Poker Forum

Such an important step deserves a reference to the specific language and provisions. Maybe you could add this link to your newsflash.

http://gaming.nv.gov/documents/pdf/reg5A_proposed_v11_11dec13.pdf

Percival: Do you mind sharing what provisions are entailed in that document. It's quite a lengthy read...

TheAffiliate wrote

Percival: Do you mind sharing what provisions are entailed in that document. It's quite a lengthy read...

Ya it's lengthy, and I didn't read thru the whole thing as it gets into some legalese. But it's somewhat comforting to have this document in hand and accessible. Compare a United States based law and regulations pertaining to on-line poker, to the pseudo authority in Alderney Gaming Control Commission and what it offered players in the form of stipulated and accessible regulations and laws. The AGCC was (and is) a joke.

The Nevada Gaming Commission's approved proposal of new regulations puts a much more realistic burden on Online Operators, about their responsibilities for protecting players, and the game of poker itself. Now we'll have to wait and see how it's all implemented - but it's a great start.

poker remains a game of luck NOT Skill

Nevada’s proposed regulations are great; they should set the standard for the world. The online poker site operators who have licenses from obscure gaming commissions on tiny islands are a joke and most likely are all greedy criminal types who will do anything legal or illegal to make a buck, including tampering with poker software and using players’ funds/deposits before being earned through rake and fees, etc.

These online poker sites operators chose to be licensed by self-serving gaming commissions on tiny obscure offshore islands and a Indian reservation (e.g., AGCC - Alderney Gaming Control Commission on the Isle of Alderney; GSC - Gaming Supervision Commission on the Isle of Man; LGA - Lottery and Gaming Authority on the Isle of Malta, KGC - Kahnawake Gaming Commission on the Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake, Quebec Canada; ) because they knew they would not be regulated effectively. They knew that they could get away with whatever they wanted to do. These obscure gaming commissions were and still are rubber-stamping licenses for the sole purpose of collecting millions in fees. They have regulations, but no enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance, e.g., requiring annual financial audits and internal control reviews by independent CPAs or Chartered Auditors, which will be required in Nevada, and is already required for brick-n-mortar casinos and poker rooms in America.

That being said, the only area that is missing from the Nevada regulations are the restrictions on what computerized software can be used by the players and how it can be used.

Computerized software, e.g., Poker Tracker, is great for analyzing your hand histories to see what types of stupid mistakes you made that caused you to lose a hand, e.g., not folding your pocket jacks after an A-K-2 flopped, and your raises were called or reraised. Poker tracker is great if you want to know your own Key Metrics, e.g., VPIP, PRF, AF, etc. But, it is not fair to know that information about your opponents unless you record it manually as you observe the game, just like if you were at a live poker table. The identity of your opponents screen names should be masked by the online poker sites, as is currently done by a few honest online poker sites. If that is done, the hand histories you download are meaningless as regards your opponents.

In addition, HUD – Heads Up Displays showing key metrics about your opponents should be banned by online poker sites licensed in America. Too much of an unfair advantage for the sharks to have against the fish. If you need that information, record it on a notepad as your play, just like you are allowed to do at a brick-n-mortar casino or poker room.

And, finally, the online poker sites in America should limit you to playing a max of 4 tables at once. Most of the players that are playing up to 24 tables at once are the sharks looking for the fish, using computerized software to play the game. Unfair advantage for the sharks, and needs to be stopped.

Online poker is supposed to make it easy for you to play at home versus driving to a brick-n-mortar casino or poker room, not as a place for the professionals, the sharks, to have an unfair advantage over the fish. The professionals’ knowledge about poker should be all the advantage they have; they should not be aided by computerized software and HUDs.

sports21 wrote

poker remains a game of luck NOT Skill

One of the best articles about poker being a game of change was written by Chuck Humphrey – “Is Poker in the U.S. a Game of Skill?” I will not paste the entire article, just the best points. Then I will quote a famous mathematician who has stated repeatedly that all poker games, including Texas Hold’em are all games of chance - Catalin Barboianu.

These excerpts are from an internet article “Is U.S. Online Poker A Game of Skill? Is Poker in the U.S. A Game of Skill? By Chuck Humphrey. http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/online-poker-skill.htm

“For the time being, however, the law is such that poker is not a game in which the elements of skill predominate over chance. The time frame over which the elements that constitute skill in poker work to allow the more skilled player to “obtain more frequent rewards” is both uncertain and too lengthy.
Consider that on any one hand of poker it cannot seriously be contended that skill outweighs chance. Also, the results of any given session of poker (one night, one tournament, etc.) are not likely to be determined based on the preponderant skill of any given player. Perhaps the result of playing many sessions for a whole year is indicative of skill predominating over chance. But, perhaps not. Poker "player of the year" awards have become popular over the past few years. No one has ever repeated as the winner from one year to the next. Indeed few repeat in the top ten of those lists from one year to the next.
This lack of certainty may be considered by a court in reaching the determination that while there are significant elements of skill in poker, they just do not outweigh the elements of chance caused by the fall of the cards and the erratic, unpredictable play of a large number of opponents. In an article in Card Player magazine, Lou Krieger, anticipating a field of 3,000 or more in the 2005 World Series of Poker championship event, sets up this scenario:
"Let’s take a good player. No, let’s take a great player. Make him the greatest hold’em player who ever lived. Suppose his chances are 10 times greater than those of Joe Average, even though the chasm between great and average is probably not anywhere near that deep. With that kind of edge, our hero figures to win a 3,000-player event once every 300 times. If he has a 60-year poker-playing career, he ought to win the World Series of Poker once every five lifetimes. An average player, by comparison, figures to win all the marbles only once in 50 lifetimes." Card Player Magazine Volume 17, No. 26 - Friday, December 17th, 2004
The long time frame may push a court to reach the conclusion that skill is not the predominate factor since, at a minimum, it takes years, or perhaps a lifetime, to determine if a person is a “winning player.” The anecdotal stories about most professional poker players, even those who were the best of their time, like Johnny Moss, Doyle Brunson and Daniel Negreanu, going broke is more “proof” of the chancy nature of the game.”

Catalin Barboianu in his book “Understanding and Calculation the Odds – Probability Theory Basics and Calculus Guide for Beginners, has a section on page 15 – “Application and Results for Games of Chance (Slots, Roulette, Blackjack, Texas Hold’em Poker).” Barboianu lumps Texas Hold’em in with the other games of chance: slots, roulette, Blackjack. As a matter of fact, all Probability books that talk about games treat all poker card games as games of chance because the cards that are dealt are based on probability not skill.