When you see a poker reality show, are you amazed by the amounts of money involved? Does it seem like poker pros must be worth tens of millions of dollars to be playing in $100,000 high roller events and the million dollar One Drop? The most well-known professional players seem to have an infinite amount of money and they don’t seem terribly attached to their cash when you see the prop bets they make in front of television cameras.

We all know that reality shows on television aren’t exactly real. Some are scripted, and others just reward certain behaviors with camera time to encourage those behaviors, and the reality stars learn quickly what will earn them camera time and more money. I like to suspend my disbelief sometimes and forget that Bear Grylls has a camera crew nearby to help him if he needs it, but when it comes to poker on television, I have trouble.

Let’s start with a story

A few years ago I was in Las Vegas with my friend and coauthor Adam Stemple. We were eating at a Subway inside the old O’Shea’s and there were beer pong tables just over a waist-high wall from where we were eating. Of course, we started betting on the participants in the games. How else are we supposed to pass a whole five minutes while we eat our subs? We needed action!

Adam and I are not big gamblers. We’ll lay down a bet here and there, but we aren’t like a lot of poker pros who behave like they hate money on a daily basis. We were betting $10 a shot on the beer pong game, but we were in Vegas to play poker so we each had a few thousand dollars with us.

“Let’s kick the stakes up a notch for the kids,” Adam said.

We’ve been friends a long time. I knew exactly what he meant. When the next shot was a miss, I swore loudly and handed him $500, clearly within the sight line of the competitors. A college girl, couldn’t have been more than 22, came walking over and asked us if were betting on their game. We told her that we were and she asked what the stakes were. When we told her we were betting $500 a shot, she looked like we had just told her that we were betting our lives.

When she returned to take her next turn, she told everyone at the table that we were betting $500 a shot. They looked surprised, but there wasn’t real shock until she made her next shot and Adam handed me back the same $500 I had given him a minute ago. Seeing the hundred dollar bills exchanged had them all wide-eyed. Five bills is a lot of money to a college kid in Vegas for the weekend, trying to get drunk on $30 a night and splitting a hotel room five ways.

We kept this up for a few minutes while we finished our subs, and a couple of the other competitors came over to talk to us. We mostly told them the truth. That we are poker pros in town for a tournament series, that we were betting on their game, and that we would bet on almost anything. What we lied to them about was the stakes we were playing for.

It’s Mostly Harmless

It was not just a harmless lie, it was for their entertainment as well as ours. They had a neat experience in Las Vegas, met a couple big gamblers, and had real money riding on their performance in one of the dumbest games ever invented. They definitely went home with a story to tell their classmates, and they are probably still telling it. Why wouldn’t they, it’s a great story. And everyone who hears it believes that there are people who will bet $500 on the toss of a ping pong ball.

I’m not saying that there aren’t people who would bet $500 on the toss of a ping pong ball into a dirty cup of beer, but I can tell you that it wasn’t happening that night. You can probably guess where I’m going with this. In many cases, the huge games you hear about just aren’t quite as big as they seem.

Is a million dollar buy-in cash game really a million dollar buy-in? Probably. The participants do likely have to put up a million dollars to play. But if they all swap action, then there isn’t really much risk. Even if only three or four of them swap 10% each, it cuts down on variance drastically. And many of those players have backers or have sold a significant amount of action in those games.

If a player sells 75% of his action, and swaps 5% with two other players, then the buy-in is really only $150,000 for him. If he has a backer, or sells all of his action, then he may not have any money invested at all. And what if an investor buys 50% of every player? What if that investor is associated with the television network and is simply cutting the stakes in half so that the players can afford to play. When does it become deceptive?

In my opinion, it’s television. When you watch something on screen, you should know that it can easily be manipulated and that you are only seeing what they have chosen to show you. I know a player who recently played on a poker broadcast who sold action on Facebook. It’s clearly not being kept a big secret, they just don’t mention it on the broadcast. I don’t think it’s wrong, just interesting.

This is reflected in all kinds of things that civilians, people who aren’t serious about poker, believe about our game. They think Antonio Esfandiari has actually won $26,000,000 in tournaments and must have mountains of cash. I’m sure Antonio is doing just fine, but he has basically admitted that he didn’t have all his own action in the One Drop, and estimates of his percentage are as low as 10%.

But I Thought that Guy was Rich?

When you count buy-ins and backing, some of the biggest names in poker who have millions in tournament “winnings” may not even be up significantly. Most of them are way up, and most of them are truly great players, but don’t believe the numbers you read online, they aren’t related to “reality” any more than the things you read about Kim Kardashian in the tabloids or the junk you can watch about ancient aliens on television. Just because someone says it doesn’t mean that it’s true. Even if you watch it happen on television, it doesn’t mean that the money really changed hands in the quantity that the cameras presented.

Is this good for poker? I’m not sure. I know that it keeps people interested, but I think people would be interested in the biggest buy-in events even if the entry fee was only $10,000. That’s a pretty big cash game to me. I also know that it’s not going to change. Selling action is a smart thing for many players, and I often sell action myself. In my bracelet win this summer, I had less than half of my own action.

There are debates about players trading action because it can influence how they play against each other, but there isn’t much to be done about that. Players can trade action without telling anyone and there is simply no way to verify that players don’t have a portion of another player’s action. Other than being conscious of the fact that some players in any major tournament will have traded some action, there is nothing to worry about. Just don’t let yourself be deceived into thinking that all of the numbers you see reflect reality when they may only reflect reality television.

The New Jersey legislature is in the process of taking aggressive measures to help save struggling Atlantic City and possibly prevent a fifth casino from closing this year. On Monday, a state senate panel acted on a group of bills that have the potential to give Atlantic City casinos a needed financial boost and possibly save the Trump Taj Mahal from closure.

Atlantic City has seen four casinos close in 2014 and the Taj is scheduled to close on December 20. At present, approximately 9,000 jobs have been lost in connection with casino closures. The closure of the Taj would add at least 3,000 more to that total.

Tax Stabilization Act Would Guarantee Tax Revenue to the City

Perhaps the most important of the five bills is S2572, the Casino Property Taxation Stabilization Act. This bill would allow casinos to make flat payments of $150 million over the next two years instead of paying property taxes. After the initial two-year period, taxes would then be based on gaming revenue in the city. Tax payments could be as low as $75 or as high as $165 million. This system would be in place for at least 13 years.

For those thinking this looks similar to Carl Icahn’s plan for the Trump Taj, you would be correct. Icahn had asked for a similar tax break for the Taj from city administrators but was subsequently denied. This bill would not just benefit the Taj, but all casinos in Atlantic City.

Bills Would Look After Full-Time Employees

One of the reasons that Icahn encountered resistance in his quest for state aid was his desire to terminate union employee health care and pensions at the Taj. While he has backed off from that position, the legislature is making sure a similar fiasco doesn’t happen in the future.

Under S2583, licensed casinos would be required to give full-time employees a “baseline health care and retirement package.” This bill would seem to cover all full-time employees, and not just union employees.

Unite-HERE has yet to act on Icahn’s request for the union to drop their appeal of a bankruptcy judge’s ruling that the Taj could eliminate health care and pension payments to union employees. Icahn later decided that he would reinstate health care and provide partial pension payments to employees provided they drop their appeal.

Legislation Could Save the Taj

The odds of the Taj seem to be improving by the day and the passage of these bills may be enough to guarantee the casino’s continued operation. Major Don Guardian told the Senate committee that, “I do believe this legislation is going to save the Taj from closing.” Considering that S2572 would give Icahn at least part of what he needed to keep the casino open, Guardian believes Icahn will proceed with his plan to invest $100 million into the property.

Senate President Stephen Sweeney supports the bills and is focused on stabilizing the Atlantic City economy. Right now, between 8,000 and 9,000 people are without jobs thanks to the casino closures and up to another 5,000 are facing similar prospects. The most important thing right now, according to Sweeney, is to right the sinking ship that is Atlantic City.

Online gambling opponents will have to wait another day for a federal ban on online poker.

The Restoration of America’s Wire Act (RAWA) — which would overturn a US Department of Justice interpretation limiting the scope of the current prohibition under the current version of the Wire Act law to sports betting — is not attached to the omnibus “must pass” spending bill by Congress.

The development is a major victory for the online gambling industry in the United States.

Fears had been circulating for months that a back room deal similar to the one that saw the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) attached to the omnibus bill in 2006 would happen again.

Although the anti-gambling lobby will undoubtedly continue its efforts in 2015, it will now have to do so by slogging its way through the normal legislative process. This promises to make the debate over the future of American online poker much more robust, open, and transparent.

More Money; More Problems

It appears as though the worst kept secret in Washington these days is that the anti-iGaming lobby is being almost entirely bankrolled by one man: Republican super donor Sheldon Adelson.

Normally, money and politics go hand in hand, especially in the United States where campaign finance regulation is weak. Nevertheless, pushback has begun to ferment at the grassroots level against the idea that one man could have so much influence over what is potentially a billion dollar industry.

Conservative groups especially have voiced strong opposition to the perception that Congress could be bought off by Adelson to craft regulation squashing direct competition to his personal, land-based, gambling empire.

Congressman Ron Paul dedicated an entire op-ed piece to his railing against Adelson’s influence on Capitol Hill and what he labeled “crony capitalism” in its most pure and brazen form.

This political climate appears to have given Republican politicians pause that they risk a serious backlash from their base if they are seen as walking in lock-step with the epitome of special interest money.

State Rights Arguments Also Resonate

In addition to disgust at the money being thrown around, Republican politicians are also hearing from voters in their base who are wondering out-loud why the federal government is even getting involved in regulating online gambling at all.

Land-based casino gambling has always been the prerogative of the sovereign state governments, and many conservatives view the idea of a federal ban as an example of encroachment on the principle of state sovereignty.

Grover Norquist — who is the president of Americans for Tax Reform and one of the most influential figures in conservative politics — has also come out strongly against any federal ban on exactly this point.

States’ rights is an important issue for conservative voters, and so this too seems to have scared off support amongst Republican politicians unwilling to be labeled as going against core political values.

The Best Defense is a Good Offense

The defeat of RAWA in this Congress is welcome news. However, it is only one battle in the larger, ongoing war to avoid the proverbial federal ban-hammer.

The iGaming industry has come a long way since 2006. This recent skirmish with big money validates the efforts of industry advocacy groups such as the Poker Players Alliance and the community in general to step out of the shadows and into the mainstream cultural consciousness of the nation.

Players and operators alike clearly do now have a voice in the halls of power.

Even more encouraging is to see that the issue has now been removed from the simple “pro” vs. “anti” gambling dichotomy and is instead being discussed in the language of the broader American political debate. This is a development that cannot be overstated.

It makes it much less likely — though certainly not impossible — that a federal ban will be able to get through Congress.

Conclusion

Although the omnibus bill can be amended at any time, the high-visibility of the issue in recent weeks makes it unlikely that online gambling legislation will be coming out of Congress until at least 2015.

All eyes will now be on California, as well as the possibility of an interstate compact between Nevada and Delaware. Should these happen, they will cement the industry even further and — given the amount of opposition already present to a federal ban — make it almost impossible to dislodge it.

For that reason, the coming year is shaping up to be the biggest one in the history of US iGaming.

Gambling expansion is coming to the state of New York in the form of four new casinos and today we will likely learn the names that will adorn the entrances to those casinos, as well as the specific locations.

Voters approved the construction of the new land-based gambling establishments last year and the Gaming Facility Location Board has been perusing 16 bids from companies with well-known names such as Churchill Downs, Genting and Caesars. The regions in which the casinos will be placed are already known, while the winning bidders are not — until later.

Three areas have been approved — Albany, Catskill Mountains-Orange County, and near the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. The second of those three is seen as perhaps the jewel of the bunch, Bloomberg reported, as Orange County is about one hour away from New York City and its population of more than eight million.

New York is already home to five casinos run by Indian tribes, as well as nine video slot parlors located at horse racing facilities. The new casinos are expected to co-exist with the land-based gaming operations currently operating.

Following the announcement of the winning bids — a Christmas present of sorts for those chosen — the New York State Gaming Commission must also give their rubber-stamped approval. A likely mere formality, as the Gaming Facility Location Board was specifically set up to handle much of the process.

Online Poker Next?

New York lawmakers took a look at two online poker bills introduced this year. Sen. John Bonacic proposed S 6913 in the spring and Assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow followed with A09509 weeks later.

Both bills aimed to allow games requiring skill to be regulated, while excluding house-banked casino games. Both also cited the need for safeguards that regulation would provide, noting that many New Yorkers play at unregulated sites where protection and safety of funds is questionable.

Two East Coast states have already enacted online poker and gambling legislation — Delaware and New Jersey — and another, Pennsylvania, may be next in line following in-depth research into the possibility. The bills introduced in New York did not gain much traction, but the state is miles ahead of other states who have yet to even consider proposals.

Perhaps after the identities and locations of the winning casino bidders are named and construction is underway, online poker regulation can be debated with greater intensity. New York is the third largest state in terms of population and would be much-welcomed as a regulated state by online poker and gambling activists.