While the frozen accounts hurt players in general, the article is stupid because it confuses "players" with "grinders". So what, a very very very small minority of players who make their living ruining the game for the majority of players don't have a job now...boohoo.

What? How the hell are they ruining the game for the majority?!

But no, yeah, you are absolutely right. Let's concentrate on the majority i.e. losing players, who probably when it is all said and done, stand to lose nothing more than an expensive hobby.

I don't know, maybe it is just me, but I'd much rather have to look for a new hobby, than a new way to provide for me and my family and put food on the table.

Saying that poker players do not have any real skills that translate to the outside world is ridiculous. Online poker is an industry that involves a whole set of necessary skills in order to be profitable in it. What the DOJ accomplish, was the complete destruction of the entire online poker industry in a single day. It is like being an account, with the government all of a sudden passing a law that nullifies the current tax code. I'm pretty sure that accountant would have a hard time finding a new job with his old set of skills.

The Video was excellent. Senti and Bernard Lee both did a great job.

Wrong. It was never a stable option.

nice article but realy a bit short....would love to see a long and more deep look into the upcoming future of online pokerZ

FYP

I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing i was one small hiccup in life away from major financial trouble.


you need to go read Dave Ramsey's books.


thats totally unacceptable.

Eh, I've known people making >$1M per year who couldn't afford to go out to lunch.

If you are the type of person to bust your ass to make it to senior management in, say, Silicon Valley... well, you are going to think you NEED the $5.5M house in Atherton, the hot second wife, the cars, the wine and cigars, the private schools for the kids from both your first and second marriage, the story-worthy expensive vacation trips, a dozen different types of assistants and maintenance people, etc etc etc

And don't even get me started on Hollywood, where pretty much everyone's busto.

I don't have direct experience with Manhattan, but last I checked $200K/yr would be laughable there.

I have to say this post is exactly the way I feel. The ESPN.com writers are not to blame obviously so nothing against the author here. It's just that there are really 6 players in this US online poker fiasco and we have heard from ALL of them except ESPN.

The 6 major players IMO (obviously debatable):

1. DOJ
2. PokerStars
3. Full Tilt
4. UB
5. PPA
6. ESPN

ESPN has decided to pull all of its poker first run and rerun content. WHY? LIVE poker played in a legal setting should not be shuttered due to an online poker ban. Sure the main advertisers are Stars / Tilt - but what does this move by ESPN represent? That no other company would want to advertise during televised tournaments? I don't think so.

Wouldn't hurt and its not too late to get a statement from ESPN on their actions.

I made 250-300K for a few years while living in Manhattan (back in dot-com days) - it was laughable then and it must be hysterical now. 500K is keeping up in the Big Apple and trust me, those making that amount are wishing they could make "real money"

Playing devil's advocate . . . the article talks about a loss of 50,000 or so jobs as though online poker is a source of wealth generation that has a positive net effect on the economy but ignores the reality that there are more losing players, which no doubt includes poor people whose pay check could be put to more socially productive purposes.

Hey Gary, thanks for stopping by. I enjoyed your article. I have no idea how the average ESPN reader will see this. I hang with a number of LHE pros, and the devastation from Black Friday is hard felt. Do you think that the average Steeler fan cares about these stories? Did you check out the thread in the Poker Legislation forum?

Thanks for getting our story out. I hope you'll have good news to report to us ASAP, so we can get back to talking about stupid prop bets and big blowups at tournaments.

So basically every business that employs people needs to be validated for social merit? McDonald's fails b/c people would be better off cooking at home. Netflix is bad because it would be cheaper to go to the library and check out a book. Ford is bad because you should ride a bus. High end restaurants tempt people to spend too much on food, and it is a waste when a more moderate eating choice would be just as good. Jewelry serves no practical purpose and people who sell diamonds are scammers. Who are you to judge the provider an entertainment service?

Didnt anyone else find it amusing that the guys name was Michael D? CMON!

Interesting story here Gary. Really shows how our government, and big corporations (poker sites), ie the "nobles", really don't consider their actions' affect on us "commoners"

are you in nyc?

You miss my point. If I were judging the service provider I'd be judging myself, since I was an avid recreational player.

I'm pointing out the one-sided nature of the article, that's all. One could read his touching human interest stories and conclude that the net societal effect of the DOJ action is that it is ruining people's lives. In fact, we don't have hard evidence either way of the macro level impact.

(P.S. McDonalds and Netflix are terrible comparisons)

It did ruin people's lives. That's a fact. You're questioning whether or not by denying poker players their livelihood, the DOJ helped the lives of some unrepresented people. I'm pointing out that no business is judged that way and giving examples of accepted businesses that would suffer under similar examination that you would like a "balanced" ESPN report to cover. How many businesses must face the scrutiny of their "macro level impact"?

The question of "is being a poker pro a negative to society" has been debated a number of times. It hasn't been shown that being a poker pro is an absolute negative. In covering the human interest story of a legal action impacting people, you only have to cover the opposing viewpoint (look at all the degens this helped), if you believe that the entire activity of poker playing is a negative to society. Prove that, and then you can discuss the one-sided aspect of the story. The DOJ didn't shut down online poker to protect the losing players, so there isn't another side in this fashion. They did it to enforce banking laws, it isn't a referendum on gambling.

Lol he's not claiming every business should be validated for social merit.

He's only saying the article implies that internet poker had a net positive economical impact on society, and that in reality, it did not.

It had a net positive economic benefit for professionals, by definition. You're playing poker with a foreign entity who takes rake. You have winning players, who win money. You have losing players who get to play poker. It is no different than watching an English film. You have the movie theater who makes money. You have the foreign makers of the film who make money. And you have the people who watched the film who paid everyone else. As Americans, we netted negative. If foreign films were outlawed, would an interview with the now-unemployed theater owner need to be balanced by pointing out that economically the activity was in total a negative for Americans? Again, you start by assuming that a business needs to justify its overall benefit when discussing how the termination of its workers makes jobless. Don't you have an assumption in this view that the activity of gambling provides no benefit? It is basically just taking money from the losing players who are being duped somehow?

i couldn't see the segment because i have a javascript blocker on firefox lol. senti rocked that interview. for anyone who hasn't seen it:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6409899

Agree with DougL.

There's also another facet of this shutdown that would be good for a follow-up article. What about all the poker businesses that are now dead? Affiliates, rakeback sites, staking, training, $T trading, clothing, merchandise, books, computer software/hardware, etc.

Many people had a steady income from a poker related business that will likely suffer from this shutdown.

Indirectly, all you’re doing is beating the same drum about free will and consumer choice that we’ve heard a million times in gambling addiction debates. I’m really not getting into that issue, I’m simply criticizing a piece of journalism for what I consider an overly broad insinuation that lacked good data.

I’m subjecting the ESPN article to the same criticism that I’ve subjected articles that hold out a few anecdotal stories about college kids who skip class to play online poker and flunk out (or in one well known case, robbed a bank) as evidence supporting their high ground. (Somehow I doubt you come to those authors’ rescue on that ground that such stories are real and it’s the authors prerogative to focus on isolated incidents . . .)

Worst money manager ever

anyone have the link to the tv segment ?