Posts Tagged ‘poker’

Editorial: Poker Doesn’t Need More “Characters” Like Salomon Ponte

 Editorial: Poker Doesn’t Need More “Characters” Like Salomon Ponte

If you’ve been away from your television for the past few days, then you’ve missed the latest in uproars in the poker community. On this week’s edition of Poker Night in America from the Choctaw Casino in Durant, OK, the poker world was introduced to arguably the vilest creature that has ever been seated at a poker table. Going by the name Salomon Ponte – but loudly and crassly telling everyone to call him the “Hashtag King“ – this stain on the poker condition hit the felt in the PNIA cash game, a $ 25/$ 50 where the usual minimum buy-in is around $ 5000. Before he left, he had made a dubious impression on the program.

Over the course of an hour of play, Ponte proceeded to insult pretty much every player that was at the table, which included Shaun Deeb and Doug Polk. This wasn’t your garden variety, Mike Matusow “you’ve got little balls, I’ve got big balls” needling, these insults went into areas that no one should enter (hell, even professional basketball players KNOW NOT to do these things). Ponte proceeded to insult Deeb’s WIFE, saying “I’d rather be dead than have your fucking wife,” said that Deeb was a “fucking retard” and said Polk was “one of the biggest bitches in poker.” It was particularly sad to see Ponte, after spewing his vitriol, try to borrow money from the people he had disparaged (like they were going to give him money?).

Congratulations, poker world, we’ve finally found the point – poker doesn’t need more “characters” like Salomon Ponte.

Looking over the history of poker, there have been men – and some women – who have contributed to the game because of their larger than life personalities. You don’t think that the riverboat gamblers who traversed the Mississippi River during the 1830s and 1840s didn’t have a colloquial charm about them? What about such men who conquered the West as “Doc” Holliday, Wyatt Earp, “Wild Bill” Hickok and scores of others? The ladies were well represented by “Poker Alice” Ivers and Lottie “Poker Queen” Deno (born Carlotta Thompkins) in the late 1800s. Even into the 20th century, there were men like “Titanic” Thompson and, yes, even the man considered the “Godfather of Poker” Doyle Brunson. These people were THOSE personalities that made the game better and, as an added benefit, helped their wallet get fatter.

As the latter part of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st century began, however, those “characters” became fewer. Potentially because of the effect of online poker, the visage of the soulless hulk of flesh, sitting at a table in a hoodie with headphones clasped around his head, sunglasses removing the last vestiges of humanity, there are few players who capture the attention of those casual poker fans. The aforementioned Matusow attempted to carry the banner (taken out by a bad back that limits his sitting time), as did Antanas “Tony G“ Guoga (taken out by becoming a married man and a politician).

Since there is a dearth of entertaining personalities in the poker community, the poker programs in existence have little but (gasp!) skillful poker play and educational and technical points to be able to talk about during their broadcasts. They really want to talk about the art of poker and the psychological battle that is going on in front of those with a rudimentary knowledge of the game, but they also want to see the blood sport, the sparring, that one gets with mano y mano showdowns for huge piles of money. Thus, these shows try to create a “bad guy” for the fans to hate.

ESPN and the World Series of Poker have been the worst offenders in this field. Going back to Matusow in 2004 against eventual World Champion Greg Raymer, each year there’s been that “player you love to hate.” In 2006, Jamie Gold all but twirled a moustache at the final table as he won the World Championship; 2007 brought the “bulldozer” that was Hevad Khan (and who brought about the “Hevad Khan Rule” against overly exuberant celebrations at the WSOP); just last year, it was William Kassouf and his incessant table talk that drew the ire of the community.

But there was a difference in these famous “bad guys” that separates them from the embarrassment that Ponte was at the table. For the most part, there was no malevolence (Matusow? OK, maybe questionable there) involved in their actions. They were stretching the rules of the game of poker, seeing just how far out on the edge they could go while they garnered attention from either the poker press or (perhaps more importantly) the cameras of ESPN.

In Ponte’s case, there was venom in the words he spoke. This wasn’t an attempt to get into someone’s head while at the table, this was verbal assault that could have gotten out of hand and become physical. There’s no place for that at the tables and the producers of PNIA should have put the kibosh on Ponte’s actions before they got out of hand. The problem is that Ponte wouldn’t have given a damn; he was later ejected from the Choctaw Casino and, over Twitter, proudly stated he had been kicked out of about a dozen casinos, not something to wear as a badge of honor (really, how shitty do you have to be to get tossed out of a casino?).

Maybe it’s time the poker community learned something. You don’t have to be a dick to be a “personality” at the tables. You just have to be able to halfway carry a conversation, maybe be a little self-deprecating, and ensure that the people playing against you – and those watching on whatever outlet – are entertained. THEN you’ll be asked to every event where a telegenic personality is needed.

Sure, poker needs to have some colorful characters in its mix. Sometimes they even need to have the proverbial “bad guy” to get the fans riled up against. What we don’t need in the game are people like Ponte, who is simply a punk off the street who happens to have a bigger mouth than a bank account and no idea how to handle either. To put people on the air like that is a huge mistake and one I am sure that PNIA has learned from. Hopefully the poker community has learned from it also.

Poker News Daily

Might U.S. AG Jeff Sessions Kill Online Poker?

 Might U.S. AG Jeff Sessions Kill Online Poker?

Sheldon Adelson’s Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA) was introduced in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on multiple occasions in the last few years and even had a couple hearings in the House, but in the end, even Republicans saw it for the blatant crony capitalism that it was. The threat of a gambling ban was over. Unfortunately, the poker community is starting to get a bit worried again as the rumors have started that the Trump administration may look to get a ban going soon.

According to GamblingCompliance (sorry, there’s a paywall), “Gambling lobbyists in Washington, D.C. are abuzz with speculation that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is on the verge of announcing plans to overturn the 2011 legal opinion which cleared states to regulate internet gambling.”

Sessions, who was considered too racist in 1986 for a federal judgeship (too racist in the eighties!), shared his brief thoughts on internet gambling during his confirmation hearing for his Attorney General position. He was asked about online poker by his buddy Senator Lindsey Graham, the Senator who did Daddy Adelson’s bidding and introduced RAWA in the Senate:

Lindsey Graham: About the Wire Act, what’s your view of the…Obama’s Administration’s interpretation of the Wire Act law to allow online video poker, or poker…gambling?

Jeff Sessions: Senator Graham, I was shocked at the memorandum – I guess – the enforcement memorandum that the Department of Justice issued with regard to the Wire Act and criticized it. Apparently, there is some justification or argument that can be made to support the Department of Justice’s position, but I did oppose it when it happened and it seemed to me to be an unusual….

Graham: Would you revisit it?

Sessions: I would revisit it and I would make a decision about it based on careful study and I haven’t gone that far to give you an opinion today.

And now, if the “buzz” is true, it looks like Sessions will be revisiting the 2011 clarification of the Wire Act. Remember, the Wire Act specifically prohibits sports betting over telecommunications lines, but that’s it. For whatever reason, it was interpreted for years to include all gambling, but finally at the end of 2011, the Office of Legal Counsel set the record straight. That clarification cleared the road for states to legalize intrastate online gambling. So far, Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey have regulated online poker, while a few other states offer internet lottery purchases. A reinstatement of the old Wire Act interpretation would presumably kill all of this.

The odd part about the possibility of Sessions overturning the 2011 clarification of the Wire Act is that the Wire Act still says that it is only sports betting over telecommunications lines that is banned, so it seems like it would be a strange situation where the legal enforcement of the Act would clearly be based on an incorrect interpretation.

The sad part is that Sessions could easily get away with doing this, as with all the bullshit that Trump and his band of dunces are making us put up with every day, barely anybody would notice – and thus put up a fuss – if online poker was stomped out.

Poker News Daily

Washington D. C. Reignites Discussion of Online Gaming and Poker

 Washington D. C. Reignites Discussion of Online Gaming and Poker

In all honesty, there has been very little regarding the regulation of online gaming and/or poker in the halls of Washington, D. C. of late. Back during his confirmation hearings, however, the then-Attorney General nominee, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, was posed the question of what he would do with the 2011 decision by the Department of Justice by Sheldon Adelson water boy South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Sessions reply was that he would have to reexamine the decision “at some point in time.”

It seems that, at least in some arenas, that Sessions (now firmly ensconced as the head of the Department of Justice as Attorney General) is ready to reexamine the issue. Perhaps influenced by anti-online gaming zealot, casino owner and billionaire Adelson’s work for the Republican Party (AKA his donation of millions of dollars in “bribes” – oh, wait, “money for the Inauguration” and other political donations), many in the nation’s capital have been signaling that the two-pronged approach – the reversal of the 2011 Department of Justice opinion and the introduction of legislation, the Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA) of 2017, into both houses of Congress – is beginning to move once again. The reality of the situation is that poker players’ attention should be on one and not the other.

RAWA, for all practical purposes, has had no life since it was introduced. Because there has been a significant amount of attention put on “state’s rights” issues, many of those in the GOP have recognized that crony capitalism is running afoot on this issue extensively. Adelson’s legal “bribes,” therefore, have had little to no effect on the movement of either bill in the House of Representatives or in the Senate.

There is also the problem of losing the main champion of the bill in the House. Last week, Utah Representative Jason Chaffetz stated that he would not run for re-election in 2018. There has been a great deal of speculation to the reasons for Chaffetz’s decision (some are saying that he doesn’t want to have a tough re-election fight in 2018; some are saying that Chaffetz is actually looking towards a run at Utah’s governorship; still others say that there’s something to the rumors that the FBI has him under investigation for campaign improprieties), but the reality is that Chaffetz was the bill’s main sponsor in the House and was chair of the subcommittee that would push it through. There may be someone else who steps up in the House, but it will take time for them to come forth and pick up the ball of RAWA in the House.

The real problem is with Sessions and the Department of Justice. A simple reversal of the 2011 decision from then-Attorney General Eric Holder‘s Department of Justice – which said that the Wire Act of 1961 only applied to sports betting – lit the fuse for several states to move forward with online lottery ticket sales. Additionally, three states – Delaware, Nevada, and New Jersey – moved forward and passed online gaming and poker regulations for their gaming industries (Nevada was the only one that went the route of online poker only) in 2013.

With the potential for that decision to be reversed by the Sessions DoJ at any moment, you might think that there would be some movement by the leading advocate for online poker, the Poker Players Alliance, to putting forth legislation to regulate online gaming and poker through their lobbying efforts. Instead, the PPA only plays defense, saying they aren’t supposed to put forth laws for online poker (what is it that the National Rifle Association or the pharmaceutical or banking lobbyists do? They WRITE LEGISLATION!) despite the fact they say they represent “millions” of players (the level of support for the organization is questionable). Instead of asking those that have moved forth legislation in several states for assistance in writing a potential federal bill, the PPA stays on defense instead of taking a proactive stance.

Whether Sessions reverses the 2011 DoJ decision or not, there are glacial movements in the online gaming and poker question in D. C. and they don’t appear to be for good. That glacial movement is also being seen on the individual state level and there it is a bit more optimistic. While it isn’t known what effect a reversal of the 2011 DoJ decision would have on those states that have passed online gaming and poker regulation and others who might (it is possible that the states may just ignore the federal ban, much like several states have ignored the federal law making marijuana usage illegal), the question hangs like a guillotine over online poker players. It is time, however, that those that say they advocate for poker players to come up with something other than Tweets to demonstrate their abilities to affect the narrative in Washington, D. C. and across the country.

Poker News Daily

Might U.S. AG Jeff Sessions Kill Online Poker?

 Might U.S. AG Jeff Sessions Kill Online Poker?

Sheldon Adelson’s Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA) was introduced in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on multiple occasions in the last few years and even had a couple hearings in the House, but in the end, even Republicans saw it for the blatant crony capitalism that it was. The threat of a gambling ban was over. Unfortunately, the poker community is starting to get a bit worried again as the rumors have started that the Trump administration may look to get a ban going soon.

According to GamblingCompliance (sorry, there’s a paywall), “Gambling lobbyists in Washington, D.C. are abuzz with speculation that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is on the verge of announcing plans to overturn the 2011 legal opinion which cleared states to regulate internet gambling.”

Sessions, who was considered too racist in 1986 for a federal judgeship (too racist in the eighties!), shared his brief thoughts on internet gambling during his confirmation hearing for his Attorney General position. He was asked about online poker by his buddy Senator Lindsey Graham, the Senator who did Daddy Adelson’s bidding and introduced RAWA in the Senate:

Lindsey Graham: About the Wire Act, what’s your view of the…Obama’s Administration’s interpretation of the Wire Act law to allow online video poker, or poker…gambling?

Jeff Sessions: Senator Graham, I was shocked at the memorandum – I guess – the enforcement memorandum that the Department of Justice issued with regard to the Wire Act and criticized it. Apparently, there is some justification or argument that can be made to support the Department of Justice’s position, but I did oppose it when it happened and it seemed to me to be an unusual….

Graham: Would you revisit it?

Sessions: I would revisit it and I would make a decision about it based on careful study and I haven’t gone that far to give you an opinion today.

And now, if the “buzz” is true, it looks like Sessions will be revisiting the 2011 clarification of the Wire Act. Remember, the Wire Act specifically prohibits sports betting over telecommunications lines, but that’s it. For whatever reason, it was interpreted for years to include all gambling, but finally at the end of 2011, the Office of Legal Counsel set the record straight. That clarification cleared the road for states to legalize intrastate online gambling. So far, Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey have regulated online poker, while a few other states offer internet lottery purchases. A reinstatement of the old Wire Act interpretation would presumably kill all of this.

The odd part about the possibility of Sessions overturning the 2011 clarification of the Wire Act is that the Wire Act still says that it is only sports betting over telecommunications lines that is banned, so it seems like it would be a strange situation where the legal enforcement of the Act would clearly be based on an incorrect interpretation.

The sad part is that Sessions could easily get away with doing this, as with all the bullshit that Trump and his band of dunces are making us put up with every day, barely anybody would notice – and thus put up a fuss – if online poker was stomped out.

Poker News Daily

Founder of Players Poker Championship Files For Bankruptcy Protection

 Founder of Players Poker Championship Files For Bankruptcy Protection

After failing to pay the final table for their major tournament last fall – and the resulting lawsuit from several players who made that final table – the founder of the Players Poker Championship (PPC) has filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in Florida.

Bryan Oulton, one of two men who founded the PPC (along with Thomas “Sandy” Swartzbaugh), filed for bankruptcy protections on April 9 in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida in Broward County. In the court documents, Oulton stated that he was almost $ 900,000 in debt to almost 200 creditors (including the players from last fall’s PPC Aruba World Championship) and that he only had assets of around $ 415,000. Most of his assets were being held in his home, valued at roughly $ 338,000, and $ 50,000 in annuities, while Oulton himself said that he had no income at the present time. That is important because, under Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, he could claim those items as exempt from any property sale and would be able to keep the assets.

The problems emerged after the tournament in Aruba last November. The PPC World Championship was a $ 2400 poker tournament on the island of Aruba that wrapped up a series of events that the PPC had held across the States of America. The tournament itself had a guaranteed prize pool of $ 500,000, which was barely covered by the 266 entries the tournament received (the eventual prize pool was $ 534,743). Poker pro Christian Harder made the final table in finishing in ninth place, while Stephen Deutsch defeated James Beadnell and Dorian Alejandro Rios Pavon to win the championship and take the top prize of $ 133,687.

When it came time for Deutsch to collect, however, he was stonewalled in Aruba and headed home. Negotiations would get to the point that a third party involved – alleged to be investors in the PPC looking to keep the company afloat – would offer to pay Deutsch and other final table players less than what they supposedly earned from their finish in the tournament. Frustrated by not getting what he had earned, Deutsch and other players filed lawsuits against Oulton, Swartzbaugh, the PPC and its partners and two casinos who hosted events (Maryland Live! and Tampa Downs in Florida).

The actions by Deutsch and his fellow players helped to usher the end of the PPC. Plans for a new season to start after the November World Championship tournament quickly fizzled as casinos pulled out from the tour. With no casinos to play events – and, more importantly, the loss of a steady stream of income from those tournaments – the PPC essentially shut down at the beginning of 2017 (“essentially” is used because no official word about its closure has been issued).

Oulton lists the Aruba final table players that have filed suit against him (Deutsch, Joan Sandoval (who finished sixth), Michael Lerner (fourth), John Ott (fifth) and Beadnell (second) as creditors and puts Pavon and seventh-place finisher Steve Karp on that list (both men have not filed a lawsuit against Oulton, the PPC or any other entities associated with the tour). Much of the money owed by Oulton, according to the court papers, is to the Small Business Owners of America. Oulton lists the SBOA as being owed $ 259,600, most likely from loans procured to start the PPC.

While Oulton is seeking the protection of the court with his bankruptcy filing, it isn’t guaranteed that it will get him out of his responsibilities. If enough creditors protest the decision, the judge can deny the Chapter 7 proceedings. In the state of Florida, the Chapter 7 proceedings require all non-exempt assets to be sold and those profits to be distributed to the creditors, at which time the debtor is given a “fresh start.” Should enough creditors feel that there was unethical or criminal activity that contributed to the situation, however, they can petition the judge and he would decide if the Chapter 7 bankruptcy would be granted.

There are no details at this time of any future actions in the case. Poker News Daily will continue to monitor the situation.

Poker News Daily



usa poker svenska poker finland poker Deutsch poker spain poker italy poker france poker japan poker greece poker china poker brazil poker denemark poker netherlands poker india poker russia poker korea poker turkey poker
romanian poker bulgarian poker croatian poker czech poker israel   poker norway poker poland poker serbia poker slovakia poker slovenia poker