Full Tilt Poker Gets Even 'Friendlier'

Sometimes it seems as though the biggest online sites are in a race to see exactly which can sign the most pros to its roster of celebrity endorsers. Full Tilt's done a great job of late in emptying out the wardrobe closet, signing no less than seven pros to its ever-expanding lineup. The seven (with Full Tilt nicknames in quotes):

Amanda “Mandy B” Baker
Peter "Nordberg" Feldman
Julian Gardner
Jared “TheWacoKidd” Hamby
Nikolaus “kaibuxxe” Jedlicka
Peter Jepson
Jon “PearlJammer” Turner

This swells to something like 76 the number of name pros who are either part of Team Full Tilt, among the other pros signed to the site (such as these seven), or among the handful of "Friends" also recognized by and who endorse the site. At this rate, there'll be more red names than black ones in the tournaments someday...

The Bogus Five-Aces PokerStars Hand That Won't Die

Like cow mutilations or baby alligators swimming up out of the toilet to snap one's private parts, even poker has its own growing collection of urban legends. One of them is the supposed "five aces" hands in a tournament on Poker Stars, which pops up every few weeks and always manages to snag a few of the more gullible among us.

As the story goes, deep in a major tournament in 2006, the PokerStars.com Download software was either hacked or malfunctioned, with the result that five aces supposedly showed up in a hand.

Take this as gospel: It's a big fake, and the incident never happened.

This is a small version of the screenshot that supposedly shows the incident, though a full version of the image is available in the latest 2+2 thread to see the old tale resurface. The big image is recommended for visiting. Look at it closely and you can see it's clearly been doctored.



Fortunately, the response from Stars' research into the bogus claim is also widely known, and is usually posted soon after. That's occurred in the latest thread as well, and is added here just to save you the scrolling:

old stars reply...

T# 14705493 was the $10 + $1 Deep Stacks tournament held on 12th
November 2005. The top four players in this event were:

"gamblinfla"
"MiketheKid2"
"twiceasright"
"witzy2004"

The player "Big Devin" didn't take part in this tournament.

Next, you can see the observer "style12" in chat on the
table. "style12" is not a User ID on our database as of June 2006 --
he doesn't exist.

There are also two hands mentioned here. One is # 3044245011 and the
other # 3044243120. I've attached them both below so that you can see
the hands as they originally happened. As you can see, the chip
stacks are totally consistent from one hand to the next. Further
more, "Big Devin" didn't take part.

Finally, it is clearly demonstrable that the image has been edited.
Attached please find a closeup of several of the cards on the screen.
If you look closely, you'll see that the ace of clubs is one pixel too
high. The prankster that tried to run this hoax was not quite careful
enough with his editing and left this evidence behind.

I hope that this sets your mind at ease, but if you have further
queries, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Best regards,

Dan C
PokerStars Support Team


Cute, ain't it all?

Part Time Poker Interview with Betcha.Com Boss an Eye-Opener

One of the newer sites to offer a smart mix of poker news and commentary is Part Time Poker, which takes a peek at many of the pressing topics of the day. More often than not the site's content is an interesting read, with one of the very best in recent weeks being an interview with Nick Jenkins, the founder of Betcha.com.

Betcha.com, for those of you who might not know, is the Washington-state site that found a way to bring sports bettors together without violating gambling laws, at least after extensive research by Jenkins, himself a lawyer. However, the Betcha.com case as it stands today is Lesson #1 in teaching the truism that governments don't let silly little things like laws get in their way.

Click here for the interview with Jenkins, about his pending felony case in Louisiana and what amounts to an illegal seizure by Washington. It's an eye-opening read.

The PPA Lobbies the Federalies

[Cal here, taking over for the rest of the weekend duties---]

Haley quipped to me in a phone conversation early in the week about the "Hundred Man March" scheduled to take place in Washington D.C., where about 100 Poker Players Alliance representatives traveled to the U.S.'s capital to lobby Congressmen on poker's behalf. The 'Fly-In,' as the PPA termed it, went off as scheduled, and the PPA generated some mainstream press. After acknowledging the few dozen headlines generated, however, did the PPA publicity tour accomplish any real good?

The PPA certainly trotted out its horses for the effort. In addition to the PPA's own name bosses, John Pappas and former Senator Al D'Amato, poker's celeb call also offered up Howard Lederer, Annie Duke, Chris Moneymaker, Vanessa Rousso, poker-promoting Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson, and many others. The PPA came fully armed as well. With an agenda full of publicity-generating events and a coherent list of poker "Talking Points," the fly-in was likely the most effective effort yet by the PPA.

One wonders, however, if the PPA wasn't preaching to the choir in its rosy reports on the fly-in's impact. For starters, though, here's just a bit of the talking points supporting the legalization of poker that the PPA wanted to publicize. All typos and such are left intact; we'll just hope they didn't actually give the printed version of this to legislators or major mainstream newspapers:

Prohibitions Don't Work:

The UIGEA effectively bans online poker in the U.S. and drives those players underground. Meanwhile, poker continues to grow in popularity nationwide.

The UIGEA does nothing for effectively addressing...

Money Laundering

The UIGEA forces law enforcement and financial institutions to redirect resources on blocking poker player's financial transactions instead of tracking down terrorist financing. This creates an even larger hurdle for law enforcement to police for potential money laundering. The UIGEA does not help track down terrorist financing.

Children

The best way to keep children from accessing online gaming Web sites is to strictly require that all operators employ the best in class age-verification software. This can only be done through a licensing approval process and regulation. The UIGEA does not use the best way to prevent underage gambling and protect children.

Problem Gamblers

The problem gambler is perhaps hurt most by the prohibition. Sadly, these people will continue to gamble and will fall prey to unscrupulous operators that will work outside of the law. The UIGEA does not try to help problem gamblers.

The UIGEA Does...

Lose money for the U.S.

Billions of tax revenue is being lost. According to an economic analysis, 3.3 billion in federal tax revenue and addition 1 billion in state tax revenue could be raised if the federal government were to regulate Internet poker. This tax revenue made from American players is going off to other countries.

Allow other kinds of Internet gambling

The UIGEA allows people to gamble online for horse races and state lotteries, but not for poker. Why can't I play a skill game like poker with other consenting adults?

Quote from UIGEA:
(D) INTERSTATE HORSERACING-
(i) IN GENERAL- the term 'unlawful Internet gambling' shall not include any activity that is allowed under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.).

(source: pokerplayersalliance.org)

It goes on for several pages, hitting all the hot points, including the skill games argument and the pending Frank and Wexler bills.

The PPA did do quite a bit during the two-day fly-in, including face-to-face sessions with about 50 Congressman. That's impressive, but it's likely that the vast majority of these were Congressman already on record as supporting the Frank and/or Wexler bills. It's converting the unwashed heathens that needs to continue to occur, not just the congratulating of those already converted. The PPA also touted its Tuesday night reception on Capitol Hill, which drew eight -- yes, eight -- members of Congress. As PPA honcho John Pappas noted, it's hard to get Congressman to attend any functions of this type, given all the demands for their time from competing lobbyists and state functions. Still, eight's not going to effect much change if that's all there is. Only time will tell.

And there's the issue of the mainstream press. The PPA did a solid job of getting its message out. The PPA is also maintaining an impressive list of mainstream articles on its efforts, though they're picking and choosing many of the best "pro" pieces.

Were those good pieces the only ones out there. In so many cases, it seems that the articles' writers couldn't bother to research the issue and offer facts and figures of their own. Instead, they almost unanimously opted for the easy way out, finding a "talking mouth" from the other side, whether there was anything factual there or not.

A CNet piece, for example, dissed the whole concept of the PPA fly-in with this brief intro:

"America's online poker enthusiasts descended on Capitol Hill this week with two messages for Congress: Poker's good for the brain, and stop jeopardizing our games already."

Later on, it dove into an extensive rebuttal from the anti-gambling position with no cited facts whatsoever:

Supporters of the federal online gambling ban say the law is necessary to clarify that forms of offline gambling already considered unlawful by state and federal laws are also prohibited in the online context. They argue gambling has a host of negative consequences--including addiction, bankruptcy, divorce and crime--that are only aggravated by the relative anonymity the Internet supplies.

The law requires banks and payment processors to take certain steps to block transactions stemming from "unlawful" forms of gambling--that is, those that violate any federal, state or local laws. (Bets on horse racing, lotteries, fantasy sports and games that don't involve exchanges of anything of "value" are exempt.)

Because Congress has historically left it up to each state to decide how much or how little gambling to legalize, it's not always clear where online gaming for money--and poker in particular--fits in from state to state. So, with the risk of hefty fines and criminal penalties if they don't do their part, payment processors seem to be playing it safe, opting to stop accepting transactions from online poker and bridge sites even when it's not clear laws are being broken, critics of the ban said Wednesday.

A stock photo in the piece carries the following caption: "American poker players want Congress to scale back an online gambling ban that's 'inconveniencing' their games." In other words, boo-hoo.

For all that, though, the CNet piece at least attempts to explore the problem, though editors already had to insert a correction after misreporting the status of a Pennsylvania case exploring the skill-vs.-chance argument regarding poker.

The point is that the CNet spin is the common one. The PPA put a positive spin on the event, but whether any real good has been accomplished at all is another question altogther.

Absolute Developments

Haley here, stopping in to share the latest list of developments for those of you wanting to keep tabs on the Absolute Poker situation.

Absolute released two statements during the week, both through very unofficial sources. The first can be found at the start of this thread on 2+2, while the second can be found at the start of this thread, also on 2+2.

I had one more piece on the situation up early on the week at PokerNews, the third we've done there on the story to date. Maybe there'll be another one soon. Maybe not.

Lou Krieger and Amy Calistri invited me to stop by their "Keep Flopping Aces" show on Thursday night and chat about the situation, and though we battled sound problems for one segment and there were a couple of areas where I did not wish to publicly speculate, we all had a good time. Besides that, Lou and Amy are treasured poker friends, are among the industry's finest writers, and I haven't given their show much link love lately. I'm not sure if it's in the podcast archive yet, but here's the link to Wade Andrews' Hold'em Radio site anyway.

Let's see... oh, yes, this was the week Mark Seif entered the Absolute story in a public sense, other than a brief dismissal of the whole thing on his own blog before some of the more serious facts in the story really broke. Seif has served as a spokesman for the site since June of 2004.

First up was a taped interview with Seif by Dan Michalski that appears over at the always excellent pokerati.com. Then, Snake and Chops talked Seif into doing a lengthy video interview, which was co-published on Friday at both Wicked Chops Poker and RawVegas.tv. Wicked Chops' main page now boasts a blurb which states: "The most read poker blog in Costa Rica. And now Panama!" Funny, guys!

Calvin Ayre Wants to Pound Scott Lewis

[Cal again, with another fun one from the fringes---]

It's been picked up by several media outlets today that Bodog's Calvin Ayre has issued a MMA "grudge match" challenge to Scott Lewis, the CEO of 1st Technologies, LLC. 1st Technologies is the Nevada firm that seized control over Ayre's bodog.com domain after receiving a default judgment in August in a case concerning potential online-technology patent infringement. For one reason or another, Ayre and his attorneys never showed up to challenge the case, which led to the awarding of a claim valued at $49 million.

In his latest posts on the CalvinAyreLife.com blog, Ayre challenges Lewis to a 3-round Bodog Fight rules MMA face pounding. Ayre says he'll put up a million in cash, if Lewis puts up the seized bodog.com domain in return. Ayre has tried to make that original domain have little value, with Bodog's subsequent move to bewbodog.com and later bodoglife.com. Bodoglife.com is the right one at the moment.

In response to some emails, threats and claims that Lewis has been said to have made, a small part of Ayre's response is below. It's some good reading.

(Ayre writing from here...)

Scott Lewis: You want money. I want to hit you…repeatedly. In a lawful way, of course.

Now I don't know if those emails were really sent by you or by someone pretending to be you, but they did get me thinking. I'm thinking that maybe there is the essence of a deal here. See…we both have something that the other wants. You—being an unethical thieving Patent Troll—want some of the money that I created by actually producing a legitimate product that is favored by the consumers market. And from you? This is what I want: your face. More specifically, I covet the lawful opportunity to smash your face…repeatedly.

What I propose is that I put up US $1 million in trust with a lawyer. We then set up a three-round Bodog Fight rules mixed martial arts event at a jurisdiction in which we are licensed. If you win the fight you get the money. If I win? I'd want those now valueless domains you stole to be given back to their rightful owner. BodogTV would produce the event and own the television rights. (Your lawyer bosses can work this out with some of our lawyers.) You should have no problem with this, right? After all, that was a big testosterone move grabbing those domains and black holing them like that knowing that you were not being entirely fair wasn't it? You were going to show everyone who the tough guy was weren't you?

Team Concept U.S. PokerBowl Underway in Vegas

[Cal checking in, on the usual weekend duty---]

Big pro names are on hand this weekend at the Palms for a different concept in poker, as teams of six players each are competing in the first-ever U.S. PokerBowl. 25 teams in five conferences are vying for the title. The five teams in each conference play down through their own qualifying events, to send a team on to the championship, which features each conference winner.

Here's the lineups for the teams, with some of the team nicknames changed after first choices such as "Pittsburgh Stealers" and "Dallas Kowboys" may have drawn the ire of the NFL. In any event, Card Player, the official media provider for the event, has opted to list city names only.

Northern Conference

Chicago Sharks: Joseph Michael, James Ferguson, Sorel Mizzi, Mike Glasser, Jonathon Little, Shannon Shorr
Cleveland Crows: Justin Bonomo, Carl Olson, Steve Sung, Danny Wong, J.C. Alvarado, Jared Hamby
Minnesota Young Guns: Todd Breyfogle, Scott Clements, Ryan Hartmann, Jordan Rich, Mike Pickett, Cory Slaughbaugh
New Jersey XFactors: Eric Lynch, Scott Pendergrast, Jon Turner, Jon Friedberg, Shannon Pendergrast, Joe Hill
Seattle Sentinels: Dale Wenstad, Keith Bartlett, Jesse Martinez, Brandon Leung, Traci Wolfe, Lee Watkinson

Eastern Conference

Boston Diamonds: Paul Darden, Donnie Wahlberg, Bernard Lee, Spiro Mitrokostas, Steve 'Dakota' Happas, Greg Raymer
Detroit Absolute Nuts: Mark Seif, Nick Brancato, Rick Fuller, Scotty Nguyen, Kenna James, Kathy Liebert
New York Rounders: Kevin Saul, Gavin Griffin, Victor Ramdin, Daniel Alaei, Darrell Dicken, John D’Agostino
Philadelphia Phish: Dan Shak, Beth Shak, Frank Vizza, Louie Esposito, Robert Wiziak, Eugene Todd
Pittsburgh River Rats: Marty Marucci, Brian Stanton, Michael Foglia, Scott Conner, William Takacs, Robert Jon Ford

Southern Conference

Atlanta Aces: Antonio Salorio, Fred Goldberg, Erik Cajelais, Paul Wolfe, Greg Mueller, Kyle Wilson
Cincinnati Full House: Ari Goldstein, Chris Manzo, Steve Kingsley, Steve Dannenmann, Steve Zoine, Vincent Napolitano
Dallas Roughnecks: T.J. Cloutier, Jeff Littlefield, Allen Carter, Tex Barch, Layne Flack, Keith Lehr
Houston Hurricanes: Clonie Gowen, Michael Binger, Chris Ferguson, Lee Markholt, Gabe Thaler
Miami Miracles: David Benefield, Tom Dwan, Di Dang, Hac Dang, Phil Galfond, Alan Sass

Western Conference

Denver High Rollers : Vanessa Rousso, Chad Brown, Matt Atkins, Doyle Brunson, Todd Brunson, Erik Seidel
Las Vegas Rat Pack: Antonio Esfandiari, Jennifer Tilly, Phil Laak, Danny Masterson, Scott Fischman, Mike Matusow
Phoenix Pharaohs: Chris Smith, Shawn Chaconas, Jason Griffiths, Jason Rivera, Arte the Russian, Roy Winston
St. Louis Surge: Anna Wroblewski, Joe Tehan, John Kimm, Adam Gerber, Hank Sitton, Allen Kessler
Tennessee Tilt: David Williams, Scott Levy, Gregg Merkow, Michael Gracz, Nenad Medic, Amnon Filippi

California Conference

Los Angeles Killers: Brandon Cantu, Jeff Madsen, Ryan Young, Theo Tran, Tim West, Joe Cassidy
Oakland Razors: Paul Wasicka, William Lin, Steve McNulty, Eric Morris, Robert Seabolt, Ron Myers
Orange County Coolers: J.C. Tran, Nam Le, Tuan Le, Michael Mizrachi, Kirk Morrison, Tim Phan
San Diego Players: Jason Hubbard, Thayer Rasmussen, Shaun Deeb, Peter Feldman, Alex Jacob, Jordan Morgan
San Francisco Kings: Luke DeSantos, David Ramirez, Max Pescatori, James Van Alstyne, Trish McCoy, Brian Roberts

Absolute Releases Another Statement

Haley, here, with one more post:

Absolute released this today, through former Kahnawake tribal chief Joe Tokwiro Norton:

October 21, 2007

Dear AP Player:

I am the former Grand Chief of the Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake and the owner of Tokwiro Enterprises ENRG, which holds a 100% interest in Absolute Poker.

As many of our players are aware, there has been a security breach in our system that allowed unlawful access to player information that resulted in unfair play. I am writing to you today to let you know what we know so far in order to set the record straight, and to assure you of AP's commitment to player security. I am sure that this letter will not address all of the questions and concerns you may have, nor will it extinguish the heated discussion surrounding this issue. At this point, our intention is to let you know all we can disclose and to assure you of our continued efforts to keep you informed as best we can as the investigations continue.

We deeply regret this situation has occurred. A breach in security in online poker is serious and of great concern to players and the industry worldwide, and this particular situation has been the subject of debate within the poker player community and in the media, giving rise to the creation of several websites and hundreds and hundreds of comments, opinions, and theories of what occurred – some of which are accurate, and some that are not.

Like you, I have not been happy that during the initial stage of our investigation, AP has not been more forthcoming in providing a timely or comprehensive explanation on this matter, giving rise to anger, suspicion, and concern on the part of our valued customers. I hope that our customers can appreciate that this remains an incredibly complex and sensitive issue, and I want to give you my strongest possible assurance that we will be as forthcoming as possible on how this breach occurred and what we are doing to remedy the situation.

What We Know and Actions We Have

AP was notified by a customer that a possible cheating incident occurred during a recent tournament, and in response forwarded players' hand logs. This disclosure of the hand logs prompted our customers to determine that a more serious security breach had occurred. We immediately launched an internal investigation and also requested a formal audit by Gaming Associates, an acknowledged world-wide expert in audits, interactive gaming tests, and information security.

Based upon our preliminary findings, it appears that the integrity of our poker system was compromised by a high-ranking trusted consultant employed by AP whose position gave him extraordinary access to certain security systems. As has been speculated in several online forums, this consultant devised a sophisticated scheme to manipulate internal systems to access third-party computers and accounts to view hole cards of other customers during play without their knowledge. As this consultant was aware of the details of our fraud detection process, the likelihood that the scheme would be uncovered through our normal procedures was minimized. We consider this security breach to be a horrendous and inexcusable offense.

We will pay for all losses suffered by the affected players as soon as our audit is finished and the amounts are determined. Although we are in the process of attempting to recover all the winnings of this consultant, any unrecovered losses of affected players will be paid by Absolute Poker so that all affected persons will be made whole.

Next Steps

We are still investigating whether the consultant was acting alone or in concert with others, and it appears at this time that all account holders are innocent of collusion and were unaware of any wrong-doing by the consultant, who was immediately terminated. We continue to investigate this matter aggressively, and all of these preliminary findings are subject to the audits currently underway. We have recently uncovered additional accounts used by the consultant that have not been publicly reported. So as to not compromise the investigation, we are not releasing the names of these additional accounts at this time, and will contact these affected customers individually.

The specific allegations of unlawful activity are being investigated both by AP and by the authorized authorities, including the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. We will continue to actively cooperate with these authorities in full compliance with the Regulations Concerning Interactive Gaming. In addition to our own investigation and the audit by Gaming Associates, we have also submitted to an audit by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission.

Please be assured that we have corrected the problem that allowed the system to be unfairly manipulated. We are working furiously to increase the safeguards within our systems. While we are satisfied that our systems are secured, we realize that our security systems must be continuously monitored and enhanced.

Without question, this incident has been unfortunate for all concerned, and we will emerge as a stronger company. I realize it will take some time and much more information for AP to re-earn the trust and confidence of our customers who are in doubt of our commitment to the highest levels of security, privacy and integrity. As we move to address and correct this situation, our valued customers have played a vital role in uncovering this scheme through various online forums and have become an active part of the solution.


With my full sincerity, I thank you, and I promise to keep you updated as we bring this situation to a close.


Sincerely,

Joe Norton

Yes, Absolute's Been in the News

Haley, here, checking in. I've stopped in myself tonight to chat about the Absolute Poker situation so that Cal and the KAP bosses won't have to do so. Yes, I've been fully involved in the story, and no, this isn't yet the right time or spot to talk about an issue that's still widely in flux. I need to refrain from personal commentary on this for the time being. There will be time for that, later.

Instead, I'm just going to point you all to a handful of important and/or interesting links connected to the unfolding story to date. Not all the information will agree, so it's up to you, the reader, to determine what information is out there and sift through it all for yourself.

The story has in large part ridden on the energies of posters at 2+2 and Pocket Fives, though it's been talked about everywhere. I'd link up to specific threads but there are way, way too many, and many of them have a lot of wasteful, often inaccurate information within. PocketFives has an inpenetrable format in terms of sorting, and after a while it just kicks you back to the top of the site anyway, but at 2+2 the threads have been driven into the "Brags, Beats and Variance" forum. Wasteful or not, though, I gotta admit to laughing out loud at Admo's faux movie posters; that guy has some graphics sk1llz. Another forum that contained a lot of early information was that at casinomeister.com, although that one seems to be not quite as involved in the latest developments. (Or maybe it's me --- frankly, I've been too busy to check.)

Nat Arem, the founder of thepokerdb.com, which was then sold to Bluff, giving Nat a minority stake in that company (correct me if I'm wrong, Nat), has played a continuing, key role in all of this, as have Serge "Adanthar" Ravitch, Michael Josem and numerous others. Arem has been putting up more or less daily updates on his while Josem created the subjectively named AbsolutePokerCheats.com site.

Among the blogger sites I track on a frequent basis, the Royal Poker Blog has perhaps been the most energetic in following the tale, with Viscant over at Vanity and Poker also sounding off. I've also seen Shamus and Pauly sound off on this recently, with Shamus perhaps too effusively mentioning me in this. Yes, I had a role in uncovering something important, but overall it was in my mind a smallish contribution. Folks such as Josem did a lot more.

I'd guess there are dozens of blogs that have talked about the whole saga (to date) by now, but I'm just too exhausted to think my way through to hook 'em all up. Sorry, guys.

I suspected at least a week ago that this story was going to take off, but there's a world of difference between thinking about how things might develop and trying to write about them in a responsible manner. So here are the links to the two pieces of mine to date at PokerNews.com:

Tough Times for Absolute Poker
Absolute Poker: 'We Had a Security Breach'

Let's see. One other link that played an important visual role in helping people understand the circumstances was the hand-by-hand recreation done by the people at PokerXFactor.com. Other people have swiped the recreation and put up videos on YouTube, but PXF did the work so I'm giving them the link-love. You can register for free and view the video; you don't actually have to subscribe to any paid service.

I wasn't at all surprised to see the story go mainstream, and the first "mainstream" outlet I saw with a piece on it was Steven Levitt's piece on his New York Times Freakonomics blog. Levitt had, I guess, blogged about it once earlier, and he's doing some study that is supposed to examine the skill-vs.-chance aspect of poker. That's irrelevant, I guess, but how the elephant got in Levitt's pajamas I'll never know.

After that it (the Absolute story, not the elephant) showed up in two pretty big outlets, MSNBC and ABC Online, which is also the ESPN piece everyone keeps wondering about. (One and the same, folks.) The hyperlinks go right to the stories.

There have been some real crap stories, too, both mainstream and within the poker industry. I'm not gonna link to those. Other good stories, too, and I apologize for not linking to those. More of both to come, I'm sure.

WSOP Announces 2008 Schedule and Dates

[Cal here, wrapping up a late weekend---]

Harrah's released its dates this week for the 2008 World Series of Poker. Not much is up yet for specific event dates, but here's the meat of the release sent out this week:

LAS VEGAS – October 8, 2007 – Harrah’s Entertainment Inc (NYSE: HET) announced today that the 39th annual World Series of Poker® Presented by Milwaukee’s Best Light will be staged at the Rio™ All-Suite Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas from May 30 through July 17, 2008.

“The team is still hard at work on the schedule of events for next year, but we’ve received so many requests for the dates that we decided to announce them now,” said Jeffrey Pollack, WSOP Commissioner.

“We’ll actually open the WSOP tournament room the week of May 26th for two special events,” said Geno Iafrate, vice president and assistant general manager of the Rio. “This ‘soft opening’ will give players a chance to register early and avoid the lines we had last year during opening weekend – our busiest time.”

More WSOP information is available at www.worldseriesofpoker.com.

Absolute Issues Denial of Wrongdoing Through Mark Seif Blog

[Cal here, watching the world spin by---]

Given the furor surrounding the allegations of an inside user having access to other players' hole cards and making off with hundreds of thousands of dollars in ill-gotten winnings, Absolute picked an odd outlet for releasing its denial. The following has now appeared over at former AP spokesman Mark Seif's player blog over at Bluff:

AP's Offical Response to Allegations

Official Absolute Poker Response To Player Fraud Allegations

Absolute Poker takes all allegations of player fraud and collusion extremely seriously. Fair play and security are of paramount importance to us. Our Security and Fraud Department is dedicated to ensuring that everyone on the site has a fair opportunity to win, and that no improper methods, devices, programs and/or other unfair advantages are ever utilized in our games.

We were greatly concerned by a recent thread on the 2+2 forums along with emails and other communications we received, regarding alleged player fraud. We thank the vigilant players who reported this matter to us, giving us an opportunity to investigate these serious allegations. We spent extensive resources thoroughly investigating and analyzing our players’ claims. While our investigation is ongoing, we feel that we have enough information at this point to share with you some of our findings.

Please be advised, that we will continue to investigate each and every claim of wrong-doing on an individual basis and we will report any further significant findings that are appropriate for public review. Also, please keep in mind, while we endeavor to provide as much information as possible on a public level, we take our players’ privacy issues very seriously, and will never compromise this. As a matter of Company policy, Absolute Poker never divulges personal information about our players nor do we make public any hand information that did not go to a showdown, ever. As a result, we are limited in terms of the level of information that we can provide for public review.

In response to the allegations, we froze the accounts of the players in question while we performed an extensive investigation. The result of our investigation is that we found no evidence that any of Absolute Poker’s redundant and varying levels of game client security were compromised. In other words, we have determined with reasonable certainty that it is impossible for any player or employee to see hole cards as was alleged. There is no part of the technology that allows for a “superuser” account, and there is no way for any person to influence the game software to their advantage. We base this finding on a thorough security check on a technological level, coupled with a thorough investigation of hand histories including those that did not go to a showdown. As a part of our investigation, we also tested the integrity of our certified random number generator (“RNG”.) We determined that our RNG was not compromised either.

Details of the investigation

We combed through all hands involving the accounts that were mentioned in the online forums. Please note that only a select number of hands were featured in the threads. Our ongoing investigation continues to show that there were countless instances where a somewhat unorthodox poker strategy resulted in a loss. Allegations that the player accounts at issue “always guessed right” are unfounded.

We examined screen shots from Poker Tracker Software that displayed an “infinite” river aggression factor for one of the player accounts at issue. We examined similar screen shots which showed a lower but still relatively high river aggression factor. We were very concerned by this anomaly. Accordingly, we reviewed each and every hand that this player played during the relevant time period and determined that while the play was extremely aggressive, particularly on the river, there were several instances where the player merely called on the river. Thus, the allegation that the player accounts at issue “never called on the river, they either raised or folded” are also without merit.

With respect to the allegation of chip dumping, we have determined that chip dumping by at least one of the accounts at issue, did in fact, take place. We have determined that the chip dumping was made to several seemingly unrelated accounts. We are continuing to investigate this issue.

Conclusion

A ‘super-user’ account does not exist in our software. Absolute Poker was created by poker players who value security and fair play. The back-end of the Absolute Poker software prevents the possibility of any such feature. Our game client only receives data regarding an individual’s hand and no other player hole cards are ever visible – by anyone – except in the event of a showdown. Having said that, we will continue this investigation as well as look into any other allegations of wrong-doing. If appropriate, we will freeze funds and reimburse effected players.

Absolute Poker remains a 100% secure place to play. We value all of our players and we will continue to provide our community with a safe, secure and exciting online poker experience.

The Absolute Poker Management

Response to the denial has been uniformly negative to date.

Bot Funnies, Part 2: Not Cracking the RNG

[An All-Cal weekend continues---]

PokerListings is one of those growing, second-tier poker-information sites, the type of site that's not too bad as long as you don't look too closely. But like a lot of these second- and third-tier places, there's no paid ad too questionable to run. In addition to links to sites of several software add-ons that are generally accepted by most sites, for better or worse, there always seems to be one or two links to programs of more dubious content.

Currently, PokerListings offers a link called "Power Poker Secrets," with the following brief description: "Power Poker Secrets is a system developed to give you an edge at online poker by viewing cards before they are dealt." Right. Haven't we been down this road before?

We've been down some neighboring streets, but not this one specifically. Clicking through here takes the curious poker player to a site with a somewhat different spin. The software site one encounters is for something called PokerRNG 6.0, which includes on its home page the following pitch:

"PokerRNG 6.0 is the first and only poker software of its kind that can actually determine future card values of Internet Texas Hold 'Em games. What would you do with the advantage of knowing upcoming community cards along with your opponents hole cards before the flop is even dealt? We're sure whatever you choose to do with this information will increase your winnings and improve your game as soon as you start using PokerRNG 6.0."

It's a slightly more high-tech spin on the old PokerBot Pro and PokerBotMax scams, this time trying to sell the gullible on the possibility that all these poker sites have had their RNG (Random Number Generator) algorithms cracked, and therefore that you can use this information by inputting your cards during the playing of a hand to help identify that hand against a huge online database of stored hands, which will then let you know what cards are coming, etc., etc. It's garbage, of course, as is the convincing but bogus "shocking, secret" video of the software in action found elsewhere on the site.

The bad part is the scam is rooted in truth, because there was an instance, many years ago, when an online poker site did have its RNG cracked. That site was Planet Poker and the cracking was done by a well-intentioned group of computer scientists who discovered that the pool of numbers generated by Planet's algorithm was in fact magnitudes too small to actually account for all the possible combinations of cards that could be dealt. The bombshell was devastating to Planet; even though the site quickly improved its RNG procedure to something that did assure the mechanical version of randomness, the damage had been done. Planet lost its early market lead to sites such as Paradise, Party and Stars, and limped on until it finally died just a few months ago.

So, in theory, RNG reverse-engineering could be done. But it's for sure not what's going on here. This is a scam, plain and simple.

We'll leave the exercise of why this software can't work as advertised to the curious reader. The video on the site offers several clues as to why it can't work as advertised, even as it's seeming to do just that. If you think you've spotted one of the flaws with the claims, go ahead and post a comment with your thoughts and questions. We'll respond to those over the coming days and weeks.

As to what's really going on with the software? To run PokerRNG 6.0, one must have this program running simultaneously to playing on a table at any of the listed sites. And by inputting your cards, you're likely communicating your holdings to the person or persons sitting on the other end of the PokerRNG software; I'd bet those guys would show up at your table very soon. Not only would you be telling them your hole cards, you'd be paying them for the privilege.

Josh Arieh Identified as Mystery WCOOP 'nitbuster'

[Cal again, with more entertaining tales from poker---]

While the far greater issue of exactly what will happen with the first prize of the still-under-investigation PokerStars World Championship of Online Poker, or WCOOP, remains to be decided, at lost one small mystery was resolved this week. As for the larger story, the million-plus prize won by the 'TheV0id', which is believed to be Mark Teltscher playing under his sister's name, has been frozen pending other account investigations.

As for the smaller mystery, that ensued when the relatively unknown 'nitbuster' was accidentally referred to as "Josh" by Daniel Negreanu during the online webcast commmentary accompanying the WCOOP Main Event final table. While nitbuster went on to finish sixth, the major poker forums quickly lit up with speculation as to the account's real identity. Speculation centered on Arieh.

Arieh confirmed that it was his account in an interview with PokerNews' Steve Horton just a few days later. "I am nitbuster," said Arieh, then detailed how he was allowed to change his name -- not once, but twice -- after an extended run-in with another online player occurring on his old 'ATL Angela' account.

I suppose if you are a Poker Star, downloading and creating a new account is ok under special circumstances.

Bot Funnies, Part 1: A Bogus Winholdem Site Ripping Off Players' Reputations?

[Cal here, kicking off a series of weekend posts---]

If you're going to be a scammer for a living, you have to be creative. After all, once your original scam gets old, it becomes unprofitable. So you have to keep coming up with new ways to peddle the same old bullshit, right?

Enter a new thread in the News, Views and Gossip section of the 2+2 forums, titled "Pokerstars Cheaters". Given that Stars is the biggest site and people always have questions about the integrity of any poker game, online or otherwise, it's a sure and catchy hook.

Inside, though, the thread accuses a number of well-known Stars players of cheating using some multi-player function of the infamous and crappy "poker bot" software program, Winholdem, the creation of Ray Bornert III; Bornert's been ripping off suckers for years, dodging serious legal consequences under the "this product is for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer illegal and ToC-violating software always carries. (The software doesn't work as advertised by the way, and if you're stupid enough to purchase it, let's just say you deserve what's coming.)

However, let's return to the thread. The original posting points only to a strange website at http://www.ps-cheaters.com/, which displays 'Wanted' posters of 23 prominent Stars players, accusing them of using the Winholdem software. Winholdem is very prominently pimped on this site, ever so coincidentally, with the full URL to the garbage software site displayed in several spots.

This site's claims are utter garbage as well -- none of the players use the product. The idea is to promote the idea that since these winning players are using Winholdem (they're not, of course), then the losing players who stumble across the site should run out, buy Winholden and level the playing field. Worse, it's complicated by bogus offers to pay people $2,000 for information as to these players' real identities, this despite the fact that many of the players are already well known.

Nice scam. It's a re-do on an older, somewhat similar site at pokergangsters.com, which attempted to do the same thing and was every bit as bogus.

Most of the players named have already disavowed any knowledge of the site or use of the software, though digging out the information for the slanderer's identity isn't exactly worth the effort. If it's indeed a sick commercial for Winholdem, then it's Bornert or someone working as an affiliate, trying to sell his software, and the site is hosted at the moment by Chicago-based midphase.com. Here's hoping it gets nuked quickly.

It's just that some people are really deserving of being run over by a dump truck, and whoever put up this site is one such person. One poster mentioned a grease fire; that's a bit harsh.

Maybe.

Inside the UIGEA Regulations, Part 1: Introduction and Background

The publication a few days ago of the Department of the Treasury’s proposed rules for implementation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act [UIGEA], has led to a lot of top-level news pieces noting the release, a lot of questions being asked about what’s really inside… and not much real meat. Truth is, reading 52-page regulatory PDF is damn boring stuff, even if it does concern poker. Still, someone’s got to sift through it and separate the nuggets from the leavings.

So with the up-front declaration that not only am I not a lawyer, I don’t even play one on TV, I’ll still sacrifice a couple of hours for you all and see just what the Washington bureaucrats have in mind.

The UIGEA, as noted in the regulations, defines “unlawful Internet gambling” as “placing, receiving, or otherwise knowingly transmitting a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the State or Tribal lands in which the bet is initiated, received, or otherwise made.” However, the UIGEA specifically is not construed to alter any existing act, relying instead on what it portrays as the “underlying substantive Federal and State laws.”

It’s key point number one, because apart from the morass of state laws the UIGEA must somehow negotiate and coordinate, the two federal decrees of most relevance are the Wire Act and the Interstate Horse Racing Act. The Interstate Horse Racing Act and subsequent amendments deal only with pari-mutuel wagering, and horseracing was specifically carved out within the UIGEA anyway. As to the Wire Act, previous court decisions have held that it applies to sports wagers only, not to other contests. In fact, in a decision involving an online gambling site from some years ago, a disgruntled customer attempted to stop payment made to an online site, and the court ruled against him and in favor of Master Card, which is what he’d used to run up his debts.

Also poker has never been mentioned in any of the previous federal gambling laws, and is not mentioned anywhere in the 52-page document released by the feds regarding implementation of the UIGEA. The truth seems to be that when push comes to shove, the feds want no part of taking on the “poker as a game of skill” defense. That doesn’t mean that poker sites won’t be clipped because of overzealous, too-broad banking regulations, however. That’s… umm… happened way too much already.

In Part 2, we’ll peek at some of the implementation features proposed for the UIGEA.

Inside the UIGEA Regulations, Part 2: Implementation

Under the UIGEA, the Treasury and Federal Reserve will be required to identify and designate all Internet-based payment systems that could be used to facilitate “restricted transactions,” meaning those transactions connected with online gambling falling under the auspices of the UIGEA. That’s no small order, because it will have to account for all forms of electronic-payment processing, even those not currently used for gambling purposes. It will also require constant monitoring and updating.

The agencies must then coordinate with both (1) all designated payment systems, and (2) all transaction providers servicing the banking industry, and ensure that all of them come up with ways to identify and block as many “restricted transactions” as possible. This means identifying all the possible payment avenues as well, from credit and debit cards (including gift cards), to wire transfers, third-party e-banks and e-wallets, electronic-check systems, paper checks… basically, any way at all that could be conceived of being used for getting money into or out of an Internet gambling site. Several pages of the notice are devoted just to defining many of these payment channels as they currently exist.

However, the UIGEA --- largely at the behest of the banking industry when the law was being drafted --- requires the agencies involved to exempt certain classes of transactions if the two agencies (Treasury and Federal Reserve) jointly determine that it is not practical to block them. Already, paper checks and the ACH (Automated Clearing House) system for the processing of said checks has been identified as a category where such categorical blocking (or manual sorting) is neither feasible nor practical.

Do the UIGEA’s regulations specify what types of gambling transactions are to be blocked? Pointedly, specifically, emphatically no. Quoting from the notice: “[T]he Act itself does not specify which gambling activities are legal or illegal and the Act does not require the Agencies to do so.”

Inside the UIGEA Regulations, Part 3: Deputizing the Banks

Among the key implications of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is its imperative to force American banking institutions to abandon their own private-enterprise interests and become de facto agents of the government in investigating and policing certain types of transactions.

The issue of cross-border relationships becomes of utmost importance, because of the nature of offshore gambling sites themselves. They do not do business directly with U.S. banks, but instead use intermediary banks, which then submit the transactions into the system, which work their way toward or away from the U.S. customers. The use of these intermediaries is not money laundering; it is instead the very natural way in which business and private customers were designed to use the international banking system itself.

But expecting a U.S. bank to know (and to act on) all the potential customers that each of its international banking relationships might have is a daunting, perhaps ridiculous task. The crafters of the UIGEA rules recognize this, too. Here’s what the notice contains on the topic:

The Agencies recognize that the extent of a bank’s responsibility to have knowledge of its respondent bank’s customers is a difficult one, which also arises in the context of managing money laundering and other risks that may be associated with correspondent banking operations. The Agencies specifically request comment on the likely effectiveness and burden of the proposed rule’s due diligence and remedial action provisions for cross-border arrangements, and whether alternative approaches would increase effectiveness with the same or less burden.

In other words, there’s a problem here, even if elsewhere in the notice the rules crafters did their best to hide it. Later on, in estimating the hours each financial institution must devote to upkeep of records related to the Act, the oft-bandied number “25 hours” appears. However, it’s actually 25 hours each for the Treasury and Federal Reserve paperwork, making it 50 hours, and that’s multiplied by the approximately 270,000 banking-industry pencil-pushers who have to do the work. Wanna do the math? The notice includes the average estimated labor cost alone at $14.60/hr. for every banking worker involved, so even the minimal level of compliance called for by the UIGEA (which shies away from one other aspect entirely), works out as 50 x 270,000 x $14.60, or $197,100,000. That’s a $200 million hit on an unfunded mandate for the banking industry, and that doesn’t included dollar one on the government side.

Oh, and there’s another 24 hours per recordkeeper off the top, to get the system up and running. Wave bye-bye to another $95 million, banking folks.

Thank God for all the pious souls on the religious right who think that government’s true purpose is to protect us from ourselves.

And that’s without any sort of list of businesses or sites, either. The Treasury repeatedly makes note of the possibility of doing so, and repeatedly backs away from the idea as being neither cost-effective or productive. Mild mention is made of creating a list which would be updated annually, with the immediate caveat that an annual list would be all but useless, noting how rapidly an online business can change its name (or even create a new “skin” to complement an existing business line). In addition, the creation of any list would require “considerable fact-finding and extensive legal analysis to determine whether the gambling website is used, at least in part, to place, receive or otherwise knowingly transmit unlawful bets or wagers.” In short, it’s a morass Treasury wants no part of. Besides requiring the Treasury to interpret the mess of possibly applicable state and federal laws, they’d have to then determine the banking information for each foreign entity, then perhaps publish notice to that entity that they were about to be blocked. This would have to be done for each and every entity, too, with a list that would constantly change. Treasury takes due process seriously, it seems, even if the Kyl and Goodlatte crowd can’t be bothered with it.

It would be like trying to play whack-a-mole with both hands tied, is the gist of it.

Inside the UIGEA Regulations, Part 4: Comments and Timing

The UIGEA’s announcement of rules also comes with a mandatory 75-day period when the proposed rules are made available for public comment. This period has already begun, and runs through December 12, 2007. Comments are open to everyone; still, if one is going to send a comment, one must identify oneself, and flames are really, really, really counterproductive. We’ll come back to how to properly make comments in a moment.

After the public comment period, the rules will be adjusted and finalized. One those final rules are published, the agencies and banking systems involved will them be given an additional period of time --- mentioned as six months in the notice --- before banks and such will be asked to be compliant. Allowing for the comment period, the expected revisions and republication of the rules and the six months (or more) for putting any system into place, this suggests that it will be at least late 2008 before any UIGEA-authored system would be in place. That leaves some time for legal challenges.

As for comments, those who do so are generally encouraged to point out fatal flaws in the administration of the UIGEA, such as the trampling of First Amendment rights, the unfunded mandate assigned to the banking industry and massive misstatement of manpower needed to properly administer the effort, and what amounts to a deputizing of that same banking industry to apply and enforce regulations that they have no right to monitor. Leastways, if I were going to write a comment, that’s where I’d start.

As for where to send comments, the notice offers several choices. To send to the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, this is what to do:

Use docket number R-1298 to tag your comment to the proper set of rules, no matter what. Then choose any of these online options:

Go to http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/foia/ProposedRegs.cfm, and follow the instructions, or;

Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the insructions for submitting comments, or;

Send an e-mail with your comments to: regs.comments@federalreserve.gov (and don’t forget that docket number), or;

Fax your comments to (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102, or;

Send a letter with your comments to:
Jennifer J. Johnson
Secretary, Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System
20th Street and Constitutional Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20551

Remember, public comments are indeed public, and can be viewed by others.

One can also submit comments to the Treasury. Here’s that process:

Visit the Federal E-Rulemaking Portal. That’s also at http://www.regulations.gov, but this time, select “Department of the Treasury—All” from the agency drop-down menu, and click submit. In the Docket ID column, use “Treas-DO-2007-0015” and use that whenever creating your own comments or submitting others. If you don’t want to do this online, then:

Send a letter to the Treasury, courtesy of:

Department of the Treasury
Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Compliance Policy
Room 1327, Main Treasury Building
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220

Very important: Commentors are required to submit their comments to both agencies. Now go get ‘em.

WCOOP Main Event Investigation Continues...

[Cal here, on weekend duty---]

I have registered to play in the PokerStars World Blogger Championship of Online Poker!

This Online Poker Tournament is a No Limit Texas Holdem event exclusive to Bloggers.

Registration code: 6635984

The investigation into whether the account that won the recently completed PokerStars World Championship of Online Poker [WCOOP] main event, "TheV0id," continues to go on behind the scenes at PokerStars. Rumors about the identify of the account holder quickly leaked out following the win last week, since "TheV0id" had no appreciable tournament history before showing up deep in one the richest online tournament ever held, complete with a $2,600 entry fee to boot.

It seemed that the account in question had been registered to the sister of British poker pro Mark Teltscher; Teltscher was the winner of an EPT event in 2006 and a runnerup in another EPT tourney earlier this year. However, Teltscher, an egotistical and controversial player, had his own account ("play2kill") also in that tourney, which had busted out during the middle stages. Later forum postings also suggest that Teltscher may have frequented loaned the play2kill account to high-stakes players Mikael Thuritz and Sander Lylloff, another happening which, if proven, would be against Stars policy.

To make matters more interesting, it seemed as though the accounts designated for both Teltscher and Teltscher's sister had been tracked as playing the event from the same Internet ISP (this was specifically refuted later in a second, public Stars post), making the chance that this was really Teltscher playing both accounts far more likely. While other questions were raised, and later dropped, about a couple of the other final-table players, the investigation into Teltscher continues.

A PokerStars security person posted the following on the 2+2 forums on October 4th:

PokerStars's standard practice is to conduct a special security review for players in each large tournament, including the Sunday Million and WCOOP events.

At this time the review is completed for all players in the WCOOP Main Event which concluded on October 1, except for the winner, where the investigation is continuing. We hope to conclude it as soon as possible.

The details of all security investigations are confidential.

This player has also requested that their personal information is not disclosed, and therefore PokerStars cannot divulge information about the player's identity.

Stephen W.
Manager, PokerStars Game Security

As to the matter of the supposedly duplicated ISP, Stephen W. from PokerStars popped on the following day to add this:

Having read much of the speculation in this and other similar threads, I feel compelled to clarify a couple of points.

1. The account that won the WCOOP main event was played from the same computer and the same IP from the start of the tournament until the finish.
2. No other account played from this same IP or computer, during the tournament.

Having stated the above, there are still serious open questions that require the investigation to continue.

Rest assured that the purpose of this investigation is to ascertain the facts of the case in their entirety. The outcome that is reached will be based on those facts alone and no regard will be paid to speculation or outside pressures.

Stephen W.
Manager, PokerStars Game Security

And to date, the results of the investigation have still not been released. The episode remains a curious one, since if the $1.2 million first-prize is seized and re-distributed to the other players, it would be by far the largest ever amount tied to rules-circumvention allegations. More on this is likely to come out next week.

San Antonio Bookmaking Investigation Might Mean $2M Hit for Lee

[Cal here, on weekend duty---]

It's been about a year since news of Richard Lee's troubles with San Antonio authorities first made news in the poker world. Lee, you might remember, was the 50-ish poker player from Texas who finished sixth at the 2006 World Series of Poker. Lee was the second player from that final table to face legal/financial difficulties in the days and weeks following the big payday. While Jamie Gold faced a lawsuit from Crispin Leyser seeking half of Gold's $12 million win, Lee's troubles were of a different sort, as in a highly publicized raid, San Antonio police swooped in on Lee's suburban San Antonio home.

Lee's home, one of several targeted during the sweep, was identified as the "nerve center" of what was alleged to be the San Antonio area's largest bookmaking/sportsbetting operation, with Lee as the ringleader. Not only was Lee supposedly enriched through a network of local bet-taking runners, he was also, according to the investigation, secretly in charge of an Internet wagering site based in the Caribbean. The domain registration information for the site made no mention of Lee, nor of anyone within the States, but the San Antonio cops and prosecutors insisted that the "Chinaman," as Lee was reportedly known, was their man.

The haul from the raid netted lots of goodies, too. Besides the high-end cars, jewelry, computers and the like seized from Lee's and the others' homes, there were reports of a currency counting machine (!) and a check with "gambling" written in the memo line from a reported customer of the bookie operation. Also seized were the entire contents of Lee's post-WSOP bank account, which was about $2.7 million. (Lee won $2.8 million in the tourney.)

It took quite a while for the investigation to work through to charges, but Lee and the four others so far identified now face at least a single charge of "gambling promotion" --- it's a misdemeanor with a maximum of a year in jail and a $4,000 fine. But that doesn't tell the real story here: District Attorney Susan Reed had already filed the paperwork for civil forfeitures, attempting to claim that Lee's $2.7 million in the bank, although clearly connected to the WSOP payday, was still the fruits of his other, "ill-gotten" labors.

Reports in the local San Antonio papers suggest that Reed, the prosecutor, wants 80% of the money and the value of the seized items in the case in order to go ahead with just the single misdemeanor charges against the five defendants, including Lee. The total value of what seized from the other four (one of whom is Lee's son-in-law) comes to about $350,000, with one of the four having no assets whatsoever connected to the case. But assuming that some of the cars and other property in the case are also Lee's, that could bring the total of his assets seized to about $3 million, suggesting that the prosecutors are looking for about $2.4 million in order to let Lee's part in the case be plea-bargained away.

Sick business, all of it.

For his part, Lee was reported in the local reports as having amassed his pre-WSOP worth from the selling of diamonds and the importing of silver from Mexico, though the investigation was unable to prove that he'd ever held an "official" job in recent years. Clearly, despite Lee's protestations of innocence --- he quipped, following the raid, that he'd "gone from hero to zero in a few hours" --- his own inability to adequately explain his financial self-sufficiency didn't pass the smell test, either. Nice digs, ritzy cars, and $10,000 poker-event buyins? All without a job?

That's why Lee was being investigated in the first place, of course; the incidental timing of his big win at the WSOP just made it a much more news-friendly case. The site reportedly connected to Lee, www.betbsbnow.com (the "bsb" stood for "Box Seat Betting"), disappeared quickly from public view, though password-secured pages remain in place to this day. The site, though, is officially reported as offline and has long since been added to the list of "red-flagged" operations by those who track such businesses. Lee himself has disappeared from public view as well, though the next few weeks will likely bring him into news view one more time, as in whether he accepts the 80% hit to his net worth as a condition of not doing extended time.