This is my first draft of a petition to the UKGC. Please help make it better. I'd also like someone else to put it up on change.org - it should be started by someone with a real name, maybe even some poker fame, as I work outside the industry I can't afford to have google dominated by a potentially misunderstood interest in gambling issues.

______________________________________


Petition to the Gambling Commission – Poker rebuy & top up

To: Jenny Williams (Commissioner and Chief Executive) Gambling Commission

Please allow poker sites regulated by the UK for the first time to continue

• automated rebuys in rebuy tournaments
• automatic top up of cash game table stakes.

Please suspend Remote Technical Standard (RTS) 14A i)

Background:

The Remote Technical Standards which will now apply to poker sites operating in the UK include Remote Technical Standard (RTS) 14

We entirely support the aims of this technical standard. It is surely right to try to prevent problem gambling and any automatic escalation of stakes or stake level is indeed a potential area of concern. The trouble is that the example used in this RTS of poker fails to understand poker. In fact the example used does not result in the loss of decision making and gambling control that this rule is designed to address:

Rebuy Tournaments
When a player chooses to enter a rebuy tournament they do so fully informed of the game type and structure. It is a positive choice at the outset to choose a rebuy rather than a “freezeout” tournament. Players are aware of the way that the option to rebuy alters the game play during the rebuy period, they are aware of the potential cost of multiple “bullets” that boost the prizepool and the number of chips in the tournament.

Typically players will choose a strategy based upon a maximum number of rebuys at the outset. Even if a player has control issues the rebuy period of the tournament is time limited, any potential loss of control is limited by some key factors. Firstly the rebuys are only possible when the player's chipstack is below a threshold but most importantly the rebuy period is time limited.

If a loss of control in terms of escalating stakes were to occur then the number of rebuys possible is limited by only being able to rebuy with a low stack and only for a limited time. It is not the case that rebuys offer unlimited escalation as could be the case with non peer to peer gambling.

As the rebuy option is only available at certain points in the game players have sufficient time to consider their rebuy CHOICE during normal game play. When selecting automatic rebuy the player is making a choice only for the next rebuy in the event of a lost hand, it is not a commitment to continue rebuying indefinitely.

Post any automated rebuy the game proceeds and the player makes the normal poker betting choices (raise/bet, check, fold). Poker offers continual player choice and control over each bet. There is no loss of stake control as there is sufficient time for the player to reassess whether their continuing strategy is to rebuy or fire another “bullet” if a hand is lost. Automated rebuy is just making a strategic choice for the single next instance.

Not having automated rebuys is an irritation, it would also slow game play during the rebuy period. This introduces an issue of fairness where UK players have to take time to make the decision whereas others do not – the UK players will be dealt marginally fewer hands during the rebuy period. Now this is not a significant disadvantage, after all other non UK players allowed automatic rebuy would be forced to wait for the UK player's choice at their table but the impact on game fairness is real and is more significant with cash game top ups.

Cash Game – Automated Top Up
Cash game poker strategy and in game choices are affected by the relative stack size held by a player compared to the blinds. A player choosing to play “deep” will, if playing well, make different choices to an equally skilled player with a “short” stack.

The changes in optimal play are many, complex and profound. Cards that would be folded “short” are bet when “deep”. When choosing to play the choice between calling or raising can and does differ depending upon the player's remaining stack size. Players choosing an automatic top up are not escalating their betting or stakes, they are standardising their stake in order to play in their preferred “deep” style.

This standardisation is important for many players who choose to play mutltiple tables at the same stakes at the same time. Players routinely play 4, 10 or 20+ tables at a time. For those that do not understand poker this might appear shocking or a symptom of problem gambling but for players choosing to multi-table it is in fact the opposite. By spreading the stakes at risk across multiple tables the variance in results due to chance is reduced and the ability to use skill is increased as more skilled decisions are made in the same time. Multi tabling does not really escalate stakes, it reduces them and instead increases the number of choices made.

Having an automatic top up does not alter the strategy or multi table play, it just makes it a bit easier as the player choosing a “deep” strategy can be confident that at the start of each hand on each table their stack was “deep” and so the default game style across the tables remains consistent.

With automatic top up removed players would face having a different decision and different style on different tables played at the same time. This would be a significant disadvantage for such players compared to the non UK players who do not face this complication. This would affect the fairness of the game to the disadvantage of UK players.

Suspending Remote Technical Standards
The Gambling Commission have already agreed to suspend RTS 8 regarding automated play until these 2009 Remote Technical Standards can be properly consulted upon and amended. That rule is of far greater significance than this small part of RTS 14 where a poor example was used without full understanding of the implications for UK players in the new regulatory environment where UK players in a peer to peer game of skill are playing within an international player pool where others do not face the same restriction.

Once fully consulted upon we are sure that the evidence will show that automated top ups or rebuys in poker do not encourage problem gambling, escalating stakes or loss of control.

My suggested edits:

Petition to the Gambling Commission – Poker rebuy & top up

To: Jenny Williams (Commissioner and Chief Executive) Gambling Commission

Please allow poker sites regulated by the UK for the first time to continue

• automated rebuys in rebuy tournaments
• automatic top up of cash game table stakes.

Please suspend Remote Technical Standard (RTS) 14A i)

Background:

The Remote Technical Standards which will now apply to poker sites operating in the UK include Remote Technical Standard (RTS) 14

We entirely support the aims of this technical standard. It is surely right to establish rules to prevent problem gambling. Any automatic escalation of stakes or stake level is indeed a potential area of concern. The trouble is that the example used in this RTS of poker fails to understand poker. In truth, automatic re-buys and top-ups in poker do not result in the loss of decision making and gambling control that this rule is designed to address:

Rebuy Tournaments
When a player chooses to enter a rebuy tournament they do so fully informed of the game type and structure. It is a positive choice at the outset to choose a "rebuy" rather than a “freezeout” tournament (wherein only one initial buy-in is permitted). Poker players are aware at the outset of a rebuy tournament of the way that the option to rebuy alters the game play of the tournament; they are aware of the cost of making multiple rebuys, which also result in a larger prizepool and total number of chips in the tournament.

Typically players will choose a strategy based upon a maximum number of rebuys at the outset. Even if a player has control issues, any potential loss of control is limited by some key factors. Firstly, the rebuys are only possible when the player's chipstack is below a specified threshold, but most importantly the rebuy period is time limited. It is not the case that rebuys offer unlimited escalation as could be the case with non peer to peer gambling.

When selecting automatic rebuy in a poker tournament, it is not a commitment to continue rebuying indefinitely. Post any automated rebuy period, the game proceeds and the player makes the normal poker betting choices (raise/bet, check, fold). Poker offers continual player choice and control over each bet.

There is also no loss of stake control during the rebuy period itself as there is sufficient time for the player to reassess whether their best strategy is to continue to rebuy if a hand is lost. Automated rebuy is just making a strategic choice for the single next instance.

Not having automated rebuys slows game play during the rebuy period. This introduces an issue of fairness where UK players have to take time to make the rebuy decision whereas others do not, resulting in fewer hands dealt to tables with UK players. Now this is not a large disadvantage, but the impact on game fairness is real.

Cash Game – Automated Top Up
Cash game poker strategy and in game choices are affected by the relative stack size [amount of chips] held by a player compared to the size of the game's blinds and the stack sizes of the other players in each hand. A player choosing to play “deep” [a maximum buy-in stack size] will, if playing well, make different choices to an equally skilled player with a “short” [significantly less than maximum] stack.

The changes in optimal play according to stack size are many, complex and profound. Cards that would be folded “short” are bet when “deep”. The choice between calling or raising can and does differ depending upon the player's remaining stack size. Players choosing an automatic top up are not escalating their betting or stakes, but rather they are standardising their stake at the start of each hand in order to play in their preferred “deep” strategy.

This standardisation is particularly important for those many players who choose to play multiple tables at the same stakes at the same time. Players routinely play 4, 10 or 20+ tables at a time. For those that do not understand poker this might appear shocking or a symptom of problem gambling but for poker players choosing to multi-table it is in fact the opposite. By spreading the stakes at risk across multiple tables the variance in results due to chance is reduced and the ability to use skill is increased as more skilled decisions are made in the same time. Multi tabling does not really escalate stakes, it reduces them and instead increases the number of skilled choices made.

Having an automatic top up does not alter the strategy of multi table play, it just makes it a bit easier as the player choosing a “deep” strategy can be confident that at the start of each hand on each table their stack was “deep” and thus their game strategy across the tables remains consistent.

With automatic top up removed players would face having a different decision and different strategy on different tables played at the same time. This would be a significant disadvantage for such players compared to the non-UK players who do not face this complication. This would affect the fairness of the game to the disadvantage of UK players.

Suspending Remote Technical Standards
The Gambling Commission have already agreed to suspend RTS 8 regarding automated play until these 2009 Remote Technical Standards can be properly consulted upon and amended. That rule is of far greater significance than this small part of RTS 14 where a poor example of poker was used without full understanding of the implications for UK players in the new regulatory environment where UK players in a peer to peer game of skill are playing within an international player pool where others do not face the same restriction.

Once fully consulted upon we are sure that the evidence will show that automated top ups and rebuys in poker do not encourage problem gambling, escalating stakes or loss of control.

I don't know how technically savvy the people who will see this letter are, so I think it's worth pointing out that an automatic rebuy in cash games to top up the stack wouldn't keep costing money to a player who falls asleep or whatever, as the first time they fail to act on their hand in time, they will be sat out anyway.

Thanks, your edits are all improvements. The baseline is now PokerXanadu's version.

Good point. Before we do a rewrite to include it let's gather a few more good points.

Just did a tester in rebuy MTT too (1+R FPP, I'm so money supermarket )

Confirmed that if you're sitting out when you lose your tournament stack it overrides having the automatic rebuy option selected and your tournament is finished, so again, the "fall asleep" scenario isn't going to be a bankroll killer. At least not on Stars (don't know anything about any other site, if they even have auto rebuy functionality)

Obviously this whole issue is not quite such a big deal for players in rebuy tourneys, more of a minor inconvenience, because when you lose your stack you'll get a prompt asking if you want to rebuy into the tourney anyway, a prompt which you don't get if you prefer to stay topped-up in cash games.

Very nice work Richas, a couple of comments:

- Is it worth explicitly making the point that whilst banning auto-rebuy is appropriate for casino table games and slots etc., poker is an exception? i.e. specifically mentioning casino games and slots.

- [Cash game play] Is it worth mentioning that if a player goes broke on a table and has to take time to rebuy, (s)he:
(1) Slows the game down for other players at the table.
(2) If failing to rebuy in time, might miss several hands, putting that player at a disadvantage due to for example, missing hands from an advantageous position (e.g. button) and having to pay more blinds relative to other players at the table.

- I'm no lawyer and no familiarity with legal jargon, but it seems to me the following is vague and could be written better:

Something like:

I'm tempted to a I do see the rationale for the general rule but not being a slots player I'm reluctant to go all absolute without knowing about it, that is where we got into this mess. I deliberately went for supporting the aim of the rule but not being specific.

I doubt slowing play would bother the UKGC at all and 2) whilst real is so minor that it distracts. It's like arguing about not buying a Hummer with your partner, If you stick to its an ugly monstrosity that drinks fuel, you can't park anywhere and makes you look like an idiot is probably sound but if you mention that the Yellow is horrrible or Arnie you end up talking about action movies and how much it would cost to repaint it.


I preferred my vs but hey I'm biased. I wanted it a bit more personal not quite so legal/tightly worded.

2) isn't minor at all IMO, especially in my game PLO, although I appreciate that trying to explain this to politicians by giving sample winrates by position might not be worth the effort...

Willing to defer to your better judgment on other points!

I think the fact that it puts UK players at an unfair disadvantage in comparison to their opposition should be expanded on. Along the lines of:

-missing hands where you have more positive expected winrate
-less time to spend on thinking through decisions when you have to concentrate on reloading stacksizes as well --> forced to play less tables so less expected rakeback etc.
-overall disadvantage of competing on software where your opponent has a strategic option (ie topping up immediately) that is not available to UK players otherwise competing on equal footing

Sure we can come up with more points to add here

Not sure if this is worth mentioning but I would imagine you are more likely to stack off/go broke in the blinds or late position than you are UTG so you are more likely to miss hands where you would have been BTN or CO than miss EP.

As ensuring that gambling is "fair" is one of the key Gambling Commission goals - crime free
- fair and open
- protect children and vulnerable people

You are probably right, the difficulty is making that clear without becoming incomprehensible to a non player. Position might be explained well by just the way that the blinds would typically reduce the stack just before the best position to play from, the button. That one simpl example might be the most effective explanation but if someone want to put a paragraph/section together on the disadvantage to UK players that they think a non player would understand that would help.

"The unfair disadvantage to the UK player over the non-UK player becomes even more apparent when the extra time and effort the UK player expends on manual top-ups interferes with advanced game strategies, such as betting strategy relative to player position on the table or the quantity of simultaneous tables the UK player can keep active."

Another disadvantage that just came to mind:
- Being able to play fewer hands with a full stack against the weaker players at the table.

But yeah in general I agree that we should avoid examples involving specific poker terminology and focus on the more general point that players with auto-topup have an advantage over those that don't.

I'm just off to work so I haven't got time to read this now but I'm keen to get involved and help how I can. I will fight for my right! (to auto top up)

How much poker knowledge and understanding has the UKGC demonstrated in the past? My default with non-poker players and entities is to assume that they view poker as a gambling game in the same way as any other casino game is a gambling game.

I feel like some of the posts here are slipping into the territory of trying to convince the UKGC that poker is a game of skill rather than focusing on the problem itself of the option of automatic re-buys/top-ups being removed. Don't we need to completely avoid poker jargon? Also some of the concepts many of you are using as arguments may seem simple to poker players, especially in the watered-down form some of you have used, but they are still completely alien to non-poker players.

I would suggest approaching them in the spirit of the fairness, choice and even safety that the technical improvement of automatic re-buys/top-ups provided. Extra emphasis should be given to the fact that the automatic re-buys and top-ups are choices, made before the player enters gameplay. This is because the wording of the requirement makes it clear that it is all about choice:

“the amount of funds taken into a product should not be topped up without the customer choosing to do so on each occasion, e.g. when a customer buys-in at a poker table they should have to choose to purchase more chips to play at the table - automatic re-buys should not be provided”

We should also explain the background of automatic re-buys/top-ups in online poker. Explain that originally advanced players created their own software to perform automatic re-buys and top-ups as the slow and cumbersome process of doing this manually was actually detracting from them being able to make their bets. We could go on to say that after regular request online poker sites eventually saw the demand for this feature and added the option to their software- it was not a default option but rather something an advanced player could find before playing and have the choice of activating and even customising to suit their play. With the option activated players were free to focus on their bets and the enjoyment of their game rather than be hindered by regular pop-ups and menus to navigate. This became a worldwide standard in online poker rooms and the use of unreliable and potentially unsafe third party software to perform these functions was replaced with the reliability of the feature being safely built in to the poker software.

At this point I would then go on into the arguments that with the option removed UK players will be at a severe disadvantage compared to their overseas counterparts. However I would again reason on the side of choice, fairness and safety rather than winrates and positional play etc.

edit: It has also just occurred to me that it may also be worth emphasising that poker is a game of small and regular bets and that is why auto top-ups are so crucial for smooth gameplay.

The most salient points, imo, to make to the regulators are:

1. Auto rebuys in poker tournaments are a time-limited option to auto-reload wagering chips, and not in themselves auto-wagering within the game.

2. Auto top-ups in poker cash games are a method for a players to maintain a level wagering fund for optimum game strategy, and not in themselves auto-wagering within the game.

3. In both the case of tournament auto-rebuys and cash game auto-top-ups, if a player were to lose control of their wagering (e.g. fall asleep), the player's wagering within the game, as well as their auto-rebuys or auto-top-ups, would be automatically suspended in the very next hand due to timing out on their turn. (Is this true? I'm not sure about tournament re-buys - if a player is sitting out and blinded off, would auto rebuys still occur? Maybe this is the one regulation that needs to be in place for poker rebuys, i.e. an auto-rebuy cannot be active for a sitting-out player.)

I think suggested wording for the relevant Rule should be included in the petition:

Tough question. The UKGC employs 215 people so obviously it will vary a lot. In general their rules on live play in casinos, pubs and clubs are well thought out and consistent. I think the stake limits outside casinos are too low but that is not about knowledge/expertise. The casino taxes too high but that is not them.

In terms of online poker. I wrote an unsolicited letter to them about the impact of their new role and the problems they would face nearly two years ago. It took them a while to reply but they were surprisingly honest about their total lack of experience in this area. I know that back then they got senior managers together to discuss the issues and plan for where we are now.

I have also had an ongoing dialogue with a few of them around the consultations they have had/are having and I did a data dump type submission to their consultations. Like you I assumed zero pre-existing knowledge in those responses.

I know they considered a higher level of player fund protection for just poker (before not doing it) and I was pleased that on time pop ups their current proposal is to not include peer to peer poker in that requirement (I had a long chat with a bloke about how an 8 hour shift on cash games or a 12 hour run in an MTT is not a sign of problems for most, it is a grinder putting in a shift or a player doing well, the last thing I need at a final table is a set of pop ups telling me I have been playing for ages, I know that, I'm knackered but I am trying to win the damn thing not deal with your "help".

It as very pleasing to see that carve out for poker, even if the why was not explained well by them so they may get some grief about it from the ignorant in some responses.

If I had to answer on live poker they are a decent 8/10, with online poker 2 years ago they were a 2 at best, now maybe a 6 but to be fair to them part of that is that no poker firms engaged with the consultation process. Now they are licensees they will be having a dialogue with the firms. Somebody at Stars who is quite senior will have the relationship with the UKGC as part of their job description now, a year ago, probably not. They still have a lot to learn and sadly Poker will remain a small part of their brief.

Agreed.

Agreed.

I think that this is a powerful argument, I hate any legitimisation of 3rd party software that breaks the TOS because the rules are not accepted by the comunity but I kept out of this as it opens a can of worms that might alienate players who would otherwise support the petition.

Again I agree but I think we need a short petition request and if anything the background stuff explaining why is too long already.

Thanks for your input. I will look to do another baseline draft soon.

I don't have much time but if you think I can help PM me

As I mentioned i the NVG thread, we could argue that if bots on betting exchanges are permitted (using an example of Betfair's own API), that auto-topup is if anything, potentially less harmful and certainly no worse.

Does this mean that pokerstars does not have to remove auto top up on the october the first now? if not the sooner this petition is sent the better so to limit the amount of time this absurd rule is in place and we are at a disadvantage. Also please can you provide any links for all us players who support the petition to help it pass.

Couple of people asked me about this, and since I've been mostly away from poker over the warmer months had no idea. Bk to poker now as it's getting cold outside

Thanks for making the work to get this re-interpreted Richas and PX. I'll have a proper read e.t.c and see if I can suggest anything by a post this weekend. I had no idea this rule even existed with the actual example of poker auto topup.

A couple of points that may or may not have already been mentioned:

Auto-topup has existed in online poker or considerable time and I don't believe there has been any evidence that sites before and after auto-topup have any discernible difference in problem gambling rates.

The main point I'd make is that in a standard CG e.g. Zoom a topup maintains stack depth at minimum of e.g. full stack 100bb poker where 1.5bb is 1.5% or ~1/67th of the amount that I chose to buyin with initially. Compare with an online slot machine where (I assume) an auto rebuy will be for 100% of my initial chosen buyin amount. In poker this is similar to if it auto rebuyed me if I got stacked for a full buyin.

So I'd contend that a coherent interpretation of the relevant rule with respect to the ethos would be one that allows one to auto-topup to keep your stack at one's initial chosen buyin amount but e.g. in the case of a stacking requires manual confirmation for a rebuy.

Unfortunately not. What it means is that the 25 spin autoplay for slots will not be mandatory from day one, though some Microgaming sites have already implemented it for many games. I think there the problem was that there are so many old bits of software and the sites did not have the time to update it all.

The UKGC has also pushed back the deadline for using only UK lienced softwares suppliers twice, it is now 31st March 2015 dues to similar lobbying.

They are trying to make the transition as smooth as possible so yep we need toi finalise the peition and get someone to volunteer to post it on change.org for people to sign up to. They reslly could agree to what we asking.

I have had an acknowledgment of my initial note to the Commission so I know that some senior people there are aware of the issue and looking into it. TBH it is a pity that this week they are being distracted by the Gibraltar case in the High Court where a small group of firms are trying to overturn the UK parliament in a way that will clearly not win in terms of European law given previous judgments backing national measures on social protection.

In one way this makes it less urgent to finalise the wording, indeed I doubt every dot and coma will matter that much given that they are willing to enter a dialogue on the issue BUT given the Pokerfuse article linking to our little board how about we aim for a final draft 24 hours from now - please shout out any changes or points and I will redraft it late UK time tomorrow (24 hours time).

Then we need a real name to post it on change.org and to get a few tweets and stuff to get people to sign it.

The new RTS 14 says "b. This requirement is not intended to prevent operators from offering special features or well-known games such as blackjack that allow customers to increase their stake on the occurrence of specific events".

Why does Blackjack have an exemption? :/

I think the petition letter should emphasize the point munkey was making. All cashgame tables already have a fixed maximum buy-in. A top-up is not "increasing the stakes", as such (you can't rebuy for 200bb after losing 100bb, or add 50bb to you stack after losing 25bb). It is restoring the available money for betting after a specific event: namely losing a hand. In many cases, this top up is for just 1bb or 0.5bb after folding in the blinds.

Gamblers already have the option to top up (aka rebuy) or not. Many players do not use auto-top-up. Those that do, use it for strategic reasons, not because they have a gambling problem. Removing the automation won't actually help prevent "problem gambling". It will just cause additional and completely unnecessary button-clicking for everyone that has used automated top-ups up till now. Hello RSI!