Supremes, Pokerstars say no to Washington poker

How'd I miss this? From the September 23 Seattle PI:

High Court upholds state ban on Internet poker, online gambling
The state ban on Internet gambling does not violate the U.S. Constitution, the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously in a decision released Thursday morning.

Hearing a lawsuit by a Washington online poker player, the state's high court heard argument that the Legislature violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution when it enacted a ban on Internet gambling. ...

Writing for the court, Justice Richard B. Sanders disagreed, finding that the Legislature did not overreach in restricting online gambling.

The immediate result? As of September 30:

Same for real money tournaments. (EDIT: And freerolls.)

Dave and Busters in Seattle?

Interesting tidbits from this quarter's Focus on Gambling newsletter from the Washington State Gambling Commission:

• Dave and Busters is asking for changes to amusement game rules. Does this mean the chain's planning on having a restaurant closer than Sacramento?
• Texas Hold 'Em wagering limits won't increase to $100 until at least May 2012, except for those casinos in a pilot program.
• The number of "house banked card rooms" (i.e., non-tribal casinos) in the state dropped from a high of 96 in 2006 to 66 this year. This is the largest change -- positive or negative -- since 1999, the year after they became legal.
• No news about Happy Days, because it's only reporting April, May, and June violations.

Another Lakewood poker room down

Happy Days has been closed since August 30. According to the state Gambling Commission, they've yet to file their financial statements, which were due April 30. Perhaps not coincidentally, the WSGC filed a Notice of Administrative Charges against Happy Days. No telling if they're closed for good, but I'm not optimistic.

See WSGC Pending Cases and Final Orders > then to Organizations > 2010 > Happy Days.

Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act hits my bank

From my bank's statement today:

Not that it'll matter much, since all the good bonuses dried up a couple years ago, and I've been living off the same PokerStars deposit since 2006, but still... that just ain't right.

Goofy gambling laws

Part of the fun of playing poker and other games in states other than Vegas and Washington is the unusual hoops the casino has to go through to allow gambling. In Washington, as you may know, the slot machines and video poker machines are really "video lottery terminals", which pull virtual scratch tickets from a virtual pile of pre-programmed prizes, then animate the reels to match the prize.

In Wisconsin, it's virtual bingo. A virtual card is drawn from a virtual pile, a set of X bingo balls is selected, and the pattern they make on the card determines the payout. The reels are then animated to match that payout.

I just experienced Arkansas slot machines at the Oaklawn racetrack. Buttons numbered 1-10 are lit up, and you select three of them. A horse race is selected from what must be a very deep pool of races (I saw some going back to 2002). If the finish of the race matches some or all of your picks, you win. The reels are animated to match that payout, as a 4-second clip of the finish race is shown in a little 2x3 windown on the screen. They call it "instant racing". The alternative is a bank of slot machines that spins the reels twice -- you pick which reels to hold after the first spin.

Also, to play poker, I had to sign up for the players club, load the players club card up with money, then use that card at an electronic poker table (no human dealer, no real chips, no real cards -- just 10 touch screens and a center screen). What a hassle. The only game they spread was $1/$2 no-limit hold 'em, which, I'll admit, I prefer a lot less than limit games. I left $100 lighter. Poor Arkansans.

WSGC: All in for $500? Oops.

Back in May, in response to the Washington State Gambling Commission raising the all-in bet limit, I pointed out the following oddity of the rule:

You're holding pocket aces, and you've got $600 in chips in front of you. What can you bet while still complying with the law? Remember, "the maximum amount of a single wager must not exceed $40, except that an all-in wager ... may not exceed $500."

I think you're stuck tossing in $40, but that doesn't seem right at all."

Well, this quarter's WSGC newsletter is out, and they admit they were confused, too. They write:

The change allows "all in" wagers, only, to exceed the $40 poker wagering limit. The rule does not allow players to make call or matching wagers exceeding the $40 limit. Additionally, the rule is ambiguous as to who is eligible to make an all-in wager. For example, if a player has $550, could they wager $500, or, would they be ineligible to place the all-in wager? In other words, does a player have to have $500 or less to be able to place the all-in wager? Prior to the "all in" wager change, all [poker room] wagers were limited to $40.

Their proposed solution, which I expect they'll fast-track: removing the "all in" reference, allowing the rule to revert back to the $40 limit.

No other big news this time, except that they clarified that a poker room supervisor is allowed to accept tips.

WA rules update: No electronic poker tables; all in for $500

The April 2009 issue of the Washington State Gambling Commission's Focus on Gambling newsletter is out today. Poker-related items include:

• Minors will now be fined up to $125 and 4 days community service for gambling. The governor is expected to sign this bill. Currently, only those to allow minors to gamble are penalized; there is no punishment for minors.
• The WSGC did not approve PokerTek's electronic tables. We won't be seeing them around here any time soon.
• There's a rule change up for action in July, allowing quarters or 50¢ pieces to be used for the rake. I expect this will actually reduce the rake a little bit.

And here's the big one: Currently, WAC 230-15-135(1)(c) states that the maximum amount of a single poker wager must be $40 or less. Effective July 1, the limit is the same, except that a player may go all-in in Texas Hold'em for $500 or less, if they have no more than $500 remaining. This is at a way higher level than I'd ever play at, but I'm trying to figure out how this would work. Assuming a $2-$40 spread game, which is the closest we have to No-Limit Hold 'Em off the reservations, we could get a round of:

Small blind: $1
Big Blind: $2
UTG: $40
UTG+1: Call $40, raise $40
Middle position: "All-in for $250"
Fold, fold, fold, and it's to you on the button. You're holding pocket aces, and you've got $600 in chips in front of you. What can you bet while still complying with the law? Remember, "the maximum amount of a single wager must not exceed $40, except that an all-in wager ... may not exceed $500."

I think you're stuck tossing in $40, but that doesn't seem right at all.

Happy Days: here again?

From Lakewood City Councilman Walter Neary's blog, Neary-Sighted:

Tonight's Meeting: The Lakewood City Council will hear comment tonight [February 17] about a moratorium about mini-casinos. This is a big subject that defies the simplicity of one blog posting, but I mention the meeting at 7 p.m. tonight in case anyone wants to listen. What should be interesting tonight is that we will likely hear from the folks who operated Happy Days on Bridgeport. They want to reopen. I look forward to hearing from all sides on this one.

I wish them lots of luck. When they closed 13 months ago, they still owed taxes to the city and fines to the state gambling commission. But their liberal match play policy was a big part of my 2007 gambling winnings, so I'm hoping they can persuade the council to let them get back in business.

Lakewood casinos open for business

As of 12:23 p.m., the county elections department reports that the voting was 3,259 (38.6%) yes, 5,191 (61.4%) no. The News Tribune called it "rejected" earlier this morning:

Voters widely rejecting proposal to ban casinos in Lakewood

Published: November 5th, 2008 12:30 AM

A proposal to ban minicasinos in Lakewood was failing Tuesday night. Initial counts from the Pierce County Auditor’s Office showed Proposition 1, the city’s first citizen-led initiative, going down by a wide margin.

Gambling Commission rules changes,

There's some big Washington State Gambling Commission rules changes in this quarter's Focus on Gambling newsletter. The big ones:

• Effective January 1, bet limits on table games are $300 instead of $200.
• Effective January 1, mini-baccarat is legal. This game has the smallest house edge in the casino. The only better game out there is a limited number of video poker machines, which aren't legal in Washington.

Still on the table for November's Commission meeting:

• Electronic poker tables
• Raise the limit on a poker wager from $40 to $500
• Increase the number of players at a table game, other than poker, from seven to nine
• A casino that only is running poker tables, and has wager limits at $40 or less, doesn't have to staff a surveillance room.

On a different topic, I'm really curious to see how Lakewood's proposition 1 ends up. I have no sense of which way the populace is leaning. It could easily go 65%/35% either way, and it's such a micro-issue, there's no polls to go by. Best case: it's defeated, which entices a new casino to fill in the hole left by Happy Days, increasing competition and benefiting edge players (me!). Worst case: I have to drive to Lacey to play poker.

Casino law changes, statewide and local

The May-July "Focus On Gambling" newsletter came out today (.pdf), and it's got news of a big law change, and a few other smaller bits. The big news (and I've already heard radio ads mentioning it) is that casinos can now be open 24 hours five days a week, and for 20 hours the other two days. I'd called this a "good change" in my post about upcoming regulations last April.

The other good proposed change -- the addition of baccarat to the list of permitted casino games -- will be discussed in August.

Also in August, they'll discuss increasing the maximum number of poker players at a table from 10 to 12 (boo!), increasing the tournament fee limit (boo!), and increasing the table game limits from $200 to $500 (meh.)

The Recreational Gaming Association requested that the proposal to increase poker limits from $40 to $500 be put on hold (yay for the delay!). They also

• withdrew their request to increase the player-supported jackpot admin fee from 10% to 35%. (yay!)
• withdrew their request to drop the requirement that table games be dealt from a shoe. (bizarre)
• withdrew their request to eliminate the 5% commission limit for games like Pai Gow and Baccarat. (yay, I guess.)

Locally, the Pierce County Auditor told the SaveLakewood.com folks that they were about 1000 signatures short on their initiative to ban casinos in Lakewood. David Anderson, who's spearheading the campaign, wrote in an e-mail to supporters,

By 12 noon on Friday, August 1, we will need another 1,000 signatures to enable the Initiative to ban casino gambling in Lakewood to make it to the ballot in November. The Pierce County Auditor reviewed the 4,939 signatures we previously submitted and determined there are 2,947 valid signatures. 1,992 signatures were challenged.

We will be meeting with the Auditor on Wednesday, July 23, to determine why over 30 percent of our signatures have been rejected in the hope that we can save some.

I suspect a lot of people who signed the petitions weren't Lakewood residents, or weren't registered voters. They've also had trouble raising funds. The image at right shows the group's donations.

Washington State Gambling Commission announces changes

The quarterly Focus on Gambling (.pdf) newsletter has some interesting bits for Q1.

A good change: Today, card room operations are limited to 20 hours a day, seven days a week. Effective July 1, a card room may request permission to be open 24/7 five days a week, and 20 hours for the other two days a week.

Good proposed changes: The WSGC is considering allowing baccarat. Betting on the banker in baccarat is one of the smallest house edges in all casino games.

Bad proposed changes:

• Increase the number of players allowed at a poker table from 10 to 12. As if it wasn't crowded enough in some card rooms already. I have a vague recollection of sitting at an 11-player table once (illegal?), and it was almost too tight to reach your cards.
• Increase poker bet limits from $40 to $500. In essence, this pretty much means allowing no-limit hold 'em. I generally suck at NLHE, so this would draw players away from my table. They did this in Florida last year, and the podcasters at Ante Up have talked about what a wild game $2/$5 NLHE is, and implied that it becomes a game of playing all-in or fold when you arrive any time after a game opens.
• Increase the player-supported jackpot admin fee from 10% to 35%. I hate these jackpots anyway, and now they are considering taking another 25% off the top?
• Remove the dollar limit on card tournament fees. I don't know what the limit is, but if this passes, it wouldn't surprise me if tournament fees went up across the board. I like my el cheapo tourneys, thankyouverymuch.

"Meh" proposed changes:

• Increase table game limits from $200 to $500. That would match the Indian casinos, and would likely reduce the number of low-limit tables out there.
• Drop the requirement that table games be dealt from a shoe. Huh? I don't know why any casino would want this.
• Eliminate the 5% commission limit for games like Pai Gow and Baccarat. I don't know that any player would stand for a higher commission, so I don't see anyone trying this. Then again, there's some dumb players out there.

I think they have a list of proposed changes every quarter. Usually only a couple of these changes pass. Here's hoping for lots of match play baccarat this fall.

Lakewood gambling forum: a stacked deck

The president of the Tillicum/Woodbrook neighborhood association is on the record in favor of closing all six of Lakewood's casinos. So why, on December 4, are they hosting a forum on gambling at the Clover Park High School PAC? Well, they've invited the six casino managers, and 50 churches. Panelists will include one casino manager (who appears to only have tentatively accepted), the director of the Evergreen Council on Problem Gambling, and a professor from Whatcom county whose organization has recently sued the Nooksack tribe's casino (and lost).

I may show up to bring a little dissonance to their echo chamber. Their announcement is pasted below.

Following are the final confirmed panelists for the Lakewood citywide forum on gambling to be held Tuesday, December 4, 6:30-8:30 PM at the Performing Arts Center of Clover Park High School located at 11023 Gravelly Lake Drive, SW.

Moderator: Peter Callaghan, columnist and reporter with The (Tacoma) News Tribune.

Panelists:

• John Arbeeny, Lakewood City Councilman
• Pad Finnigan, Lakewood City Councilman
• Mike McKenzie, Lakewood Assistant Attorney
• Craig Mayberry, Lynden, WA - Professor at Whatcom Community College and at Western Washington University. Craig is spokesperson for the North County Alliance (NCCA) of Whatcom County that has a federal lawsuit against the recently opened Nooksack Tribe's casino. Craig believes "solutions to the social injustices (created by gambling) will only come through a grassroots effort by local communities to hold elected officials and government bureaucrats accountable to upholding the civil rights of all individuals, regardless of the amount of campaign contributions."
• Marueen Greeley, Executive Director of the Evergreen Council on Problem Gambling (formerly Washington Council on Problem Gambling).
• Gary Hess, Manager, Great American Casino (or possibly Greg Bakamis, former manager now in corporate office). One or the other is confirmed.

The format for the evening:

• 6:30-6:45 Doors open, seats taken and a presentation of the 2nd Annual Rudy 'Rebel' Baker Award for Outstanding Volunteer Community Service in the Tillicum/Woodbrook Neighborhood. As this forum is sponsored by the Tillicum/Woodbrook Neighborhood Association (TWNA); and as this forum replaces our regular monthly meeting for December, this is the one item of business we want to conduct the evening of the forum - Dec.4.
• 6:45-7:00 Introductions of Panelists by Peter Callaghan and two-minute statements by each panelist.
• 7:00-8:20 Interactions between panelists and audience, moderated by Peter Callaghan.
• 8:30 Adjourn

There is much at stake at this forum. Lakewood leads the state in card tables that, together with other gambling revenues, are slated to generate $2.36 million in taxes for the city next year. And a ban on gambling, supported by one of the largest churches in Lakewood, could mean the end of 800 jobs, "25 police officers, or requiring each city department to cut its budget by 10 percent" (TNT, 10/3/07).

General audience invitations have been sent to all six mini-casinos in Lakewood and to nearly 50 Lakewood churches. The PAC has a 600 seat capacity.

The Planning Advisory Board, that has been charged with the responsibility to study the impact of gambling in Lakewood with recommendations due in January, has also been invited as they have expressed the need for public input.

Thank you for your willingness to be a part of this citywide event, and for promoting it among those like-minded with your position.

Federal Gambling Act fallout: Bodog loses domain

A newsletter I received earlier this week, and an e-mail I received today, point out some collateral damage resulting from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Bodog, which is the biggest name in North American non-poker internet gaming, was the defendant in a largely baseless patent infringement action. The lawsuit was filed in Vegas. Bodog representatives, fearing arrest if they set foot in the US, failed to appear. The plaintiff got a default judgement, forcing bodog to give up their flagship Bodog.com domain name. The Vancouver Sun writes:

The Las Vegas company obtained the judgment after the Bodog companies failed to answer allegations, filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada, that downloaded software used by Bodog customers to facilitate its gaming activities infringed upon 1st Technology's patents.

It is not clear why Bodog officials did not respond to the allegations. One possibility is they were scared away by the U.S. Department of Justice, which has declared war on Internet gambling.

The oddity of casino laws: La Center poker

I went to Portland for three days this week for a training class, which left me with evening free of family obligations. Time for poker. But where?

Other than some pointless strip club poker (free chips, free rebuy, skanky distractions), there's no legal poker in Portland. The nearest spot is 15 miles north, in La Center. Otherwise, it's 100 miles either way to Spirit Mountain (south) or Lucky Eagle (north).

They way the laws must be written, it sounds like Clark County has banned casinos, except they've left it up to municipalities to determine whether they want casinos within their boundaries. La Center is the only town that allows it, and it appears they've strictly zoned it. There's no casinos within 100 miles, but there's four of them here so close together, that with a baseball and good arm you could stand at any of them and hit any other.

Tuesday night, I played at Last Frontier, brought my super tight game, and ended up down $142. The game was $3/$6 full kill, which means that when a player wins two hands in a row, the bets jump up to $6/$12 for the next hand. My sets ran into straights, my flushes ran into boats, my AK and AQ never hit, and I mis-bet a $6/$12 hand, giving away weakness when I asked to pull back a $6 bet on a $12 round. Several hands were short-handed five or six player games, and my aggression only served to cost me money.

Frustrated, I wandered over to New Phoenix, which had two full tables, then to Palace, which doesn't have poker, then to Chips, where I got into a standard $3/$6 game, decided to play a little looser, and won $40. Still, being down $102 for the night was frustrating.

Wednesday night, after studying for my Thursday exam for a few hours, I tried to decide whether I was up to driving 15 miles to play again. The slightly looser play seemed to work the night before, so I decided that if I could double a $1 buyin at PokerStars' 2¢/4¢ limit tables, I'd be able to do well at the real thing. In 40 minutes of play, I was up $1.04, and hit the road.

Chips La Center had two full kill $3/$6 games going, and although I signed up, I really didn't want to play a full kill game, so I wandered around again, but didn't find anything better. All of the pai gow games charged 5% commission, so no go there.

I returned to Chips, and the waiting list had gotten long enough that they opened a third $3/$6 table, no kill. Nice. Two hours of play, and I was up $158, plus a comped dinner. Yeah, a comped dinner doesn't mean a lot when the office would otherwise pay for it, but still, that's cool. The change in my game? Looser, but not crazy loose. Luck helped a lot, too. I played A2o in late position, hit an ace on the flop, and won with it. An early position 98s hit two pair on the flop and won, as did Q8s on the button, which rivered a full house to beat a flush. Mid-position pocket fives hit a set, and beat a flush when the board paired on the river.

Is my game back? It's too early to say. I'm looking forward to Vegas later this month, though.

Law change: $25 is now $40

Yeah, I'm a few months behind on this one. In the Washington State Gambling Commission's March Focus on Gambling newsletter (.pdf), they announced a rule change that became effective April 9: poker wagering limits, which had been a maximum of $25, have been bumped up to $40. That explains why I'm seeing $8/$16 and $10/$20 tables now, when I never remembered seeing them before.

The newsletters are a fun read -- you get to see what happens to dealers who are caught stealing, who deal drunk, who rig raffles, and who give out money to players who don't win. There's also lists of casinos who allow minors to play and who don't file their paperwork on time.

A sensible poker law

Following is a copy of an e-mail I sent to Rep. Steve Conway (R-Mercer Island), and cc:ed to my local state senator and representative. (Hyperlink added)

Subject: In Support of HB 1243: Please schedule a hearing
From: [me]
Date: Thu, January 25, 2007 10:11 am
To: Conway.steve@leg.wa.gov
Cc: carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov, kelley.troy@leg.wa.gov, green.tami@leg.wa.gov
Priority: Normal

Mr. Conway:

I am writing in support of House Bill 1243, "Providing an affirmative defense to unlawful internet gambling if the defendant committed the offense in his or her primary residence." Please schedule a hearing for this bill.

I am a lifelong resident of Lakewood, and believe it is incongruent of the state of Washington to have made online poker a class C felony, while still permitting home poker games, licensing local casinos, and advocating the state's sale of lottery tickets.

Sincerely,

[signature and contact information]

cc: 28th District legislators Mike Carrell, Tami Green, and Troy Kelley

Props to the Poker Players Alliance for the heads up on the existence of this bill.

The sky, it's a falling

From Neteller.com:

Effective Immediately

Due to recent US legislative changes and events, effective immediately, US members are no longer able to transfer funds to or from any online gambling sites.

All US members will continue to be able to use their NETELLER e-wallet account to safely transfer funds to and from non-gambling merchants and are not required to close their account or withdraw their funds.

I received several e-mails from many of the online casinos I played at last summer, plus e-mail from FullTilt[1] and PokerStars. In short, without sending a check or money order, it's going to be difficult to get money into our out of online gambling sites.

Wil Wheaton comments at thusly at CardSquad: this is the beginning of the end:

See, I really like poker, but I'm not rich, and while I'm entirely comfortable risking the price of a night out for dinner and a movie to play cards and maybe even leave with more than I started, I don't see myself driving to Commerce or the Bike, or making a special trip to Vegas to play in a B&M room for higher stakes, with the associated costs of travel and the extra investment of my time.

There are a lot of reasons to loathe my idiot government now, and this is right up there in my top five: they're telling me what I can do in my own home, and they're negatively impacting my ability to support myself and my family . . . and for what, exactly? So Bill Frist can pander to a minority of ultra-conservative whackos, and then not even follow through on his presidential bid?

This sucks. It makes me angry, and it makes me depressed.

Wil refers to Bill Rini's article, in which Bill accurately points out that the sky is indeed falling:

The problem is, IMHO, people like Amy who tell people that the sky isn’t falling. It gives credit to those saying this is some sort of isolated incident. Just like Firepay[2] was an isolated incident, Party[3] leaving the US was an isolated incident, Paradise[4] leaving the US was an isolated incident, yadda, yadda, yadda. People need to wake up and realize the US government has come to the playing field with their A-Game. We’re bumbling around arguing about whether there’s even a game today or not. The sky IS falling! How can you watch these multi-billion dollar a year companies bolting out of the US faster than you move your hand off a hot stove and think this is something that’s going to easily pass?

If you have even one iota of knowledge about how money moves around in this business the goals of the UIGEA[5] should have sent cold shivers down your spine. The guys who wrote the bill either by design or by complete fluke figured out how to best kill an online poker company; starve it to death.

What's going to happen? Well, for me, I've got about $150 sitting in PokerStars, and a few bucks either at FullTilt or BoDog. Those few bucks will need to grow to at least $50 to make a permissible withdrawl. The $150 will have to be the basis for my entire future play, which will need to be pretty much exclusively at PokerStars, unless I want to go through the multi-week process of getting a withdrawl, cashing the check, and writing a new check to another source. (Western Union fees make using them prohibitive.)

Assuming everyone's in a similar spot, the way I see it playing out is like this: very few new players will be sending checks to put money into their accounts. It's too time consuming, and most casual players probably made their first deposit on a whim. This means that, for the most part, the only money in play will be money that people had in their accounts on January 18.

Generally, the weakest players will lose their bankrolls first. Few new players will sign up to take their spots. PokerStars, who has had 40,000-80,000 players at a time each evening, will see these numbers drop as the better players take the money from the fish. As the numbers drop, the caliber of the average player increases. The medium sized fish, who have eaten all the small fish, become the small fish. I'm guessing that I'm one of these medium sized fish.

A smart fish (I'm an example of this, I hope) will play until they're in the lower half of the skill level of the remaining players. The smart thing to do is to play until this point, then withdraw all funds. The tough part is determining what this point is. Maybe I'm already there. At that point, the pool of players gets smaller and smaller, until it's a small handful of very good US players, and middle-to-good players from outside the US.

At least I can drive a mile and visit a local B&M casino. This has to really suck for people who live in places like Dallas or Salt Lake City, where the nearest card room is several hours away (or available in the warehouse district only if you use the secret knock and password).

-----

[1] From an e-mail from FullTilt: "As you may be aware, NETeller has announced that it will no longer accept transfer requests from U.S. customers to online poker sites or allow withdrawals from online poker sites to your NETeller account, effective immediately."

[2] Firepay was an online payment processor, like Neteller and PayPal. PayPal pulled out of the online gambling market a couple years ago, when they were getting dinged with too many chargebacks.

[3], [4] PartyPoker and Paradise pulled out in October, with a slew of other sites.

[5] The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. This is the party of smaller government?

Texas is Hold 'Em-free

I'm in Dallas for a week for a conference, and arrived late Saturday in order to be sure I was in time for a Sunday afternoon session. Having all of Saturday night and Sunday morning, I figured I'd have time to find some local card rooms and play a few hours of poker.

Yeah, well, not really. I knew coming down that poker games with a rake are illegal, and that there's no casinos in Texas. There's ads... for Shreveport, Lousiana and Duncan, Oklahoma. With no rental car, those 2-3 hour drives aren't gonna happen.

Several local web forums (link, link) indicate that there's a thriving underground poker scene, but particularly after a SWAT team raid this summer, you won't find out the card room locations online, and you'll basically have to be screened to get in. It also sounds like higher stakes than I want to play, too.

In fact, the only place I found that spreads any game with a reasonable limit is (NSFW) The Lodge strip club, which hosts a free tournament on Sunday afternoons. Not gonna work. So, it's online from the hotel room.

Wil Wheaton posed a question on the CardSquad blog. "With Party Poker pulling out of the US market, Full Tilt and Poker Stars have exploded, and I've heard from lots of people that the games are incredibly easy to beat now, even on PokerStars, which has a reputation for tougher competition and stronger players." He's got few replies, but I can say that from my experience, it's true. I played at PokerStars 12 days in late August and early September, and ended up -$16.70. I've played at PokerStars 11 times in October/November, and am +$65.68.

On the advice of Tres, I started playing at FullTilt tonight. I don't like it as much as PokerStars; their tournaments aren't as frequent, and FullTilt's screens aren't as re-sizeable, making it challenging to multi-table on a small laptop monitor. Still, I'm ahead there so far.

Time to cash out

Well, as I feared, Congress -- led by the party of smaller government (?!?) -- has attached an anti-internet gambling measure to an unstoppable port security bill. President Bush will be signing it shortly.

USA Today says that PartyPoker plans to pull out of the US market, which represents about 80% of its customer base. A scan of Google News shows that PokerStars plans to do the same. Full Tilt and some others plan on staying.

Neteller is mentioned in a few of the articles I've read, and I'm getting the feeling that its days of servicing the US are numbered. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I think it's time to cash out until the dust settles. I've cleaned out my Party Poker account, leaving $25 that I'm willing to lose. I've cleaned out my Neteller acocunt, leaving nothing. I've still got money in my PokerStars account, but will probably empty that tonight.

It's a run on an uninsured bank, Wonderful Life style! Hopefully, I'm near the front of the line.

It'll be fascinating to see what springs up to take its place. I wouldn't be surprised if some foreign bank begins allows US citizens to create offshore bank accounts, and access them through an ATM. It's probably happened already, and I'm just not aware of it yet.