1. It is really fu---en hot.
2. Daniel Negreanu is a great guy and a phenomenal poker player. I had the privilege of watching him play for about 8 hours last night. He completely controlled his table and each time he moved, he controlled the next table. The guy put everyone on tilt, had a great time chatting it up with fans, and consistently took down $3000 here, $5000 there untill he had over $70,000. I don't think he ever risked half his stack. I learned more watching him for one evening than I have reading multiple books.
3. It seemed 50% of the people playing could not afford the $10,000 fee. I've never seen so many winning hands laid down. IF you aren't gonna play KK or call $2000 with AK, don't buy in for $10000 if it means the kids wont eat.
4. I learned that poker players have groupies - mostly hot strippers who follow them around. I also learned the law of yachts applies to poker stars and groupies. See in FL, the law of yachts says if you are on a large boat and a larger boat comes by, all of the ***** will immediately hop overboard, swim, and climb aboard the bigger yacht. It is an amazing phenomenom well proved. Well sorry Dan, when Phil Hellmuth came by to see how you were doing, all your strippers followed him out the door.
5. I have learned that a bunch of guys paying $10,000 to play poker, free alcohol, and 100s of extremely hot chicks in bikinis makes for a great place to be.
In order of worst to best chicks:
Honorable mention: Many small companies with 2-3 chicks. I could not keep track of all.
In 5th place, Fulltilt - a lot of chicks, but just not that hot.
In 4th place, Pokerstars - The roller skates, knee high striped powder blue socks and short skirts were classic.
In 3rd place, Ultimate bet - WOW. Phenomenal little yellow outfits and super hot.
In 2nd place, Bodog - I would actually give UB a slight nod on hotness, but the 2 floor bar where you could pillow fight the girls was stunning. Especially since you could win the bar and lounge! (I have pictures)
And in first place - Milwaukee Best. I mean the girls they sent blew everyone away. Calvin if you were here, you would have fired your crew. MB must have scoured the earth - every one was a perfect 10, and the see through white bikinis did not hurt.
Last place - Sapphires strip club. IF you are gonna send chicks to a convention to represent a strip club, send attractive ones next time.
. I learned that ESPN/Harrahs is playing quite a poker match with the DOJ/US government.
Let's get some background on this match.
Early on the U.S. government played a bluff. They wrote a bunch of media organizations telling them that they MAY be aiding and abetting if they continue to advertise gambling.
Now let's see why this is a bluff:
A. The wire act is completely outdated. As far as I know, (Correct me if I am wrong) no court has decided whether or not it covers internet gambling and certainly not wireless gaming. It has been shown to cover phone internet sports. Additionally, no gambler has ever been arrested by the feds for placing bets.
B. Congress is now trying to make internet gambling illegal. This tends to say it is currently federally legal. Congress does not pass the same law twice. I mean if tomorrow someone introduced a bill to make murder or cocaine illegal, everyone would laugh. People are not laughing at this bill because there is no federal law against internet gambling.
C. Courts have spefically said the wire act does not pertain to casinos.
D. Even the DOJ who enforces the law does not know if advertising gaming is illegal - hence MAY.
E. The DOJ avoided the opportunity to have a court decide when pressed on the issue by CasinoCity.
F. The idea that posting an ad for an online casino is aiding and abbetting is ludicrous. Aiding and abetting was meant to mean helping - buying the murder weapon, accepting the wagers, tying up the victim, etc. It was not meant to inform someone how to do it. Horror movies are not accused of aiding and abetting murder. The local news will tell you nightly how to rob a bank or rape someone yet they are not tried for aiding and abetting. There is no way that someone telling you how to make a bet is aiding and abetting.
So what does Harrah's/ESPN do? Do they fold? No. Do they call? No. Do they go all in and say FU? No. Do they raise - Hell yeah they do.
During the biggest gambling event of the year, they plaster an arena with over 10,000 people with gambling ads for every sportsbook and pokerroom on the planet. Now if they would have just done this, it would have been the all in, but to lower liability, we get a slight raise with a bluff - THE dot.net.
Now let's examine why the dot.net is a bluff.
A. Who the hell decided that .com is illegal, but that .net is legal? Anyone know of any court case ruling? I don't.
B. The idea was that the .net sites don't have gambling content. Well unfortunately, although partypoker may not, I would say 90% of the small companies at the convention center simply moved their normal site to .net.
C. Dot net is getting smaller and smaller. It is also getting into very light colors.
D. It seems that while .com is against the rules, nothing at all is ok. Likewise - Bodog Play with us online is ok and Betus on the internet seemed to fly too.
E. SO what is so bad about .com is it the com? The dot? The whole thing. I mean is bodog. ok? What about bodog com? What about bopictureofdog.com? Now likewise, if you wear a shirt at the event, you msut cover up .com but it seemed just covering up the o was ok so there were lots of Bodog.c-m. Additionally, the spectators had no incentive to cover up anything as they had nothing to lose (Players could be kicked out)
F. Clearly the DOJ/US government knows these are gambling advertisements and so does everyone else. There is no law saying if .com is illegal (Questionable) that .net is ok.
So now what does the DOJ/US government do? Do they fold or do they go all in?
An all in move would mean the indictment of the CEO of Harrahs or ESPN's parent company. A fold would mean advertising internet gambling is legal. There is no inbetween.
If something is tolerated in mass, it essentially becomes legal. Every small site will site ESPN and Harrah's as a defense if the DOJ ever comes after them. Likewise millions - maybe 100 million will see gambling ads on ESPN this year.
My hunch is the DOJ folds. IF they were to go all in, ESPN would fold, but Harrahs would fight. Harrahs biggest commodity is the WSOP and it is 1/4 of what it is now without online participation. If the DOJ goes all in, this one goes to Federal court where Harrahs wins - they are not aiding and abetting. They are not accepting bets or processing money. They are simply stating online gambling is available - this is free speech.
And finally to the RIO - what is up with security? You have 10000 players, many celebs and $80,000,000. You have a rope and maybe 8 rent a cops. I did not see one real cop, no fencing, no metal detectors, etc... You've brought fame to poker, now get with it on security. People were trampled. If there was a fire, everyone would have died. People could have guns in the arena.
-Sean
2. Daniel Negreanu is a great guy and a phenomenal poker player. I had the privilege of watching him play for about 8 hours last night. He completely controlled his table and each time he moved, he controlled the next table. The guy put everyone on tilt, had a great time chatting it up with fans, and consistently took down $3000 here, $5000 there untill he had over $70,000. I don't think he ever risked half his stack. I learned more watching him for one evening than I have reading multiple books.
3. It seemed 50% of the people playing could not afford the $10,000 fee. I've never seen so many winning hands laid down. IF you aren't gonna play KK or call $2000 with AK, don't buy in for $10000 if it means the kids wont eat.
4. I learned that poker players have groupies - mostly hot strippers who follow them around. I also learned the law of yachts applies to poker stars and groupies. See in FL, the law of yachts says if you are on a large boat and a larger boat comes by, all of the ***** will immediately hop overboard, swim, and climb aboard the bigger yacht. It is an amazing phenomenom well proved. Well sorry Dan, when Phil Hellmuth came by to see how you were doing, all your strippers followed him out the door.
5. I have learned that a bunch of guys paying $10,000 to play poker, free alcohol, and 100s of extremely hot chicks in bikinis makes for a great place to be.
In order of worst to best chicks:
Honorable mention: Many small companies with 2-3 chicks. I could not keep track of all.
In 5th place, Fulltilt - a lot of chicks, but just not that hot.
In 4th place, Pokerstars - The roller skates, knee high striped powder blue socks and short skirts were classic.
In 3rd place, Ultimate bet - WOW. Phenomenal little yellow outfits and super hot.
In 2nd place, Bodog - I would actually give UB a slight nod on hotness, but the 2 floor bar where you could pillow fight the girls was stunning. Especially since you could win the bar and lounge! (I have pictures)
And in first place - Milwaukee Best. I mean the girls they sent blew everyone away. Calvin if you were here, you would have fired your crew. MB must have scoured the earth - every one was a perfect 10, and the see through white bikinis did not hurt.
Last place - Sapphires strip club. IF you are gonna send chicks to a convention to represent a strip club, send attractive ones next time.
. I learned that ESPN/Harrahs is playing quite a poker match with the DOJ/US government.
Let's get some background on this match.
Early on the U.S. government played a bluff. They wrote a bunch of media organizations telling them that they MAY be aiding and abetting if they continue to advertise gambling.
Now let's see why this is a bluff:
A. The wire act is completely outdated. As far as I know, (Correct me if I am wrong) no court has decided whether or not it covers internet gambling and certainly not wireless gaming. It has been shown to cover phone internet sports. Additionally, no gambler has ever been arrested by the feds for placing bets.
B. Congress is now trying to make internet gambling illegal. This tends to say it is currently federally legal. Congress does not pass the same law twice. I mean if tomorrow someone introduced a bill to make murder or cocaine illegal, everyone would laugh. People are not laughing at this bill because there is no federal law against internet gambling.
C. Courts have spefically said the wire act does not pertain to casinos.
D. Even the DOJ who enforces the law does not know if advertising gaming is illegal - hence MAY.
E. The DOJ avoided the opportunity to have a court decide when pressed on the issue by CasinoCity.
F. The idea that posting an ad for an online casino is aiding and abbetting is ludicrous. Aiding and abetting was meant to mean helping - buying the murder weapon, accepting the wagers, tying up the victim, etc. It was not meant to inform someone how to do it. Horror movies are not accused of aiding and abetting murder. The local news will tell you nightly how to rob a bank or rape someone yet they are not tried for aiding and abetting. There is no way that someone telling you how to make a bet is aiding and abetting.
So what does Harrah's/ESPN do? Do they fold? No. Do they call? No. Do they go all in and say FU? No. Do they raise - Hell yeah they do.
During the biggest gambling event of the year, they plaster an arena with over 10,000 people with gambling ads for every sportsbook and pokerroom on the planet. Now if they would have just done this, it would have been the all in, but to lower liability, we get a slight raise with a bluff - THE dot.net.
Now let's examine why the dot.net is a bluff.
A. Who the hell decided that .com is illegal, but that .net is legal? Anyone know of any court case ruling? I don't.
B. The idea was that the .net sites don't have gambling content. Well unfortunately, although partypoker may not, I would say 90% of the small companies at the convention center simply moved their normal site to .net.
C. Dot net is getting smaller and smaller. It is also getting into very light colors.
D. It seems that while .com is against the rules, nothing at all is ok. Likewise - Bodog Play with us online is ok and Betus on the internet seemed to fly too.
E. SO what is so bad about .com is it the com? The dot? The whole thing. I mean is bodog. ok? What about bodog com? What about bopictureofdog.com? Now likewise, if you wear a shirt at the event, you msut cover up .com but it seemed just covering up the o was ok so there were lots of Bodog.c-m. Additionally, the spectators had no incentive to cover up anything as they had nothing to lose (Players could be kicked out)
F. Clearly the DOJ/US government knows these are gambling advertisements and so does everyone else. There is no law saying if .com is illegal (Questionable) that .net is ok.
So now what does the DOJ/US government do? Do they fold or do they go all in?
An all in move would mean the indictment of the CEO of Harrahs or ESPN's parent company. A fold would mean advertising internet gambling is legal. There is no inbetween.
If something is tolerated in mass, it essentially becomes legal. Every small site will site ESPN and Harrah's as a defense if the DOJ ever comes after them. Likewise millions - maybe 100 million will see gambling ads on ESPN this year.
My hunch is the DOJ folds. IF they were to go all in, ESPN would fold, but Harrahs would fight. Harrahs biggest commodity is the WSOP and it is 1/4 of what it is now without online participation. If the DOJ goes all in, this one goes to Federal court where Harrahs wins - they are not aiding and abetting. They are not accepting bets or processing money. They are simply stating online gambling is available - this is free speech.
And finally to the RIO - what is up with security? You have 10000 players, many celebs and $80,000,000. You have a rope and maybe 8 rent a cops. I did not see one real cop, no fencing, no metal detectors, etc... You've brought fame to poker, now get with it on security. People were trampled. If there was a fire, everyone would have died. People could have guns in the arena.
-Sean