Write about Poker. Read about Life. Welcome to PokerWonks.com.
Here's a story from The Press of Atlantic City yesterday that shows a possible problem for the Revel casino project. I was pretty excited about this casino after I saw the plans for this casino. It was different for Atlantic City and definitely a place I would check out as I am just dieing for a good poker room with great dealers.
Atlantic City Housing Authority questions financing for $2B. Revel casino
By MAYA RAO Staff Writer, 609-272-7221
Published: Friday, January 11, 2008
ATLANTIC CITY - The head of the Housing Authority raised questions in an interview Friday about whether Revel Entertainment Group has sufficient financing to follow through on its proposal for a $2 billion casino on which construction has just begun in the South Inlet.
Dennis Ricci's remarks followed a controversial decision the authority made at a special meeting Thursday night that will hamper Revel's access to $53 million its financers are holding in escrow until it has a so-called reverter clause stricken from its agreement with the authority. The casino, slated to open in 2010, would be the biggest and most expensive in the resort.
"The question that needs to be asked is why this is undercapitalized," Ricci said. "Everyone knew going in that the reverter was in place. (Revel CEO and Chairman Kevin DeSanctis) knew it was in place. That was their business decision."
The authority maintains that all of its redevelopment agreements have carried such a clause, under which developers must complete construction within a specified period - among other requirements - or the land "reverts" to the Housing Authority. The measure was implemented to hold developers accountable after the resort in decades past saw a slew of failed promises resulting in vacant lots; the authority only removes it from agreements once construction is complete.
An agreement from a previous developer bearing the clause was carried over to Revel in 2006 once the company, backed by Wall Street giant Morgan Stanley, purchased five acres of authority-owned land as part of its 20-acre beachfront site. Revel only recently submitted papers seeking 20 different amendments, one of them a request to drop the reverter clause.
The Housing Authority approved the majority of the amendments sought. And it offered to meet Revel halfway, said Ricci, by agreeing to remove the clause once the company secured permanent financing. So far, Revel is operating on $160 million in interim financing in an effort to start construction quickly even though permanent financing was difficult to obtain because of problems in the credit markets. Revel expects to secure permanent financing in three or four months.
"We will bend over and do something we have never done for anyone else before by taking out the reverter prior to completion," Ricci said.
The unanimous vote has prompted threats and criticism from Revel, which said it was counting on tapping into its $53 million in escrow by the end of the month to proceed with the project. Revel officials met with Mayor Scott Evans in City Hall on Friday to press the issue, and several City Council members are backing an ordinance for next Wednesday's meeting that would eliminate the authority's redevelopment powers.
Escrow money aside, just $68.3 million of Revel's interim financing is allotted for construction improvements; $52 million is going to pay off existing debts, authority documents show.
"That's (the construction improvements) less than 3 percent of project," Ricci said. "That's a very small amount of money."
"The reverter is the only control or remedy the public sector has in case there are any defaults along the way," he added.
Revel attorney Lloyd Levenson raised sharp questions about the Housing Authority's motivations, claiming the authority asked Revel during the course of their negotiations for money in exchange for dropping the clause.
"They know as well as everyone else knows that this is a partnership between Morgan Stanley and Revel, and we have done more in a year than any other developer has done on that site in 40 years," DeSanctis said.
Levenson, who said the company has spent more than $250 million overall on the project - including the cost of the land - also noted that the authority would only have the power to "revert" five acres of land, which would be useless because it is too small for a hotel or casino.
Among the other concessions the authority granted to Revel, according to documents, was extending the term required for completion from three years to four - with the option of extending that term by paying $250,000 for every six-month interval after. The Housing Authority balked at an additional request from Revel to change the period the authority has to approve its permanent financing to just 10 days. The authority is pushing for a 30-day period.
The Housing Authority is also asking Revel to increase its hiring goals for unemployed and under-employed resort residents from 20 to 30 percent, a proposal that Revel rejected, according to Ricci.
City Council passed a resolution Dec. 28 ordering the authority to approve the amendments Revel was seeking, but Ricci claims he did not find out until later and had to call the Clerk's Office for the documents. Evans said he met with Ricci on Friday.
"The city is very concerned about this issue and the city intends to see that everything can be done in an amicable way to see that the Revel project continues without any disruption," Evans said.
The mayor has a seldom-invoked veto power over authority meeting minutes, according to the city code, which says that no action taken by the authority is effective until approved by the mayor or 10 days after a copy of the minutes is delivered to his office.
Evans, who was unaware of that power, said he would consult with the city solicitor on it and that he believed the issue could be resolved within the next few days.
Councilman Tim Mancuso said he thought the authority had acted with good intentions, though some miscommunication may have occurred, and suggested that all parties could sit down without having to "go to war."
State Sen. James Whelan, D-Atlantic, a former resort mayor and frequent critic of the government's interference here with attracting what he believes is much-needed development, had this to say: "Frankly, this is the kind of snag that comes up that developers look at and kind of say geez, what's going on?"
To e-mail Maya Rao at The Press:
mrao@pressofac.com
Read Full Poker Blog Post

I know I am a little late on this, but sometimes even the real job gets in the way of things.
On Wednesday, the World Poker Tour announced the creation of the World Poker Tour Ladies League. The WPT is incorporating a title into the events it was previously holding.
I bet all the women out there are asking, well how can I play? Easy. Come to the Borgata on Jan. 20. It’s the first stop of the five-date tour. I have every intention of playing in this tournament. I actually had planned on it before it was given this prestigious title. This is part of my lesson in becoming a better tournament player. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Women are a growing demographic in the game. In every poker room, you can find a handful of women, not all are good, but they are there.
However, the men still seem enamored by the fact women are playing in their game. Some even get scared. One time I sat in a cash game at the Taj and the man to my immediate left got up and said he couldn’t play with women on the game because they take all his money and suck out.
Well, except for that silly Showboat tourney I played in recently, I don’t suck out. I think he just plays badly.
But it’s comments like that that scare women away from the game. It’s relative to high school where there have been studies done showing girls are intimidated by boys. That was never my problem, which is probably why I enjoy sitting at a poker table so much.
These women’s tournaments and women’s events are great for these other types of women though. It’s a much more relaxed atmosphere and they get a chance to enjoy a social game with women of the same interests.
As much as there are other women playing poker now, I find it hard to find another woman I can actually enjoy poker with. Either they think they are better than they really are and don’t want to listen to advice when they ship it, or the women just love the social aspect of the game.
I plan on being at the Borgata for my first major tournament. And as I’ve learned, you have to play bad to win these things. Just kidding.
Here’s the rest of the schedule:
• January 20 – Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa – Atlantic City, NJ – $300+$50
• Feb 2-3 – Commerce Casino* – Los Angeles, CA – $970+$95
• March 16 – Bay 101** – San Jose, Ca. – $300+$30
• March 29 – Foxwoods Resort and Casino – Mashantucket, CT – $530+70
WPT Ladies’ Championship
• April 13-14 – Bellagio – Las Vegas, Nevada – $1500+$90
• April 25 – Final Table
Read Full Poker Blog Post
Check out the latest article from The Press of Atlantic City on the selling of the Tropicana.
LATEST NEWS: Colony Capital makes $850M. offer for Tropicana
By DONALD WITTKOWSKI Staff Writer, 609-272-7258
Published: Wednesday, January 9, 2008
ATLANTIC CITY - Colony Capital LLC, a private real estate investment firm that already owns two Atlantic City gaming halls, has made an $850 million cash offer for the troubled Tropicana Casino and Resort.
Los Angeles-based Colony expressed its interest in a letter to Gary S. Stein, a former New Jersey Supreme Court justice who is overseeing Tropicana's sale in his role as a state-appointed conservator.
Colony spokeswoman Lisa Baker declined to comment Wednesday night. Other company representatives in Los Angeles and New York could not be reached. The Press of Atlantic City learned of the offer from people familiar with Colony's letter.
The Atlantic City Hilton Casino Resort and sister property Resorts Atlantic City are owned by Colony affiliates. Colony tried to acquire Tropicana in 2006 but was outbid by Kentucky-based Columbia Sussex Corp. in a $2.75 billion takeover of Tropicana casinos in Atlantic City and Las Vegas formerly owned by Aztar Corp.
Columbia Sussex, in turn, was denied a new gaming license Dec. 12 by the state Casino Control Commission following a disastrous 11-month reign that included mass job cuts, regulatory violations and complaints of unsanitary conditions and poor customer service. The commission appointed Stein to take charge until the casino is sold.
Interest in Tropicana has intensified in the last two weeks as potential bidders have begun jockeying for position. Connecticut's Mohegan Sun casino is looking at Tropicana as part of its East Coast expansion plans. In addition, a private investment group headed by New Jersey real estate developer Curtis Bashaw and former Atlantic City gaming executive Wallace R. Barr has confirmed it may make a bid for Tropicana.
As owner of two of Atlantic City's smaller casinos, Colony Capital reportedly has been shopping for a large property that would transform it into a major player in the country's second-largest gaming market.
The sprawling Tropicana has 2,129 hotel rooms, 3,400 slot machines and about 150,000 square feet of casino space. However, the aging casino floor and hotel towers are badly in need of renovation to complement Tropicana's tourist-friendly retail and entertainment complex known as The Quarter.
Gaming analysts have estimated Tropicana will fetch between $800 million and $1 billion in an auction. Colony's offer suggests a minimum of $850 million. The buyer likely will have to spend a few hundred million dollars more to refurbish the 27-year-old property.
Other possible bidders include Pinnacle Entertainment Inc., Ameristar Casinos, Penn National Gaming and Crown Ltd., a gaming company headed by billionaire James Packer, Australia's richest man, according to analysts.
One private group seen as a likely bidder is Gomes + Cordish Gaming Management LLC, a newly formed partnership between Dennis Gomes and Baltimore-based retail developer Cordish Co. Gomes was Tropicana's chief executive when it was owned by Aztar, while Cordish is the developer of an Atlantic City shopping and entertainment district known as The Walk.
Founded in 1991 by Thomas J. Barrack Jr., Colony Capital has about $36 billion in real estate and casino holdings worldwide. Colony bought Resorts Atlantic City in 2001 for $140 million. It acquired the Hilton in 2005 as part of a $1.24 billion deal with Caesars Entertainment Inc. and Harrah's Entertainment Inc. for four casinos in New Jersey, Mississippi and Indiana.
To e-mail Donald Wittkowski at The Press:
DWittkowski@pressofac.com
Read Full Poker Blog Post

This year’s installment of the Executive Poker Tour kicks off Jan. 11-14 at the Trump Taj Mahal. It’s a busy month for major poker tournaments in Atlantic City as the World Poker Tour starts on Jan. 15 at the Borgata.
Steve Dannenmann, Rhett Butler, Victor Ramdin and Lee Childs are all confirmed for the event.
Part of what makes the Executive Poker Tour intriguing is the lucrative cash game that is played during the event. This cash game isn’t for meager bankrolls. The minimum buy-in is $100,000, which puts at least $1 million on the table for Saturday’s side game.
The tournaments are a little more affordable.
Schedule:
Friday – 9 a.m. $65 turbo satellite for $500 event.
11:15 a.m. $500 NLHE Trophy Event
2 p.m. $150 Super Satellite for main event
5 p.m. $150 Super Satellite for main event
9 p.m. $250 Super Satellite for main event.
Saturday – 9 a.m. $140 Turbo super satellite for $1,000 event
11:15 a.m. $1,000 NLHE Trophy Event
2 p.m. $150 Super Satellite for main event
5 p.m. $150 Super Satellite for main event
9 p.m. $250 Super Satellite for main event
Sunday – 9 a.m. $300 Turbo Super Satellite for main TV event
11:15 a.m. - $2,500 NLHE Main TV Event
Monday – 11:15 a.m. $500 NLHE Second Change Trophy Event
3 p.m. – Main event final table
Read Full Poker Blog Post

I know there are people who move to the Atlantic City area for a numbers of reasons. I moved down here three years ago after living in New York my whole life.
The first place I lived was not The Landings, but unfortunately I did live there for some time. This post is my warning for anyone considering heading down to the area perhaps to get a job as a dealer or to grind it out in A.C.
DO NOT LIVE IN THE LANDINGS IN ABSECON!
They are nice apartments, modestly priced, which is why I moved there. However, that's when the trouble started. When I moved into The Landings, they weren't even ready for me. The cleaners came while I was in the process of moving even after the complex pushed my move in date back a month. Everything was dirty and wasn't that much better after I moved in.
So, I lived there for a few months and then there was a leak in my bathroom above the shower. I called for it to get fixed, but at least two weeks went by before someone came. They ripped open the ceiling, fixed the leak and then left the hole saying they would come back within the next two days.
Two days turned into THREE MONTHS! It was three months and lots of complaining before someone fixed the hole. By this point it was December and knew I didn't want to live there anymore. Once my lease was up I was moving.
This is where the fun begins. It's about two months before my lease is up and I still haven't received a letter asking if I planned to renew, so I went to the leasing office and told them and they said they would take care of it. I move out.
Almost three months after I left, I realized I still hadn't received my security deposit. I called and called, but got no response. it wasn't until I went down there and pretty much raised hell that anything got done and I got my deposit at the end of August. Only it was a partial deposit. Over $900 was missing for rent for the month of June.
I moved out in May. You see my dilemma. Since then, I have called, visited, called the management company, sent copies of my lease, sent emails and still I have not received my money even though Stacey, the property manager, said I would have it in two weeks after I received the initial deposit.
It's now 2008, I moved out last May and still don't have my money. I am making one last phone call tomorrow to the mysterious Stacey who has seemingly disappeared over the last two months. If I don't talk to her because she has left for the day, not come in yet or she is in a meeting (all excuses I have been given over the last two to three months), my next stop is Atlantic County Court in Atlantic City.
Small Claims Court, here I come.
I have read similar if not worse complaints on rental sites over the Internet. Don't trust me, do the search yourself.
As you can see, this place is a waste. So don't even look there if you plan on moving down here.
Read Full Poker Blog Post

(This wasn't for the picture I wanted to use, but the only that didn't make me throw up. The pic comes from
All In Poker Blog. Check out it. ...
Notice the straight flush. If you can't read the picture, just click on it to make it larger.)
In my first foray into tournament poker this year, I learned that playing badly nets you big pots. It's not the way I like to win, but, unfortunately, it's the only way I won at the Showboat 7 p.m. tournament on Thursday.
I played so poorly, it wasn't even funny and I even felt uncomfortable winning that way. I am not very good at winning what I consider the wrong way. It's a strange feeling for me to get my money in when I am way behind. It happened three times on Thursday that I put my money in moments of desperation only to come away with a massive pile of chips.
I am not very good at recounting hands, which is why there isn't much of it in my posts. I also don't want to bore people with replaying hands because there is nothing spectacular or out of the ordinary about them.
The short story, I have J-9 and go all-in with less than 10 big blinds left. Two people call with K-Q and K-10. Jack hits the flop and holds up, so I triple up. Another hand, I raise with Q-J of diamonds. I get a caller, then min-raised (the guy also moved all-in). I call and so does the other. The flop comes with a K and one diamond. Check, check. The turn is a 9D, so I bet. The guy pushes all-in, I feel desperate and I call. He has pocket 9's. The guy who was all in has pocket K's. So I'm up against two sets and I hit the 10 on the river for a straight. I win again and I felt sick about it.
The other hand I sucked out on was when it folded to me and I raised on the button with AH-10D. The big blind moves all-in for a little less than a min.-raise. I call and he has pocket 10's. Two hearts hit the flop and the board flushes out and I take home that pot as well.
The one hand I actually played properly with the math and everything is the one where I got snapped off. I have Q-3c in the big blind and the blinds are $1,000/$2,000. There are two callers and the small blind min.-raises it $4,000. So I just need to call $2,000 to win $16,000 because I know the other people are calling. I am getting 8-1 on my money, I have to call.
I don't watch the flop and pay attention to the man to my right. He leads out for $10,000. I look at the flop and it's 8-Q-3 (no clubs). I make it $30,000. The others fold and now the bettor goes into the tank. He questions if I flop a set, I don't respond. He starts counting his money and says to himself that if he calls and loses, he still has enough money left over, which was wrong because I had him covered.
So he pushes all-in and I call. He has A-Q, which is the exact hand I put him on.
Turn K
River 8
I get negated.
He takes down the pot with two pair, aces and eights. I had just $1,500 left, enough for the small blind on the next hand and go down, but not even swinging. I get knocked out 28th out of 84 people.
First lesson of the year: When you play bad, you win and you play good, you lose.
Just kidding. I have to play better. The last hand I would have played the same way every time. The hands before that, not so much.
Read Full Poker Blog Post

I go through poker sites daily to see if there is anything new or fascinating I need to know about. Eh, mostly because I get bored at work and need something to entertain myself.
So, here I am on the Harrah's poker site, where you can get a daily update on the Bad Beat Jackpot. Next to Bally's (the shadiest card room in Atlantic City) is an asterisk. We all know what asterisks mean -- problems.
This is what it says in the fine print though:
"*Bally's Bad Beat Jackpot is paid when a hand of Four Deuces or better, loses to a bigger hand at showdown. Both of the hole cards of the winning hand and losing hand must be in play. 30% of the jackpot is paid to the loser of the hand, 20% paid to the winner of the hand, and 50% is divided between all other qualified players in the room."
Every other Harrah's property is Aces Full of Jacks or better is beaten. The loser of the hand gets 50 percent, the winner gets 25 percent and the rest of the table gets the other 25 percent.
Why do the same rules not apply at Bally's? Is it because all of the shadiness that went on with this room when the bad beat was brought in. I think the bad beat was hit about four times in a week. I might be slightly off on that count, but I think I am fairly close.
I know for a while the Bally's dealers had to use shufflers and shuffle the cards once they took it out. Honestly, I haven't played in months. Ever since a dealer told me to muck my hand in another language.
I get he was being nice to me and trying to help out, but I like to hold up the integrity of the game and I am not trying to win with an unfair advantage.
Read Full Poker Blog Post

I ended up at Harrah’s last night thinking I could hit its
7:15 p.m. tournament. It’s similar to Showboat’s and I enjoy Harrah’s poker room, so that’s where my car headed. It really has a mind of its own.
However, when I got to Harrah’s there was no tournament starting at
7:15 p.m., it moved to
8:15 p.m. and, AND, the tournament is now $80 ($68+$12). Honestly, I could only shake my head at this. It seems whenever I walked into Harrah’s things just change for the worse. I really like Harrah’s, I want to like Harrah’s, but why, oh why, do they make it so difficult.
I guess I’ll be sticking to the Showboat tournament after all. I’m going to try and get there on Thursday night.
I ended up playing $1-$5 stud, which was uneventful. I made a whole $4.
For the record, if anyone asks, I have not gone off to become a nun. I don’t where people hear these things.
Read Full Poker Blog Post
My New Year's resolution this year isn't to lose weight or stop smoking (I don't even smoke). I have a real goal in mind. I want to become a better tournament player.
I play cash games exclusively. I play while tournaments are going on because I like to wait for the those that bust out to come to a cash game. They usually have a hard time getting back into cash-game mode.
On the other hand, I have the other problem. When I play a tournament, I have problems switching from cash-game modes. So, my New Year's resolution is to become a better tournament player. I haven't been playing much poker lately so I think tournaments would probably fit my situation better.
If I play once a week, I am only risking a little amount of money for a big profit. I'm so set on this idea that tonight I am going to play in my first tournament. Showboat, here I come.
Read Full Poker Blog Post
 |
| EVENT | TOURNAMENT | DATE | TIME | BUY-IN | ENTRY |  | | 1 | No Limit Hold’Em | Tue, 1/15 | 11am | $300 | $50 | | | | 2 | No Limit Hold’Em | Wed, 1/16 | 11am | $500 | $60 | | | | 3 | No Limit Hold’Em | Thu, 1/17 | 11am | $750 | $60 | | | | 4 | No Limit Hold’Em | Fri, 1/18 | 11am | $1,000 | $80 | | | | 5 | No Limit Hold’Em | Sat, 1/19 | 11am | $1,500 | $100 | | | | 6 | WPT Ladies No Limit Hold’Em | Sun, 1/20 | 11am | $300 | $50 | | | | 7 | Limit Hold'Em | Sun, 1/20 | 12pm | $300 | $50 | | | | 8 | Modified Shoot Out | Mon, 1/21 | 11am | $300 | $50 | | | | 9 | No Limit Hold'Em | Tue, 1/22 | 11am | $500 | $60 | | | | 10 | No Limit Hold'Em | Wed, 1/23 | 11am | $2,500 | $150 | | | | 11 | No Limit Hold'Em | Thu, 1/24 | 11am | $500 | $60 | | | | 12 | No Limit Hold'Em | Fri, 1/25 | 11am | $5,000 | $200 | | |
| SUPER SATELLITE DAY | Sat, 1/26 | 10am |
|
| | | | 13 | WPT Borgata Poker Classic Championship Day 1 | Sun 1/27 | 11am | $9,700 | $300 |
| WPT Borgata Poker Classic Championship Day 2 | Mon, 1/28 | 11am | $9,700 | $300 |
| WPT Borgata Poker Classic Championship Day 3 | Tue, 1/29 | 11am | $9,700 | $300 |
| WPT Borgata Poker Classic Championship Day 4 | Wed, 1/30 | 11am | $9,700 | $300 |
| WPT Borgata Poker Classic Championship Final Event | Thu, 1/31 | 5pm | $9,700 | $300 | | | | 14 | No Limit Hold'Em | Sun, 1/27 | 12pm | $1,000 | $80 |  | | 15 | No Limit Hold'Em | Mon, 1/28 | 12pm | $500 | $60 | | | | 16 | No Limit Hold'Em | Tue, 1/29 | 12pm | $300 | $50 | |
Read Full Poker Blog Post
NBC's successful late-night poker show is back for another season. Poker After Dark begins Monday. The premise of the show is easy. Six players buy in for $20,000 in a winner take all format.
I've enjoyed Poker After Dark, not so much for the poker play, but the banter between the players. Sometimes PAD gets a group of players together that provides some good entertainment. I like watching Antonio Esfandiari and Phil Laak, though I think there are players out there who can't stand them. When they're in the show, it does its job in entertaining me for an hour.
PAD isn't going to teach me many new things about poker. There have been some interesting moves and comments that have helped, but in the end the show is for sheer entertainment purposes. There are some interesting matchups this year. I look forward to the "19th hole" with Gavin Smith, David Oppenheim, Erick Lindgren, Phil Ivey, Doyle Brunson and Daniel Negreanu. Actually, I look forward to anything with Ivey in it. He is definitely one of my favorite players and watch whenever I get the chance. It's his Atlantic City upbringing.
For those who watch PAD to get their Shana Hiatt fix, I have good news and bad news. The bad

news is she has been replaced. The good news is its by Argentinian Marianela (left) who is nicknamed the Poker Princess. Hopefully, she can provide insight into the game that Shana was never able to do. Her questions at times were pretty lame and she really didn't have a clue for someone who was around poker as much as she was.
Here are the new matches that will take place during Poker After Dark's third season:
Match 21: Dream Table (Week of December 31)
Seat 1: Daniel Negreanu
Seat 2: Phil Hellmuth
Seat 3: Jennifer Harman
Seat 4: Mike Matusow
Seat 5: Scotty Nguyen
Seat 6: Ken Light
Match 22: 19th Hole (Week of January 7)
Seat 1: Gavin Smith
Seat 2: David Oppenheim
Seat 3: Erick Lindgren
Seat 4: Phil Ivey
Seat 5: Doyle Brunson
Seat 6: Daniel Negreanu
Match 23: Hecklers (Week of January 14)
Seat 1: Gavin Smith
Seat 2: Sam Grizzle
Seat 3: John-Robert Bellande
Seat 4: Mike Matusow
Seat 5: Shawn Sheikhan
Seat 6: Phil Hellmuth
Match 24: World Champions (Week of February 11)
Seat 1: Chris Ferguson (2000)
Seat 2: Johnny Chan (1987, 1988)
Seat 3: Berry Johnston (1986)
Seat 4: Jamie Gold (2006)
Seat 5: Phil Hellmuth (1989)
Seat 6: Huck Seed (1996)
Match 25: Cowboys (Week of February 18)
Seat 1: Doyle Brunson
Seat 2: Chris Ferguson
Seat 3: Chau Giang
Seat 4: Andy Bloch
Seat 5: Hoyt Corkins
Seat 6: Gabe Kaplan
Match 26: International (Week of February 25)
Seat 1: Patrik Antonius (Finland)
Seat 2: Johnny Chan (China)
Seat 3: Roland de Wolfe (England)
Seat 4: Daniel Negreanu (Canada)
Seat 5: Gus Hansen (Denmark)
Seat 6: John Juanda (Indonesia)
Match 27: Jam Up (Week of March 24)
Seat 1: David Williams
Seat 2: Howard Lederer
Seat 3: Mike Matusow
Seat 4: Barry Greenstein
Seat 5: Antonio Esfandiari
Seat 6: Eli Elezra
Match 28: Gus and the Ladies (Week of March 31)
Seat 1: Gus Hansen
Seat 2: Vanessa Rousso
Seat 3: J.J. Liu
Seat 4: Clonie Gowen
Seat 5: Beth Shak
Seat 6: Erica Schoenberg
Match 29: Love at First Raise (Week of May 12)
Seat 1: Jennifer Harman
Seat 2: David Benyamine
Seat 3: Jennifer Tilly
Seat 4: Marco Traniello
Seat 5: Erica Schoenberg
Seat 6: Phil Laak
Match 30: Commentators (Week of May 19)
Seat 1: Mark Gregorich
Seat 2: Chad Brown
Seat 3: Ali Nejad
Seat 4: Robert Williamson III
Seat 5: Phil Gordon
Seat 6: Howard Lederer
Read Full Poker Blog Post
Here's a link where you can read the testimony. I included it below.
Testimony of Annie Dukeon behalf ofThe Poker Players AllianceHouse Committee on the Judiciary"Establishing Consistent Enforcement Policies in the Context of Internet Wagers"
November 14, 2007
Chairman Conyers and members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committee. I am doing so as an American citizen who is concerned about personal freedom and personal responsibility. I am also here to express the views of the nearly 800,000 Americans who belong to the Poker Players Alliance.
As a mother of four who supports her family as a professional poker player, I have a personal interest in the outcome of these hearings. I have excelled at my chosen profession, not only supporting my family for 13 years from poker earnings but also becoming the highest female money winner in tournament poker history over those 13 years. Having the right to continue to pursue my profession, wherever I might choose to pursue it, is very important to me from both a financial standpoint but also from the broader perspective of freedom, personal responsibility and civil liberties.
At its most basic level, the issue before this committee is personal freedom -- the right of individual Americans to do what they want in the privacy of their homes without the intrusion of the government. From the writings of John Locke and John Stuart Mill, through their application by Jefferson and Madison, this country was among the first to embrace the idea that there should be distinct limits on the ability of the government to control or direct the private affairs of its citizens. More than any other value, America is supposed to be about freedom. Except where one's actions directly and necessarily harm another person's life, liberty or property, government in America is supposed to leave the citizenry alone. Examples of Congress straying from this principle are legion, but few are as egregious as The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or UIGEA.
To be sure, there are many who believe that gaming is immoral or unproductive. I don't share these beliefs, but I do respect them. What is harder to respect is the idea that just because someone disapproves of a particular activity that they would seek to have the government prevent others from engaging in it.
Of course, opponents of gaming will cite the incidence of compulsive gambling and the possible exposure of minors as reasons to prohibit it. With respect to compulsive gambling, this committee has received expert testimony confirming what most academic studies on compulsive gambling have found: that the incidence of problem gambling in the population of adults who engage in gambling activity is less than 1%. From a similar study in the United Kingdom, we know that the availability of betting over the Internet does not increase it over time. Furthermore, even if one's primary concern were the very small incidence of compulsive gambling, then licensing and regulation offer more effective and less intrusive means to combat it.
Frankly, if the government is going to ban every activity that can lead to harmful compulsion, the government is going to have to ban nearly every activity. Shopping, day trading, sex, chocolate, even drinking water -- these and myriad other activities, most of which are a part of everyday life, have been linked to harmful compulsions. Are we going to move inexorably toward a world where we prohibit online shopping because some people compulsively spend themselves into bankruptcy? Worse, are we going to ask banking institutions to monitor and regulate our citizens' online shopping behavior to determine when a purchase can or cannot be approved? Gambling, like shopping, is the subject of compulsion in a very small percentage of the population - less than one-tenth the number of people who have trouble with alcohol. In terms of the damage to society, problem gambling is orders of magnitude smaller than tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, sugary soft drinks, and a great many other things that the government does not seek to prohibit. And, let us again remember that compulsive gambling occurs in less than 1% of the population, and that the availability of Internet gaming does not increase that percentage.
Of course, prohibitionists point to the possibility of children betting online as the other justification for prohibiting it. In fact, most people who seek to restrict individual freedom invoke protection of children as their motivation. I suspect they find that that argument has more resonance than what is often their real motivation -- to treat adults like children, and manage their choices for them.
The reality is it is very hard for a child to lose money gambling on-line -- one needs to either have a credit card or a checking account to do so -- cash cannot be used. The concern many point to is a child using their parent's credit card to sneak online and gamble. First of all, in that scenario, the parent will nearly always decline the charge -- and successfully. For that reason, internet gaming sites have a large incentive to ensure that their players are who they say they are, and that they are of age, in order to avoid expensive charge-backs. Furthermore, presumably the first time the parent sees an Internet gambling charge on their statements, one would hope that at minimum a very serious chat would ensue with the child. As a mother of four, however, I feel the need to make this point: if a child is stealing a parent's credit card and gambling on-line, that family probably has much more serious issues than Internet gambling. I monitor my children’s online activity, and, frankly, that is my job, not my government's. Of all the things I and other parents worry about happening to our children on line, gambling is pretty far down on the list.
Still, if one's primary concern is preventing minors from betting on-line, as opposed to preventing adults from doing so, then licensing and regulation again provides a more effective and less intrusive solution than prohibition. We will hear other expert testimony demonstrating that there are highly effective identity and majority verification technologies available.
Again, though, I have to express my skepticism that that concerns about children are really what is driving this debate. By that, I mean that I doubt that there is anyone who is opposed to Internet gaming because of children who wouldn't still be opposed to Internet gaming for adults, even if it could be proven to them that children can be protected. However, if there are such people on this Committee, or in Congress, I would urge them to look at the regulatory systems being set up in the U.K. and other European nations, as they are highly effective. To reiterate: if your concern in this matter is about children, there are solutions available. If, instead your interest is in treating adults like children, then there are not.
What is remarkable to me about the UIGEA is that while it allows games of pure luck, like the lottery, it prohibits a game of skill like poker. For nearly 200 years U.S. presidents, generals, members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices and average citizens have enjoyed the challenge and the fun that is poker. I have no doubt that tonight, somewhere not too far from the U.S. Capitol, groups of friends and family will open a deck of cards and play some poker. This scenario will be replicated in almost every city across the U.S. That is because poker is an American pastime, it is woven into the very fabric of American history. Poker typifies Americana just like baseball or Jazz and has become a positive ambassador of American culture throughout the world.
Surveys have shown that more than 70 million Americans play poker at least once in a while. And, within the past several years, an estimated 23 million Americans have begun playing with people from all over the world via the Internet. Remarkably, though, some in Congress have insisted that when you put the word "Internet" in front of poker, this American tradition and the people who play it become suspect. I don't believe that the government should be preventing consenting adults from enjoying poker just because it has moved from the kitchen table to the computer table.
Poker is a great egalitarian game. Anyone who is willing to learn, regardless of race, creed, color or gender, can succeed at poker. And playing on the Internet gives millions of Americans the freedom to enjoy the game in the comfort of their homes, when it would be otherwise impossible to get to a casino, or gather others to play in person. As a mother of four young children, I don't have the liberty of being away from home every day or at night when my children return home from school. The ability to play on the Internet allows me more time with my family.
But my situation only represents a small section of the online poker playing community. Each day the Poker Players Alliance receives emails from its members detailing why Internet poker is important to them. Many of these emails detail a person's physical disability and why they are unable to get to a casino, and in some cases suffer from muscular diseases which do not allow them to hold cards or poker chips and the virtual game is the only way for them to play. Other emails describe how they are caring for sick loved ones who are home-bound or bed ridden and the few hours they get to play poker in the comfort of their home is their escape from the monotony of their day. There are countless stories, of every day law-abiding Americans who play Internet poker, and for whom the proposed ban on poker would have tragic unintended consequences.
The vast majority of Internet poker players are doing so for recreation and entertainment. On average, a person spends $10 a week playing online poker. 10 dollars! You can't even get a movie ticket for that price where I live! But with poker not only do you get the satisfaction of engaging in a skillful endeavor, you actually walk away with something more than a ticket stub! You walk away with keener mathematical and negotiation skills.
I don't believe that poker and the people who play it should be lumped into the category of gambling or be called gamblers. For me, and for other professionals, this is a job, and some of us are better than others. Whether a professional is playing with someone for whom poker is an avocation does not change the question of whether the game itself is one of skill. Yes, for the majority of Americans playing poker is hobby. This is how these people choose to spend their hard-earned dollars and they should have the right to choose how to spend their discretionary income, whether it is on poker or anything else.
There is critical distinction between poker and other forms of "gambling" which is the skill level involved to succeed at the game. I cannot stress this point enough: in poker it is better to be skillful than lucky. I ask anyone in this hearing room to name for me the top five professional roulette players in the world or the number one lottery picker in America. It is just not possible (my apologies to one obvious candidate, Congressman Sensenbrenner). We can however have a real discussion about the top five professional poker players, just like we can have a discussion about the top five professional golfers.
Few can debate the skill elements involved to be successful at poker. From mathematics and probability to psychology and money management, numerous authors and academics have drawn analogies between poker and other endeavors that involve strategic thinking. John Von Neumann regarded as the greatest mind of the first part of the 20 century used analysis of the game of poker in his seminal book on game theory, "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" as a method of modeling decision-making under incomplete information. When asked why he did not use chess he deferred to the skill elements of poker which encompass all aspects of human intellect, calling chess not a game but merely an exercise in calculation.
Everyone agrees that the betting elements and hand selection involved in poker are skill elements. But I hear people say all the time that poker is only a game of skill for good players and the vast majority of recreational players are playing a game of luck. This is as absurd as asserting that bad golfers are playing a game of luck while only the pro golfers are playing a game of skill. If we all agree that puffing and driving and other elements of golf are skill components then whether someone is a good putter or a bad putter doesn't change whether putting is a skill or not. It is the same in poker. If someone is poor at betting or good at betting has no bearing on whether the betting component of the game itself is a skill component.
Go into any bookstore in America and you will likely find a display table covered in books about how to play poker and poker theory. The fact that one can learn poker and get better over time is clear evidence that skill is a dominant factor in the game.
I will concede that chance does play a role in poker. But it is true that chance plays a role in every human activity. Chance plays a role in getting through a traffic light safely. We know that is true because people who exactly follow the rules of the road get in accidents every day across America because of chance. And yet no one is claiming that driving is a game of chance and not a skill! Poker is a game of skill with an element of chance. But to call poker pure chance is just pure ignorance.
To further explain this point, let me try to illustrate it in two ways. If I could program a robot with the rules of poker, when to decide to check, raise, fold, etc. -- but gave it no "skill" so that it made these decisions randomly, that robot would lose nearly 100% of the hands in which it participated.
For those not content with the example of the robot, let me try another approach. One defining characteristic of games of skill is this: a player or team can intentionally lose. If I suggested that you should play slots, roulette, baccarat, or lottery and seek to lose, you could no more make yourself lose than you could make yourself win, as long as you continued playing. However, at golf, tennis, baseball or other games of skill it is entirely possible to lose on purpose. Losing on purpose is playing in defiance of the concept of skill, and thus proves the existence of the skill element in the game.
Several analogies can be made between playing poker and crafting public policy. But millions of poker-playing Americans were stunned last year when politicians decided that playing Texas Hold 'em over the Internet was so pernicious that the government must deputize financial institutions to prohibit personal financial transactions to certain forms of online gaming.
As we all know, in the closing hours of the last Congress, behind closed doors, Senator Bill Frist managed to slip the UIGEA into the Port Security bill. That law seeks to deputize financial institutions, and have them function as the Internet morality police. Ironically, however, that law did nothing to clarify what actually constitutes an unlawful Internet wager. It exempted certain favored forms of gambling from that bill's enforcement mechanism, but it clarified nothing as legal or illegal.
Instead, Internet gaming is the subject of a hodgepodge of antiquated laws that were intended to govern brick-and-mortar operations. The governing federal statute, The Wire Act of 1961, has been found to only apply to sports betting, beyond that we have a morass of state laws which, for the most part, did not contemplate the Internet. Nevada, North Dakota and Virgin Islands have all taken steps to license non-sports betting, only to be told by the DOJ that even intra-state Internet wagers are illegal.
In the proposed rule issued by the Department of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, the regulators come right out and say that they cannot and will not tell the regulated community what constitutes an unlawful Internet wager. Let me emphasize -- the posture of the Federal government is, "We are going to create a new federal crime, but we will not tell you what it is." In the proposed rule, the regulators explain their refusal to resolve this by saying that to do so would require them to examine the laws of the federal government and all 50 states with respect to every gaming modality, and that this would be unduly burdensome. Yet that is exactly what they are requiring the general counsel of every bank in the country to do. The committee has received testimony from the association representing providers of pure skill games, such as chess and Tetris, complaining that unless the UIGEA regulations clarify what they are supposed to cover, they will be unable to hold chess tournaments where people can win money, because, in the absence of clarity, banks will simply block any transaction where people pay a fee to compete and win money.
Poker players believe that the UIGEA regulations should not apply to games where players compete against each other and not against "the house" and where success is predominantly a function of skill. Such games include poker, bridge, mahjong and backgammon, among others. However, because neither UIGEA itself nor the regulations seek to address the issue, we cannot make that case.
Instead, PPA supports certain other legislative initiatives which we believe are more rational. We support H.R. 2046, Rep. Frank's bill to license, regulate and tax Internet gambling, but which allows states to opt out of the federal licensing system with respect to any and all forms of gaming. We support H.R. 2610, Rep. Wexler's bill to clarify that poker and other games predominantly determined by skill are outside the ambit of the federal gambling statutes, provided that they incorporate adequate protection against compulsive play, minor play, and money laundering. We also support H.R. 2140, Rep. Berkeley's bill to commission a National Academy of Sciences study on how to deal with Internet gaming, because we believe any rational examination will verify that licensing and regulation makes more sense than prohibition. However, we believe that the experience of the U.K and other countries can provide the same evidence.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to close with the point I started with: this issue is about personal liberty and personal responsibility -- the freedom to do what you want in the privacy of your own home. I suspect that some on this committee support freedom, except where individuals would use that freedom to make what they believe to be bad choices. "Freedom to make good choices" is an Orwellian term for tyranny-- the governments of China, Cuba and Iran all support the freedom of their citizens to make choices that their governments perceive as good. For those whose religious or moral beliefs hold gaming as abhorrent, I fully support their right to live by those beliefs. I support their right to choose to not gamble. What I do not support, and what this Committee and this Congress should not tolerate, is an effort by those people or anyone else to prevent me and the millions of people like me from playing a game we find stimulating, challenging and entertaining. However you might feel about gambling on the Internet, I would suggest that gambling with freedom is far more risky.
Again, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I look forward to the testimony of my fellow panelists and the opportunity to engage with you during the question and answer period.
Read Full Poker Blog Post
If playing poker itself wasn't difficult by itself, there are still other factors to consider. One daunting factor is your partner. Not your poker partner that I told you to get a while back. Your boyfriend, girlfriend, wife or husband. This person can effect your game.
If you have a significant other who doesn't want you to player poker, you're in for a long, long relationship. Or, a short one.
Daniel Negreanu recently announced in his
poker blog that he is getting a divorce from his wife, Lori, after two years. If you read the blog, you will see there wasn't anything terrible either of them did to the other. She didn't stop him from playing poker, she didn't tell him to not stay out all hours of the night. He didn't yell or scream at her. They seemingly have a pretty good relationship, even now.
However, he does note that once he got married he stopped playing poker os much as he used to on the tournament trail because he couldn't give equally in the personal side and the business side of his life.
He hasn't cashed in a tournament since this summer's World Series of Poker events and only cashed in three events all year.
But things are different.
There's nothing like getting your mind off life than sitting at a poker table and smashing your opponents. Negreanu did just that. Last week, he placed 14th in a World Poker Tour event (he only got about $96,000).
I wish them the best of luck, but I don't think people are going to be excited to see Negreanu back at the tables. Because now he is ready for action.
CHECK OUT MY OTHER cactus i.v. POKER BLOGS
HERE
Read Full Poker Blog Post
Check out this story from The Press of Atlantic City. It's pretty long, so if you don't want to read it here is the summary. The Trop has to sell the casino and are looking buyers. One group that has emerged is the Mohegan tribe of Mohegan Sun fame in Conn.
A lot of the other stuff is just background info.
---------------------------
Mohegan tribe may purchase Atlantic City's Tropicana
By ERIK ORTIZ Staff Writer, 609-272-7253
Tropicana Entertainment announced a deal with lenders Friday to keep the company out of bankruptcy until it can sell the Atlantic City casino, which has attracted another possible suitor, the Mohegan tribe of Connecticut.
The deal keeps Tropicana Entertainment from defaulting on the terms of a $1.3 billion bank loan for as long as one year. The company was owner and operator of the Tropicana Casino and Resort until state gaming regulators denied it a license Dec. 12.
Now a trustee for the casino must identify a new owner.
The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, the agency that operates the $1-billion-per-year Mohegan Sun Casino, has indicated the Tropicana could be a potential property for the expansion of its casino empire.
Jeffrey Hartmann, the authority's chief operating officer, said he's been in contact with Linda Kassekert, chair of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, about the casino.
"I think our brand is well-established with many of the customers that visit Atlantic City today," Hartmann said in a telephone interview Friday. "We like the regulated environment, and I think we can be a good addition to the Atlantic City market."
In July, Mohegan executives in Connecticut hosted a delegation of Atlantic County officials. The company had been studying Atlantic City as part of its growth potential on the East Coast, a Mohegan executive told The Press of Atlantic City.
The Mohegan Sun Casino is undergoing a major expansion plan costing about $925 million.
"The property generates a lot of cash flow," said Dennis M. Farrell Jr., a gaming analyst for Wachovia Capital Markets. "It can be a strong strategic move to diversify that cash flow."
Among the other developers to show interest in the Tropicana is David Cordish, chairman of the Baltimore-based Cordish Co., which created The Walk.
A formal application process for buyers is being devised, the Casino Control Commission said.
Tropicana Entertainment, an affiliate of Columbia Sussex Corp. in Kentucky, lost its license after weeks of negative publicity, meaning it cannot own or operate the casino.
Under the leadership of CEO William J. Yung III, the company laid off about 900 employees, or almost a quarter of the casino's work force. In hearings with the commission, customer complaints surfaced about dirty rooms and inadequate service, which casino officials said were fixed.
The commission also fined the casino $750,000 for failing to install an independent auditing committee as required under the Casino Control Act.
Since then, Gary S. Stein, a former New Jersey Supreme Court justice, has been serving as trustee and conservator of the Tropicana. He oversees the casino hotel's operations and must find an appropriate buyer to be approved by the commission in 120 days, unless an extension is needed.
When a sale does occur, Columbia Sussex will receive no profit. It will get either the current market value or the price it originally paid for the casino, whichever is less, the commission said. Anything left over will funnel into a state fund to aid senior citizens and the disabled.
Columbia Sussex's bank debt helped finance the $2.75 billion needed to buy the Tropicana property in Atlantic City in January, along with purchasing the Tropicana in Las Vegas and the Casino Aztar in Evansville, Ind.
Without a license, Tropicana Entertainment could have been ordered to pay back its loan to lenders almost immediately.
The company announced earlier this week that it will use the proceeds from the sale of Tropicana in Atlantic City, as well as the sale of Casino Aztar and the Horizon Vicksburg Casino in Vicksburg, Miss., to pay off debt.
"We are pleased to have reached an accommodation with our senior lenders and the trustee overseeing the Tropicana Atlantic City so that we can proceed with the orderly sale of our properties in Atlantic City, Evansville and Vicksburg, retire our senior credit facility and position our company for long-term growth," William J. Yung III, president and CEO of Tropicana Entertainment, said in a statement Friday.
In addition to giving Tropicana Entertainment flexibility in the sale of those properties, the new deal with lenders still allows the company to borrow under a $90 million revolving loan commitment, which was reduced from the original $180 million amount. Lenders also can require a faster accumulation of interest payments.
Overall, the deal is good news to the financially shaky Tropicana, Farrell said.
"It provides them more time, as opposed to having to go into restructuring right away," he added.
Meanwhile, Columbia Sussex's troubles outside of New Jersey have been mounting.
After complaints about the company by Evansville's mayor for laying off more than 90 workers, Indiana gaming officials have been looking into Columbia Sussex's actions, although a state commission spokeswoman has said their investigation may be dropped since the casino is to be sold.
Gaming officials in Louisiana, where Columbia Sussex owns two riverboat casinos, have not announced whether they will investigate the company, although under state gaming law, a company can be denied its license for five years if it is lost in another state.
Nevada gaming officials do plan to look into whether Columbia Sussex can still hold a license there, now that the company's been disciplined in New Jersey.
Columbia Sussex had plans to expand the Las Vegas Tropicana into the largest casino hotel in the world with more than 10,000 rooms. That possibility is now on hold.
"For everything that's unwound with the company, away from Las Vegas, (Yung's) lost a lot of equity value with his remaining assets," Farrell said. "No one really knows what he's going to do."
Read Full Poker Blog Post