what a "Big Player" is, see my series on Blackjack teams for more information). Signals between teammates in casinos need to be gestures that anyone might use, but carry an understood meaning to the team. Rubbing your forehead or taking off your glasses is something anyone might do, but when viewed by your teammate, they have special significance. Once the BP came to the table, the team transmits the count via spoken code words - "sweet" means a running count of 16, for example - which can be awkward and might be subject to discovery by the pit critters, as we lovingly call casino supervisors here. If the counter at the table has to say something every time a BP shows up, it could well be picked up by the "eye-in-the-sky" or an astute pit critter, when a non-verbal hand signal is much less noticeable. But transferring the count to the BP is dumb in the first place. Just use hand signals to tell the BP how to play the hand and no count needs to be transferred; nothing needs to be said. And the movie had the counter stay at the table after transferring the count, which is completely unnecessary. Doing so allows the opposition to view various subsets of your team playing together for longer periods of time, which is never good. If the count is transferred to the BP, the counter is then free to move to another table, something that didn't happen in the movie.

Also, the movie made out the BP to be the brightest and smartest counter, which is not the case in real life. In my teams, the BP is the best actor - the one who can play the role of a high-stakes gambler that drinks real alcohol and scarcely pays attention to what's going on at the table. In my teams, the BP doesn't even have to be a counter, although s/he has to know the Basic Strategy variations, like standing on 16 vs. 10 when the count is up. As you'll see in my series on team play, the only signals the BP gets from the counter at the table is to A) come to the table, B) whether to play Basic Strategy or to make the one variation all Basic Strategy plays have and C) leave the table. You can easily see that doesn't require an MIT student.

All-in-all though, I liked the movie. Participating in a well-trained, well-run, well-financed Blackjack team is really a lot of fun and, Hollywoodisms aside, the film "21" conveys that better than most books on Blackjack have done. A successful team assault on the casinos leaves you feeling like Frank and the Rat Pack in Ocean's 11 with a better outcome. Sadly, none of my teams ever had young, smart, gorgeous women on them. It's never too late, of course but I won't be holding my breath waiting for Kate Bosworth to call me.

I'll see you here next time.

GameMaster Special Report:
How to Legalize Internet Gambling

On November 14, 2007 various members of the public were invited to testify before the U.S. Congress on the topic of legalizing Internet gambling, specifically in front of the House Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who is at least somewhat in favor of the idea. Annie Duke represented herself and other members of the Poker Players Alliance and did a great job of explaining how we poker players view the topic, especially in her exchange with Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) who is one of Internet gambling's biggest opponents. It's no secret that Rep. Goodlatte is pretty much against any form of gambling but he's smart enough to not play the "morality card", which so many other Republicans like to pull out during their arguments. Instead, Rep. Goodlatte played the "state's rights" card, a better approach, in my opinion, with which most liberals like me can readily agree.

The states rights argument basically says that it's up to each individual state to allow or disallow gambling within its borders. In fact, 48 of our 50 states allow one form of gambling or another, but Rep. Goodlatte is correct when he said it should be up to each state to determine just how far to go. Some states, like West Virginia have only "racinos", which are gambling facilities at the various horse racing tracks and others, like Nevada, New Jersey, Mississippi, Missouri, Illinois and so forth allow what's called Class III gaming, which covers slots, BJ, Roulette, Poker, etc. - "regular" casinos. Annie Duke expressed support for the House bill we've talked about here - HR 2046 - which would legalize Internet gambling and it was Rep. Goodlatte's comments on the bill that got me thinking. Although HR 2046 does have an "opt-out" clause which allows states that do not want their citizens gambling online to not participate, it does establish some sort of gambling commission, which is just another federal bureaucracy that none of us really need. For the first time in U.S. history, gambling would be controlled by the Feds - Internet gambling, anyway. That's scary. Of course, if it's the only we can get it, fine. Count me in.

But I think there's a much simpler solution to all of this, which I can best explain by example. The state where I live, Missouri, allows regular casino gambling - poker, Blackjack, Video Poker, Craps, slot machines, etc. Therefore, Missouri can easily amend the state gambling laws to allow its residents to gamble online if the licensed casinos here choose to offer it. The law as I envision it would let any casino licensed in the state (like Harrah's, for example) to set up computer servers in one or both of their facilities here, which would offer Internet gambling. By having the servers physically located in Missouri, the Missouri Gaming Commission would have access to them in order to verify their honesty and randomness of the games and - oh, yes, verify the amount of $$$ won by the online casino in order to collect the taxes due.

A big argument of the Internet gambling opponents is that the age and physical location of the participants cannot be verified in a reliable way, for which there may or may not be a technological answer - I just don't know. But I do know how it can be verified under my proposal. Before a Missouri resident can gamble - at say, Harrah's Online - they must physically go to one of the Harrah's casinos here in Missouri and present a valid photo ID, just as we do now for a Harrah's player club card (which is mandatory in Missouri because of our stupid $500 purchase limit). Anyway, after registering in person, a player is given an online ID number, goes back home and signs up with that ID on the Harrah's casino software from one (and only one) computer, whose location can evidently be verified by technological means. So now we have a lot of Missouri residents who use computers located in Missouri to gamble online at a Missouri-licensed casino whose servers are located in Missouri. I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that the Federal government has no say in all of this, whatsoever. It's called "state's rights.

What I do not know is how many Missouri residents will actually sign up, but I can guess it won't be millions; more like 10 or 20 thousand in the beginning. That's not an impressive number, but it will undoubtedly grow as the concept becomes more widely known across the state, (especially if Harrah's advertises on a site like this; hint, hint.) But I have an even better suggestion; what I call the "State Uniform Internet Gambling Act" or SUIGA ("Sweeja") for short. Again, I'm not a law expert but what's to stop a state like Illinois from adopting the same law for their casinos as Missouri? Nothing, of course. So, if Illinois, which has casinos all over the state, allows them to set up online operations for Illinois residents with the same "show up at a real casino to register" rules I propose, that's the first step in what could be an interesting synergy.

Today, it's entirely legal for me to drive to Illinois and gamble at a casino there. But if I do that and lose (admittedly not likely, but it could happen) the state of Missouri gets none of the revenue - it all goes to the state of Illinois. If I win, the state of Illinois gets nothing, but the state of Missouri benefits because I must pay state income tax on my winnings. If I play in Missouri, the state benefits whether I win or lose, so it's in the best interest of Missouri that I never gamble outside my state. Well, that's not going to happen, but if I gamble online, I might want to gamble at, say, a casino in Illinois that offers good Video Poker. Of course, that now becomes interstate commerce, which is ultimately governed by Federal laws. But the Feds typically only get involved if the states cannot agree with each other and that's where SUIGA comes in.

One thing that's unique about the Internet is that it can track our activity (assuming we want it tracked) in great detail. So, let's say that Missouri and Illinois sign a reciprocity agreement with each other regarding Internet gambling. It would basically say this: "Missouri residents who are properly registered for Internet gambling can play at online Illinois casinos and Illinois residents who are properly registered for Internet gambling can play at online Missouri casinos." The trick here is that (drumroll, please) each state would receive the revenue generated by its citizens, regardless of where it's generated. So, if I play at an online casino located in Illinois and lose, the amount "won" by the casino will be credited to Missouri for tax purposes. Oh, don't worry, the casino will get to keep my $$$; they earned it, after all, but if I lost, say, $1000 then the casino would owe the state of Missouri 12% of that or $120, which is what the tax is on casinos here (I think.) Of course, Illinois taxes their casinos also, but the Illinois casino where I lost would receive a tax credit for the $120 they paid Missouri so that they aren't taxed twice. Sound complicated? Well, it isn't.

For those of you who do not run Websites supported by advertising, let me tell you about what's called "affiliate advertising." While we don't use it here - all of our ads are prepaid by the advertiser with no guarantee of success - a site like this could choose to become an affiliate of, say, "XYZ Casino", where each player we send to them would be tracked by software and we would receive credit for their activity. We might be paid a fixed sum if our reader opens an account or we could be paid a portion of the player's losses; which way doesn't matter for my purposes here. The point is this: If a Missouri resident gambles online at an Illinois casino, the casino can track the results and pay the state of Missouri its share, just as though Missouri were an affiliate of the casino. On the other hand, Missouri online casinos can track the activity of Illinois residents and pay Illinois in the same way. By doing this, each state gets its share of all the gambling done by its citizens online; something that cannot happen if residents physically travel to brick and mortar casinos in other states.

This reciprocity agreement allows properly registered residents of one state - where online gambling is legal - to gamble online in another state - where online gambling is also legal - yet the "home" state of said gambler will benefit from the taxes generated. Sure, Illinois may have a different tax rate, say, 8% (just a guess), but they will owe that amount only on Illinois residents who play there. For all of the winnings the Illinois casino gets from Missouri residents, they'll receive a 12% tax credit because they paid that amount to Missouri. The only problem is that the casino may not like paying 12% tax on some winnings and 8% tax on other winnings, but because their operation is online the expenses involved in getting the revenue from Missouri residents is typically less than it would be if the Missouri resident physically visits the casino. Remember, online casinos have no dealers, no restaurant comps and so forth, which means they'll probably make nearly as much profit, dollar-for-dollar from a Missouri resident who visits them online, in spite of having to pay taxes to Missouri.

I can hear the casinos whining now: "But if we set up Internet casinos, we're competing with ourselves and we might lose revenue." Like most American businesses, casinos are happy to talk about being competitive, but what they really want is a monopoly. Well, I've got news for them. They're already losing revenue to online casinos and that's not going to stop until the "Brand Names" (Harrah's, MGM-Mirage, etc.) step up to the plate. In all candor, I don't have a lot of respect for most casino managers on whatever level, because they've been my competition for years and the vast majority have little or no imagination, which is best illustrated by the: "He's winning, so he must be cheating" mindset. Instead of embracing the fact that skill plays a part in some of their games, they prefer to toss out anybody who demonstrates that skill; except for Poker, of course, where the casino gets its revenue from the rake or tournament entry fee off the top. Obviously, the casino has no interest in who ultimately wins at Poker - they just want to run a good, honest game so that the $$$ keep coming in.

While it may seem obvious that online casinos established under my proposal should begin by offering Poker (table poker, like Hold'em, etc.) my feeling is that they won't have the "critical mass" needed for Poker, at least in the beginning. By offering the other casino games like slots, Video Poker and so forth, they can handle a small number of customers at little extra cost over that of setting up the operation in the first place. At least it gets the revenue stream started, which will allow them to advertise and promote their online operations. In time, it will grow, not only as new residents of the state sign up, but also as the state they're in signs reciprocity agreements with other states. Which brings us to residents of countries other than the United States; should they be allowed to sign up at, say, an online casino domiciled in the state of Missouri? I say yes, because right now the U.S. is under fire from the World Trade Organization (WTO) for allowing some electronic gambling like horse-racing and lotteries, but not "regular" casino gambling. On the flip side, if the casinos here allow non-U.S. citizens sign up, then they must also allow non-U.S. casinos to offer their products to U.S. citizens. Uh, oh....the old competitive thing. Well, I have an answer for that, too.

If a non-U.S. casino wants to attract U.S. citizens, my proposal includes the ability for the establishment of "electronic gaming-only" operations. Let's say that Poker Stars wants to do business with Missouri residents. First, they must obtain a Missouri gaming license, which - because it's not for a physical casino - should cost a lot less and secondly they must open an office here where Missouri residents can go in order to show the proper ID to get a registration card, just like they do at regular brick and mortar casinos. By having a physical presence here (I'm not sure that it's necessary to have their servers here, but I suppose that's possible), Poker Stars has now established a place where Missouri state tax collectors can pick up a check, so to speak. Yes, Poker Stars would pay the same state tax on their income as any other casino and because there is a licensed, legitimate presence in the state, anyone who has a dispute with Poker Stars has, what I believe is called, a "place of service"; that is, a place where the paperwork for a lawsuit can be served or delivered. We don't have that now; (not that I want to sue Poker Stars), but at least the operation will have more transparency.

In reality, I don't see Poker Stars opening an office in St. Louis, Full Tilt opening an office in Kansas City and Ultimate Bet opening an office in Columbia (the home of Mizzou - gotta get the college crowd!), but I do see the online operations combining forces to jointly open offices around the state - sort of an electronic gaming office where residents cannot only register for Internet gambling, but could attend "how to play poker" lessons, learn how Craps works and so forth. Having several offices like this in each state where Internet gambling is legal would cost these operations some $$$, but it would put a public face on them that is currently missing and they would ultimately attract more players because they run good operations.

As an alternative, my law will provide for operations like Poker Stars, et al. to join forces with a casino here, like the President Casino, which might not otherwise want to open up an online operation. The smaller, independent type of brick and mortar operations could serve as very nice "niche" fillers in the online casino business, which would keep mega-operations like Harrah's from taking over all of it so we end up with low-pay Video Poker and Blackjack games with lousy rules. And, the ability for the non-U.S. based operations to offer their product here keeps us in compliance with the World Trade Organization, yet keeps the tax $$$ on the state level, rather than shipping it off to Washington. Plus there's no need for a Federal Gaming Commission because all of this would happen on the state level. After all, gambling is a state's right.

The GameMaster

GameMaster Special Report:
Poker Stars New Steps Tournaments

I've written about these single-table Sit & Go tournaments before - I call them "progressive tournaments" - and they go by names like Steps or Rounders, depending upon the poker room involved. At Poker Stars they call them "Steps", as Party Poker once did (and maybe still does.) Started in early October, 2007, the Steps tournaments are - at the present time - available only as satellites to the PokerStars Caribbean Adventure (PCA), a "live" tournament that's held every year at the Atlantis Casino located on Paradise Island in the Bahamas and is now part of the European Poker Tour. I'm sure this Steps tournament concept will prove to be very popular, so it will likely expand to involve other brick-and-mortar events and might even be available for cash prizes only, although that remains to be seen.

For now, this is a terrific way to try and earn a seat in the PCA Main Event, which will be held from January 5-11, 2008. The PCA is a NL Hold'em tournament with an $8000 buy-in that paid $1,535,255 to the 2007 winner. It used to be part of the World Poker Tour, but the new European Poker Tour appears to be going very well and this will be one of their premier events; in any case I hear it's always a good time down there in the Bahamas and any party where you can get in for just a $7.50 investment has got to be worth considering.

The prize package available includes the $7800+$200 entry fee, a week of hotel rooms and food (valued at $3000) plus $1000 in spending cash, which will be paid into your Poker Stars account so you can use it for airline tickets. In the 2007 Main Event there were 937 entries, which created a prize pool of over $7,000,000 with the top 180 players paid. The lowest payout was to those who finished 131-180; each received $9889, which is really great when you consider most got in via satellite events like these. Gee...a week in the Bahamas with most expenses paid and you might walk away with nearly 10 grand just for playing a little poker? Definitely worth a shot.

And yes, I did say you could get in for as little as $7.50. No, not by winning some multi-table tournament with 1500 entries that awards just one package to some fish who got lucky, but in a way that any accomplished Sit 'n Go (SnG) player can actually achieve. That's the beauty of the Steps system; the path to success is clearly defined and it's not some out-of-the-world longshot. For those of you unfamiliar with the progressive type of tournaments, they consist of a set number of matches with succeedingly higher entry fees. What happens is that you typically play a single-table SnG, but rather than winning a portion of the cash - or losing everything if you don't finish in the top three - a specified number of players win a free entry to the next level, some players get to replay the current level at no cost, some players get a free entry to a lower level match and someone might win a little cash.

For example, the PCA Step # 1 tournament at Poker Stars is a Sit 'n Go for 9 players and costs $7.50 to enter. This creates a $63 prize pool ($4.50 goes to the house), which is distributed by awarding 1st and 2nd place a free entry into Step # 2 that costs $27; 3rd place gets to repeat Step # 1 at no cost and 4th place wins $1.50. In the Step # 2 level, the top 2 move up, 3rd and 4th get a free replay and 5th gets a free entry into Step # 1. As you can see, it's not necessary to win every SnG in order to stay in the game, so to speak. Also, you do not have to play each step one after another because you can, if you wish, buy in at a higher level at anytime and if you win a free entry to a different level, you may play that at your convenience.

The PCA Steps tournaments consist of six levels beginning, as I mentioned, at $7.50 and culminating in a $2100 level, which has two distinct matches: Step # 6 and Step # 6A. Step # 6 is a two-table SnG consisting of 18 players, where the top three are awarded a $12,000 PCA package. Everyone else receives nothing, nada, zip. This level appears to be where the online pro poker players are getting their seats and it's a match I'd rather avoid, thankyouverymuch. But, to their credit, the nice people at Poker Stars recently began offering Step # 6A, which consists of 9 players with the table winner receiving a $12,000 PCA package and 2nd place to 7th place receiving cash. I really like the Step #6A configuration, because I'd hate to make it all the way up the ladder and receive nothing for my effort if some player sucks out on me when I'm in 4th place of the Step # 6 match; in Step # 6A, at least I'd walk away with $1000, which is a darn nice return on my $7.50 investment.

The Step # 6A is going to make these tournaments huge, in my not-so-humble opinion. Sure, I want to go to the Bahamas, but if I can't, then at least getting a decent return for my time and $$$ makes the attempt worthwhile. By the way, if you win more than one package, it's credited to your account, not as cash, but to be used to enter other tournaments like the WSOP, European Poker Tour or World Poker Tour events. That's why the big-name pros will continue to buy in directly at Step # 6 (and maybe even Step # 6A as well) - they're competing for a cash-equivalent that they can use in the future. Me, I want to go to the Bahamas or show me the $$$ now.

Here's a list of who wins what at each level. This information was current as of October 22, 2007 but you should check the Poker Stars site before getting involved, in case something has changed.

To find these tournaments at Poker Stars, click on the Events tab in the lobby of the software, click on PCA, then on Sit & Go Satellites. Don't forget that the Bahamas are not a U.S. territory, so you're going to need your passport and, from what I hear, it's taking forever to get a new one or even to renew an old one here in the U.S.A. There are other restrictions and hurdles (like transporting cash in and out of the country), so be sure to read up on that at the Poker Stars website before playing.

I hope I'll get to meet you in the Bahamas.

GameMaster Special Report: Bodog Slow to Pay Winners

A long-time and faithful reader of ours requested a payout from Bodog Casino in the amount of $1800 on May 30, 2007. At the time, the Bodog Website stated that such payouts, in form of a paper check by mail takes "an average of 20 days", so the reader emailed Bodog customer support on June 20th and received this reply:

"Thank you for contacting Bodog Casino Customer Service. Payout requests via check by mail are currently taking approximately 20 - 25 business days. Your payout request of $1800 was processed by us on May 30th. Once the funds have left your Bodog account your payout must be sent to a third party for further processing. The time frame for your payout is dependent on the volume of payouts being processed at the third party processor therefore the estimated time frames may change. Please keep in mind that our current estimate of 20 - 25 business days is based on business days which do not include weekends. We thank you in advance for your patience while your payout is being processed."

Okay, so now it's 20-25 business days, not 20 days as the Website stated and it's obviously not Bodog who's processing the check, but some third-party entity over which Bodog apparently has no control because the speed of the transaction "is dependent upon the volume of payouts being processed". It's Bodog Casino who contracted with that company, not the Bodog customers, so this "Gee, what can we do?" attitude is their problem, not the customers' and it demonstrates how Bodog Casino has relinquished control of its reputation for good service to some other entity.

The reader involved is a very understanding person, so s/he waited until July 9, 2007 to write again. By then, 25 business days had gone by but still no check. This is the reply from Bodog Casino:

Payouts are currently taking 25 - 30 business after processing to arrive by Mail. You should receive your check sometime within this week. If you have not received your payout as of July 13th please contact us at that time.

Ah, now it's 25-30 business days "after processing." Of course, no time frame for processing is mentioned, so they're basically open-ended on that part. And, rather than give any kind of definitive answer to the customer's concern, s/he is told to contact Bodog Casino if the check does not arrive by July 13th. Nice. It's like saying, "We hope the check's in the mail but rather than find out, we'll put you off for a few more days and if it's not there on Friday, maybe you'll wait a few more days so we can think up something new to explain the delay."

I used to like Bodog Casino a lot. I never cared much for the Hold 'em Poker there (a rectangular poker table is just too weird for me), but the Video Poker was excellent. Until this recent fiasco, Bodog was offering a fair deal to everyone as far as I know, but here we've seen the payouts go from 20 "days" to 25-30 "business days" in just over a month, and this is the slow time of the year! What's going to happen when the college kids rev up again at the poker tables and football season starts in the Fall? Bodog runs a big sportsbook and, since football is # 1 in sports betting, will the payout period become 45 days? 60 days? I don't bet sports, but it may come to pass that someone betting the first game of the season won't get his or her check until Superbowl Sunday! Nothing Bodog has done to this point rules out that possibility.

I just checked the Bodog Cashier page and it now says checks take "30 business days", so here we go. Naturally, the vast majority of Bodog's customers will be completely unaware that getting a simple check is taking so long, at least until they go to the cashier and ask for it. Of course Bodog will complete your deposit very quickly - don't worry about that - but if you need your winnings quickly, forget about it.

And don't kid yourself, dear Reader; with the passing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, paper checks appear to be the only way U.S. residents will be able to get their $$$ from these offshore operations, so this is important stuff. How quickly these companies process their checks is going to make a big difference in how well a casino or poker room retains its customers and that may ultimately decide which of those operations sink or swim. Unfortunately, the online gambling industry has a history of sinkers taking the customers' $$$ with them on the trip to the bottom.

As a point of comparison, Full Tilt Poker, which we've recommended here for several years, is getting checks out to their customers in 5-7 business days, certainly reasonable by any measure. Hell, I get checks mailed from England in about a week, so what's the problem with Bodog? Calvin Ayres, the "jetset" owner of Bodog lives a pretty hedonistic life style, so maybe he's in no hurry to see all those $$$ flowing out of his operation. Consider this: As I'm writing here, the money-market rate on the idle cash in my PayPal account is 5.02%. Now, if one had, say, a million dollars in there, the daily income off that would be $142. Obviously, if it were $10,000,000 - a number that seems more realistic for a big operation like Bodog - then the daily income would be more like $1420 per day or over $40,000 a month! How'd you like to make an extra $40,000 a month by just delaying the payouts to your customers? I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but it's very obvious that these delays are deliberate - I can get coffee from Jamaica in less time - because there is plenty of motivation for holding onto the customers' $$$ in the Bodog organization. Perhaps it's not the third-party check issuer that's to blame here. Perhaps they're just following orders. Hmmm.

Anyway, somebody's benefitting from these delays and it's certainly not the customers, whose money this is. My advice is to withdraw your $$$ from Bodog ASAP unless you're willing to have it tied up for an unreasonable amount of time. No, I don't think Bodog will screw anybody out of their hard-earned cash, but neither do I think it's impossible. I don't have a crystal ball to read the future, but I do know that Bodog Casino is stumbling badly right now and the only protection we players have is to choose wisely where we put our $$$.

The reader finally received this message on Thursday, July 12:

Dear X,
Account: XXXXXX
Your FedEx tracking number is xxxxxxxxxxxx. Please note that depending on the time of day FedEx begins processing your package, it may take up to 24 hours before your tracking information is posted online. Also kindly note, if nobody is at home to receive the parcel, FedEx may elect to leave it at your door without requiring a signature. Thank you. Bodog.com Payouts Team.

At last! With luck, the check will arive on Friday, but most likely it'll absolutely, positively arrive on Monday, July 16th. The reader went to the FedEx website, entered the tracking number and received a "Not Found" message, which means the envelope had not entered the system. Yet another cheap ploy to buy time. Check in the mail is one of the two biggest lies in the world; the other being one I cannot publish here. When Monday came and the check didn't, the reader went to the Fedex site, entered the number again and received the same "Not Found" message. Finally, on Tuesday July 17th, the package showed up in the Fedex system as having left California on Monday, July 16th and was due to be delivered no later than Thursday, July 19th. Assuming the envelope actually contains a check, it will have taken exactly seven weeks for this person to collect his or her winnings.

That is poor service and Bodog just lost another customer.

The GameMaster

The GameMaster Online:
"Our 10th Anniversary" June 2007 The Next Ten Years

Back in June of 1997, we began publishing this Website on the Internet as a logical extension of what we had been doing as two of the four founders of Rolling Good Times (rgtonline.com), which went up on the 'Net in September, 1995. When I say "we", I mean me, The GameMaster along with my good friend and business partner, Jay Thompson. Jay and I had been involved with Rolling Good Times when it was a printed newspaper-type of publication; he was the graphics designer for it and I was one of its writers, which is how we met. Sometime in early 1995, Jay spoke the words that changed my life forever: "Hey, have you heard about the Internet?" I had, but didn't know a lot about it, hell, I didn't even own a computer! To make a long story short, that conversation led several of us who were associated with Rolling Good Times, the print publication, to form a corporation to produce Rolling Good Times, the Website. Well, along the way some of us agreed to disagree, so Jay and I ended up selling our stock in RGTonline and sometime later began producing this site. Now, ten years on, it's still just me and Jay, equal partners and trusted friends - we have no other employees (Jones, the office cat recently went to kitty heaven) - who believe very much in what we do here.

It's never really been about the money, not that we don't like $$$, but we've never made a lot of it; basically enough to pay the bills and maybe get some kind of paycheck on an irregular basis. That's because we were always supported by advertising, much like commercial television, which trades free content in exchange for the viewer putting up with some ads. October of 2006 saw that come to a screeching halt with the signing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which was snuck through the Republican-controlled Congress in a despicable procedural maneuver and put into effect by a so-called "moral" President who has seen his popularity drop to the basement because of his creation of an ill-considered war in Iraq. Having a very brave nephew who is currently serving as a U.S. Army Captain in Iraq (and as a veteran myself) makes what's happening there far more important to me than the attempts of this president's administration to legislate morality. But one of the key freedoms of my country is the right to be left alone and I resent anyone messing with that, especially when they're doing so in an effort to "protect us against ourselves", which is how many of the conservatives in this country view it. Whether or not I choose to gamble is none of their business; it's a legal activity in the state where I live, it's my money and it's my right to do what I want with it.

Okay, enough politics - you have to play the cards you're dealt - and that's what we're doing here. As you can see, we still have a few ads running, which do keep the lights on, so to speak, and we're very grateful to those who continue to support us; both advertisers and readers alike. But unless the newly-installed, Democrat-controlled Congress can finally legalize Internet gambling (and they're on the right track to do it, but it's a long shot at this point), we're going to have to find another way to keep our doors open here. The Internet itself is changing, now that broadband connections like cable and DSL phone lines are becoming the norm; a lot of information can be run through those "pipelines", not the least of which is video - a medium that lends itself pretty well to what we do here. Fortunately for me, Jay is an artist who also understands computers, so we've been able to create various video presentations that previously would have all been in written form only. Now, we know that's not a big help to those of you who do not have a broadband connection, but don't worry, it'll be available to you sooner, rather than later.

But much of what I teach can be presented more effectively by video, especially if the written lesson is available as well. That's what you can expect to see as we continue along, video-enhanced lessons like the series we're currently doing on Blackjack tournaments, which are great opportunities for making a nice profit with low risk. That will never stop here - us showing people how to make a profit in the casinos and poker rooms of the world (Internet included) - after all, it may not be about the money Jay and I make, but it will always be about the $$$ available to the wise player who visits this site on a regular basis.