Didn't sound like he was too pro-active in his support of legislation to legalize online poker. He had to be asked by the interviewer towards the end for his reaction, and even then he only stated that he is in favor of people playing as "a hobby, an activity, a game." What about people who play it for a living? I would've agreed that he might be a better ambassador on this subject if he had answered the second question, "Starting today, how do you plan to represent poker as the new champion?", with some kind of answer referring to this subject.

I was looking forward to the final table, with two known pros in Phil Ivey and Jeff Shulman, as being a referendum on how poker is a game of skill, but I was disappointed at the level of play and the degree of badbeats. Moon's AQ beating Ivey's AK, the French guy's QQ losing to Cada's 33, the stockbroker's bustout hand to Moon QQ vs AQ (A on river), and even Shulman's bustout hand (pocket pair against two overs). I think it just adds to legislator's arguments that luck plays a huge factor in poker, although all us poker players understand it is a game of long term skill and not short term luck. But legislators don't like to think long term.

you didn't give the whole quote - he was much stronger than you lead us to believe.

"<span>I support the right to play poker online. Poker isn't gambling. It's a hobby, an activity, a game. It's not about luck � it's about logic, decision-making, math. We all should be able to play poker on the Web if we want to, and I believe that making it illegal strips us of our rights. This is an important issue, and hopefully we'll see it resolved soon."</span>

 

Originally Posted by calvert_skans

I'd hardly say Shulman's 77<A9 was a badbeat...

He didn't mean the actual bustout hand. He was referring to the crippling, 33 > JJ just prior.

EDIT: Bah --- Reread. Bad reading skills by me. (But Shulman certainly did take a bad beat with his JJs)

 

Legislators have made online poker illegal in the U.S. As someone who's played online for years, how do you see this issue being resolved?

God the question freaking tilts me to no end.

Please Joe Cada, please publicly correct anyone and everyone that ask you this misguided and uninformed question.

Please

The correct answer would be to say that online poker is not illegal.

"I played a lot of live events, both in person and online."

I want to get down on some of these live online tournaments.

 

Originally Posted by RI Tony

Didn't sound like he was too pro-active in his support of legislation to legalize online poker. He had to be asked by the interviewer towards the end for his reaction, and even then he only stated that he is in favor of people playing as "a hobby, an activity, a game." What about people who play it for a living? I would've agreed that he might be a better ambassador on this subject if he had answered the second question, "Starting today, how do you plan to represent poker as the new champion?", with some kind of answer referring to this subject.

I was looking forward to the final table, with two known pros in Phil Ivey and Jeff Shulman, as being a referendum on how poker is a game of skill, but I was disappointed at the level of play and the degree of badbeats. Moon's AQ beating Ivey's AK, the French guy's QQ losing to Cada's 33, the stockbroker's bustout hand to Moon QQ vs AQ (A on river), and even Shulman's bustout hand (pocket pair against two overs). I think it just adds to legislator's arguments that luck plays a huge factor in poker, although all us poker players understand it is a game of long term skill and not short term luck. But legislators don't like to think long term.

Even if Ivey had won...it wouldn't have changed anything. It's a false fantasy that people have, that if Ivey won, the legislators would do a complete 180 and be like "OH MY GODZ...POKER IS SKILL YO." It wouldn't have changed even .000000000000001% of anything.

 

Originally Posted by rocksolid124

It wouldn't have changed even .000000000000001% of anything.

I think it could have changed things maybe at least .00001% if Ivey won.

I'm sure some senator or representative might've seen Ivey on the cover of ESPN magazine on his office's reception area table, flipped on the TV to watch Sportscenter, instead see Ivey headsup and thought to himself "I remember this guy", heard all the raucus in the crowd, become a captive viewer, watch Ivey win... and feel the same sort of excitement like we all did when we watched Rounders, or Moneymaker winning the WSOP.

Follow that up with Ivey doing the talk show rounds, with him being photogenic, if not charismatic. I think it's not implausible it might make one of the 535 congressmen open their mind. I think that's more than .000000000000001%.

Lord (Feels like I'm praying, lol),

I am no newb, and obv I know poker is all about skill in the long term (I have been a profitable player for years), and that short term luck plays a huge factor. It just sticks out in my mind an interview I believe Annie Duke once did in which she was asked about her experience appearing before Congress in regards to online poker. If I recall correctly, Duke referred to a politician who based his/her whole argument over a single hand of poker that politician happened to witness on TV in which someone was only 20% to win and won. Duke couldn't believe how narrow minded that politician was.

Anyone who saw the Roger Clemen's steroid Congressional hearing knows how uninformed these politicians are. Hell, one Congresswoman held up a series of 4 photos taken over the years and cited these as evidence that 'you do look bigger in 2003 than you did in 1991' as a reason she believed he did steroids. These are the literal "snapshots" that some of these politicians formulate their philosophies. It's sad but true. They don't read the entire legislation of some things they sign into law. I bet a majority of legislators didn't even realize the UIGEA was a part of the Safe Port Act. That's why the Republicans did it.

I am not saying that having Ivey win would have had even a minimal impact on the legal landscape of online poker, but to say it wouldn't have a .00000000001% impact is ridiculous to me.