Talk:Online poker

Please, let's evaluate if this phrase "In 2005, revenues from online poker were estimated at US$ 200 million per month.[1]" should be removed. The proposed link is broken too. I have just added a Financial time link with authoritative figures about actual revenues, this estimate of $200mn seems widely underestimated.

Thanks, regards.

--Ugopanco (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Iyaa Ambon123 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is the "disparate" locations supposed to mean? How about something like "inconvenient"? Or should we really regard that as additional evidence that the entire article is just another free advertising scam, with someone trying to make it sound like an encyclopedia. (Several other likely examples elsewhere.) Shanen 08:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, NPOV is really an issue there. It has a strong bias towards online poker.Tyharvey313 03:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This page is an advert for online poker all the 'benefits' are explained in detail and all the downsides are explained away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.191.33 (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The text mistakenly claims that 'The_V0id' was disqualified from the World Championship of Online Poker for having multiple accounts - the linked article (source) makes no such claim and merely says that he was disqualified for a breach of the terms of service. I think this should be corrected. 125.255.113.222 (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There really should be a section on cheating in online poker. There seem to be plenty of ways of doing it, from colluding with others to using "card counting" and other statistical software which in a real life casino would get you thrown out. There are bots too, of course, run by both players and the casino. I'll add something but maybe someone else knows more.

Edit: wasn't signed in on this page for some reason, NTL proxies perhaps... Mojo-chan 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article already covers online-specific cheating, and detection methods. 2005 22:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Additionally the infomation you have tried to include is both inaccurate and quite strange. Card counting in poker? Cheating "debateable"? It seems you are unfamilar with how poker is played, so I'd suggest you refrain from adding details to the article. If you have questions about things or suggestion for formatting information, you could comment here, but obviously we can not have confusing/inaccurate statements in the article. 2005 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Card counting" in online poker? That seems like a bizarre statement to me. Card counting almost always refers to a specific advantage play technique used in blackjack, not poker, and it's not really cheating, even though it might or might not get you thrown out of a casino. At any rate, it's certainly not a subject that has anything to do with online poker.Rray 23:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually card counting is semi-relevant to online poker but it is not considered cheating by anybody. Yes you could use sophisticated methods to track information about cards played during a hand -- and use that information. And yes that would get you thrown out of a casino. But no it is not cheating in online poker. More importantly for this section, there needs to be something said about the huge Absolute Poker scandal, which I realize is still ongoing as of October 22, 2007. This scandal will change the landscape of online poker and shows that cheating is perhaps not as rare as some like to believe (or advertise). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.135.84 (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, it wouldn't get you thrown out of anything. You're perfectly entitled to track what cards are in play or have been discarded during a poker hand. This is, in fact, crucial in games like 7-stud. It's perfectly fine.

I suppose you could mean actually tracking the position of cards in the deck as its shuffled, but of course that doesn't apply online. Evercat 01:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You cannot use a computer device at the poker table. You could use one online -- input what cards burned, what cards folded (in a 7-stud game), etc. Then it might calculate your odds, etc. That would not be legal in a casino game. I am not even sure they would let you keep track with pen and paper. Obviously we are talking about stud games, no HE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonuc (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Online poker rooms are only computer programs that can be amended at will to maximise profit for the site, if they can they will, also the fact that online sites have paid players working for them shows the whole concept is best avoided. If you play then you deserve all the engineered hands you will get and the bad beats to go with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.131.122 (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This whole section is perfunctory and promotional. Like anything written on wikipedia about the pharmaceutical industry or New York City, it exists only to glorify the subject matter while sweeping its potential questionable aspects under the rug. Furthermore, there are several self-appointed "article police" who delete material to ensure that the article does not deviate from the promotion of online poker. It's really advertising disguised as an encyclopedia article. 69.172.118.214 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Uh, nope. Show me third-party researched proof that cardrooms engineer hands to maximise profit, etc, and then it'd be worthy of mention in an article. Any complaining about bias in the big online cardrooms (PokerStars, FullTily, etc) is through people perceiving patterns in randomness or being frustrated at their bad luck. I guess I'd qualify as one of the "article police," but it's for good reason; the argument is flawed. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

List of online poker sites redirects to this page, despite the fact that there is not such list here. I think a list of online poker sites would be useful as a separate page. Does anyone object? And does anyone want to help? Be so empty without me (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is an encyclopedia, not a shopping guide. This was discussed previously at WP:POKER. If you want to try to influence a new consensus, go ahead and start a discussion there. 2005 (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize that the page Category:Poker companies existed, that was basically what i was going for Be so empty without me (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

There doesn't appear to be much info here on the early history of online poker (the first few years). I've built a short section which outlines some of the problems the early operators faced as well as a "timeline" showing the expansion of online poker.

Is this something that would be useful? Admittedly my "encyclopedic" writing skills still need some work but I think many people would find the early history of online poker pretty interesting. I could add a section similar to that below or create a new page (whichever seems reasonable).

Potential content follows:

Creating a real money online poker room involved many technical and logistical challenges. The internet had not matured to the point where most users had confidence that their funds were safe and wagers were not at risk due to technical shortcomings. For a quality online poker experience, the game software had to be able to handle real time communications between the servers and the clients over connections ranging from 2400 Baud modems to T1 connections and satellite communications. E-commerce to address the money aspects was still in its infancy. Reliable methods of communicating between servers on the internet and banking systems (which were still largely limited to phone communications between their systems) needed to be created. In short, players needed to be convinced that it was safe to send money to an online cardroom, games would play reliably and they would be able to cash out their winnings.

In August 1997, Planet Poker launched the first online poker site. The site operated as a free cardroom for the remainder of 1997 to enable the developers to mature the software to meet basic player expectations. Methods to deal with internet communication problems were built into the software and practical methods to fund player accounts were created.

On January 1, 1998 the first real money online poker hand was dealt and by February, 1998 games were running around the clock. Real money online poker had arrived, sparking a multi-billion dollar industry.

Timeline:

Burkr (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some more on the early history seems fine, but I think the timeline is not a good idea. 2005 (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why not? It would seem (to me) that it would give a real feel for the way things evolved in the early days. Burkr (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia discourages their use, and what you wrote above is entirely redundant to the text. We don't need to say things twice. A good paragraphph is all that is needed. 2005 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE) and thus WP:BLP, the paragraph about D'Amato sourced entirely from PPA is inappropriate. The text can of course go back in if sourced to a reliable independent source which establishes its significance in context. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I could perhaps see your point concerning WP:V and WP:RS, if you consider the PPA to be an unreliable source. In this case, however, there's nothing egregious. If you want better sourcing, please consider a "cite needed" tag. I see nothing wrong with the paragraph in line with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or WP:BLP (and yes, I've read those policies). It seems to me that you're just throwing out acronyms. Can you explain specifically how you think the paragraph violates those particular policies ?? Plvekamp (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that we are relying on PPA as the source for both the fact and its significance. In order to establish the significance of the fact, you need to show that other sources discussing online poker (and not the PPA) consider this significant. And the best way to ensure that this is not a problem is to source the text fomr somthing other than PPA itsef; as an advocacy organisation it has an undisguised agenda, and is not an appropriate source in an article on a subject where it has a strong advocacy agenda. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

No one is doing that. The article says the PPA claims one million members. This supported by the linked page, and fits in with the pro and con nature of the section. If you want another source to mention that claim, that seems is redundant but fine, however there is no doubt that the PPA is the best source for it's own claim. WP:V is policy and can't be ignored. A link to the PPA's own website is the best way to verify the claim. The article does not state the claim is true or not. 2005 (talk) 21:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here's a reference for D'Amato's lobbying from the New York Times: [1] *** Crotalus *** 00:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could we get a little more info regarding the legality of online poker in countries other than the US, UK, and the Caribbean? I'm especially interested in Canada and Europe. Deepfryer99 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anyone know anything about taxation? I heard something about EU players having to declare any earnings from non EU sites. Bjorn I. Clever (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I understand it, the picture in the United States is as follows:

1. Several states ban internet poker within their jurisdictions.

2. The federal government claims that the Wire Act bans online poker, and has claimed this for some time. However, there's only one case that squarely deals with the issue and it held that the Wire Act only banned sports betting, not poker. Still, the DOJ's position carries some weight with banks, state legislators, and other actors and another court might adopt it.

3. The UIGEA didn't specifically ban online poker, but it said that if internet gambling was made unlawful (presumably under state or federal law, including the Wire Act if that statute is interpreted to ban online poker), it's illegal for a bank to process deposits.

4. The federal government has now issued banking regulations requiring banks to decline deposits to online poker sites.

So why doesn't this page say this? It reads like someone who is trying to obfuscate the issue, not explain it. 75.83.62.201 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was under the impression that directors of UK gaming sites had been arrested in the US, under the Wire Act. Rich Farmbrough, 17:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC).Reply

Is this just someone's COI or is there third party coverage? Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC).Reply

This article was marked for a proposed deletion because it was "promoting PokerStars." I removed the PROD and the image of PokerStars, but if anyone wants to discuss, here's a section of the talk page where you can now do so. Rray (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article doesn't currently read like an encyclopedia article could really do with a history section giving some of the timeline.Tetron76 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Overview section is a history section, with dates. That doesn't mean it couldn't be better, or more complete, or written differently though. 2005 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

As it currently stands it could be reduced to one sentence. The dates are not sourced and I would be very surprised if there wasn't some form of free on-line poker played well before the late 90s just not at a commercial scale. Tetron76 (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about one sentence? The history has lots of references and is obviously encyclopedic. As for you being "very surprised" that things happened as they did, well they did. 2005 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I mean that the entire section does not conform to wiki policy. It is full of opinion which presents strong POV and has no references that can be used. The other problem is that the true statements that are used are wrongly placed in the context of the actual historical timeline. The beginning of the poker boom was earlier than 2003, (especially in UK) etc...

As for the late 1990s, this refers to 1995 [2] which is mid-90s not late 90s. But since the film war games (1983) includes the framework for playing poker on line and that bridge was played in the 80s on MUD. While clearly this is very different from current online poker, this will still be the earliest form version of poker played remotely. The only question is if it will be possible to source this.Tetron76 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The section conforms to wiki policy. It is not "full" of opinion. The first paragraph has some unreferenced quotes that are plainly obvious, but would not be hurt by having references. That's just a matter of heavily editors want to include refs for statements like casinos can be intimidating to first time visitors. The statement could be referenced but it is not controversial, and is not "bad" to be there like it is. The poker boom has lots of historical contributing items (flop games coming to California, Rounders, Late Night Poker), but what the Wikipedia and most knowledgable sources call the poker boom is referenced in the poker boom article, and not something to be redfined in other articles. As for the first version of multiplayer poker online, that was IRC, as can be found evidence of online in lots of places. You seem to think that there should have been poker sooner, but if there was, there would be references to that effect. I suggest if you have any problem with any particular sentence or paragraph, you speak about it specifically. Also, you should click through to the various wikilinks, where there are ample refs about Sportingbet, Party Gaming etc. Those articles deal in detail with those companies. A ref from those articles could be duplicated here, but there is no need (and it's not a good idea) to completely duplicate the content from those articles here. 2005 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

anyone there 119.235.88.120 (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ich weiß nich was man hier alles schreiben kann aba ich schreib ma vor mich hin, also ich bin der Hans. Ich bin der hab schon immer davon geträumt einen sinnlosen Wikipedia artiken zu verfassen und heute ist endlich der Tag gekommen andem ich... (fortsetzung folgt) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.15.3 (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply