My Gila PokerSearch and Find Poker

The most unlikely pair of political animals in the US, have taken up the cause for online gambling, and are aiming high to hit the jackpot. They are Barney Frank and Joe Barton, and if you don’t know who they are – Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), is considered to be a Conservative fire-brand, and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), is a New England Liberal. They have been seen to be talking up members on the ‘supercommittee’, while espousing the cause FOR online gambling. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), of the supercommitte, who has been completely opposed to the idea, apparently seems to be softening his ultra-hard stance.

The ‘supercommitte’ is an extremely powerful deficit-slashing committee; this pair is arguing that to offer online gambling to the US public will have the effect of  boosting tax revenue, as well as creating many highly technical jobs.

They are not alone in their support of this industry – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been trying by any means he can to get this industry off the ground. In fact he even tried to slip online gambling legalization language into a ‘must’ pass’ tax bill last year.

The numbers they are looking at for legal online gambling in the US, could create $40 billion in revenue over the next decade. But tailgating on the recent FTP scandal, may have the opposite affect. While the AGA argues that there would have been no Full Tilt Poker scandal, had this industry been legalised, in retrospect things are still not looking completely attractive. By the same token, if the US only legalised online poker, there would at best still be good potential for wealth creation. But again has FTP has tarred online poker with the same brush? It may not be so simple for this industry to ever have a good name again. The timing could not have been worse.

While the odds are a long shot for the supercommittee to include some provision for online gaming or poker in a final deficit-reduction package; the amazing depth of support for this industry is starting to tell – all scandals aside. Barney Frank told Politico that $40 billion in revenue over ten years is starting to look extremely attractive. He believes there is a jobs impact and economic argument to be made, and agrees that more people died from drinking bad booze during Prohibition, than those that didn’t (drink bad booze and die).

He believes that the legalization of online gambling is a more common-sense approach, as do many of us, and not only because we are in the industry. Prohibition has never worked; people want to gamble and they will do it illegally online or anywhere else, regardless of the fact that the risks are great and they remain unprotected. Just like unprotected sex, no matter the dire consequences, people will still have sex unprotected. The Government can’t stop this from happening, by protecting people against themselves. Not yet anyway!
The upshot of it all is that Frank and Barton have put together an option that the supercommittee can ‘seriously’ consider, and apparently they are ‘seriously’ considering it.

Why poker? That seems an easy question, but the answer is both complex and personal. There are several reason why people become attracted to the exciting game that is poker.

Entertainment
Poker is a very competitive game. In order to win, you will need both skill and luck. Many people find that exciting and compare poker to playing sports. Make sure to not get carried away, because you always risk losing money.

Education
The skills gained from playing poker are also useful in many other aspects of live. Poker can teach you to make more conscious decisions and enhances your logical and strategic skills.

Money
While most people think that poker is great fun, a lot of people are attracted to the game because of the money. This may not be for everyone, but money is a good motivation to improve your poker skills. Poker is one of the few ways to make serious money at the playing tables.

Proposition bets and poker are not mutually exclusive, in fact there is often more money running on prop bets at a tournament, than there is money on the tables. There have been some real stinkers over time and the latest prop bet on the poker tables has also made the news. Propositions bets are the fun fuel for pro poker players and just last week Ashton Griffin won $300,000 for running 70 miles in 24 hours. This feat has once again sparked debate; but it is not nearly as debatable as the $100 000 breast implants debacle – surely?

There are always the so-called poker experts who take up cudgels and ask the question, “are proposition bets good for the image of the game?” I am pretty sure that poker pros don’t give a damn whether their high jinx prop bets are good for the image of the game or not, it is the people on the rail that have asked and respond to this argument. Firstly they are calling this bet outrageous, in whose eyes is it outrageous? Certainly not in the eyes of the pros who are putting their money down! However, on the other side of the coin, it does make them look like a bunch for degenerate gamblers when the bets are truly outrageous.

Running 70 miles in 24 hours is not truly outrageous – the boy must be a good runner to have initiated this bet in the first place. The first rule of initiating a proposition bet is always use something you are good at. How on earth Brian Zembic landed up with breast implants is anyone’s guess, but he did, he wore them for a year, collected his $100 000 and kept them. He must have wanted breast in the first place – he now says they turn the ladies on. That is a degenerate prop bet! This type of bet is about flexing bravado, but if you are a good runner and you run the New York Marathon, you get a prize for your effort, why shouldn’t Ashton Griffin win $300,000 for running 70 miles in 24 hours?

One comment was that it is bad enough the public believe “poker is just one giant game of luck” and these prop bets make it look worse. Well the public probably also thought that Babe Ruth was a giant bundle of luck too! C’mon this is the dumb public we are talking about; poker players know better and that is all that matters. This is poker, it has a reputation and it always will. While poor poker players try to clean up this image; being a little bit “dirty” is a big part of pokers’ charm!

It seems also that the bets themselves are not so bad, but the amounts of money bet makes them worse – this is just plain envy as far as I am concerned. $300 000 probably feels like $300 to Phil Ivey. When Oprah takes a plane load of studio guests on holiday to Australia for a week, everyone goes awwww… but a $300 000 bet and this is flexing financial bravado, because they are poker players. Proposition bets go with the poker territory, always have and always will. Let them have their fun, remember they lead far more exciting lives than we do, so everything they do is larger than life. They earned it , let them spend it!