UncleHoot

Sometimes when you listen to people's life stories they are actually really fascinating people. My first impression of Alan was, "Wow. What an odd looking guy." But as they chatted with him on HSP, I quickly liked the guy, and found out what an intriguing person he really was.When I die, I hope I will have lived my life as full as he has.

I was talking about poker. Geesh. Get your mind out of the gutter, dude.

So the other night, I sat down at my computer and thought I'd play with it for awhile. I wanted to poker but I can't poker as easily as I used to. Even so, I've found that I like JKo. I've found that I also like 2Jo instead of waiting all night to see a big pair. I've found that there are a lot of ways to play with it, and it's nice to see my girlfriend play with it too. Sometimes she'd prefer her pocket rockets, but I love JKo against her big pair.

Your post is pretty much exactly how I feel (the entire post).Another big thing to me, is that Pokerstars still has over 100K players most of the time. I get on Carbon, and there are 7500 players. During my entire online poker existence (since 2005), I've never been on a site with that few players.

Yeah, the snoring beagle is just up the road from me! (ok, about 30 miles up) I'd play too, but there are a couple reasons why I don't:1. The buy-in is too high for my bankroll2. I no longer have a bankroll

Not if you're a pervert.

I realize that I'm a homophobe, but... That picture. Barney Frank's butt is sticking up in the air, and the other guy (Barton?) is holding some kind of electric toothbrush? Is it just me, or did someone have a chuckle drawing that?

Is this a serious question?short answer:No, the "Wire Act" specifically prohibits it.Longer answer:I think the Wire Act only prohibits this at the State to State level. Within a state, the Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to prohibit it (which doesn't generally stop them, however).But either way, I'm pretty sure it's not legal and/or happening at this time.

This whole mess is ALL about money, imho.My conspiracy theory:Pokerstars et al have been making billions. US casinos wanted to get in on the action. They realized that the chances of getting legislation passed are very slim, simply because poker players were generally happy with what they had (with some exceptions). They (Harrah's) put forth a bill that would have created a moratorium in the US until they could get their software up and running. i.e. US players would be locked out of the online poker world for several months (or more). Well, that legislation didn't end up going anywhere

What makes me uncomfortable with the Barton Bill..."Only residents of the U.S. would be allowed to play on licensed sites."Why??? Do we NOT want to TAKE MONEY from people all over the world? Are the new providers in US market simply too afraid that they won't be able to compete against Poker-stars (and others)?Or was this mis-stated, and it was supposed to read more like, "Residents of the U.S. would only be allowed to play on licensed sites"? The latter would certainly make more sense...

Honestly, I can think of a lot of good reasons to move to Canada right now that have nothing to do with poker.

I'm just sayin'...Normally when these things happen (and the article is very short on details), there was someone taking a rake from the game. I don't know if there was or was not, but normally that's what was happening when someone gets raided.Sure, you can argue that as long as the players knew they were paying someone to host the game in their home, then what's the problem? Touche. The Libertarian in my agrees with you, but generally the Law does not.I'm just sayin'...

I'll change my "in the next 5 years" to 90%, but I'm sticking with the rest. The folks at Gambling 911 are hope-mongering.Of course, if it happens, I can always claim, "Well, sometimes you hit the 4 outer on the river..." I'll be pretty happy if it's officially legal, though.

It's encouraging, but yeah... Normally these things happen in phases. We may get some legislation that says, "We're creating a commission to study the effects of online poker..." before the end of the year. Then once legislation is actually passed, there WILL BE a "waiting period" before it goes into effect, which will most likely be several months to a year, if not more. The purpose of the waiting period would be so that all of the B&M casinos can talk to each other and figure out how they can all make money at this. It will take time for them to make compacts, share information, etc

Yeah, well the problem there is that operating such a site in the US is (and has been) explicitly illegal. Perhaps we will have a US-only community before we have another international community (that includes the US), but either way, I'd give it a <10% chance of happening this year. <30% by the end of next year. 80% chance of happening in the next 5 years.I'd be willing to put money on it, but unfortunately, my account was closed.

Indeed. Why equate poker with alcohol? I mean, does anyone have a job where they drink alcohol all day for a profit? If so, I know a lot of candidates. :DThere were certainly some analogies that would have made the point better (stockbroker seems obvious*), but it's probably not like anyone was going to change that idiot's mind anyway. *JohnnyBax, one of my favorite online players, used to be a stockbroker. He's a family-man, doesn't (generally) play on Saturdays since that's the day he spends with his family, and it sounds like he truly approaches the game as a profession, certainly not

It doesn't sound like the government's case is all that strong. So, why are they doing this?I just keep remembering the "blackout" provision of the lame-duck bill from late last year, and who was responsible for it. Harrah's. Now, I'm not saying that Harrah's is evil, I think they just want a piece of the action, and I honestly can't blame them. The US is a few years behind the times on all of this, and Harrah's (and others) are paying the price.My guess is that this situation will develop as follows. Many of us have written our Congressmen to complain, so a little bit of action will begi

Yer Mom

awesome!

That's my feeling too. But when, and how long long until the US is allowed to play with the rest of the world is a really good question.Ironically, I think this is all going to shake-out so that Congress ends up smelling like a rose (to the uninformed anyway). We go through the Blackout, but then in the end, Congress passes some measure to officially allow US citizens to play online, and the whole country marvels at how beautiful our representatives are, and how marvelous that they have created jobs in this time of economic crisis, yada, yada, yada...IMHO, the DOJ is in-bed with Harrah's...

Thanks! The pre-paid idea simply can't be done in the US anymore, afaik. Western Union I still haven't tried.

From what I've seen/read/heard, more an more players are becoming a fan of the clock. I mean, a slow player can really hold up a game, and ruin it for everyone else. You should be given a reasonable amount of time to make a decision, and then it's over. If you don't act in time, you get folded.But that's not exactly what this is about. In this case, it's headsup, and blinds aren't going up. Even so, I don't think that the chip-leader should have all of the time in the world to make a decision. People want to go home. Do some quick math, and make a quick decision. 60 seconds should be a

cu in 4years DanWho, ironically, hasn't posted in 4 years. And has not been missed during the 4 years of his absence.

Wish I could, but as far as I can tell, it is now nearly impossible for me to make a deposit on Stars without losing my bank account. I got a letter a few weeks back, basically saying that my bank (actually a credit union) would close my account for any online gambling transactions, and that's a gamble that I'm not willing to take.Sure, I could open up another bank account strictly for gambling and see how long I could get away with it, but since I'm a casual player, that's just not gonna happen.Only in America.