Don't Play Poker Online While People Are Shooting At Your DSL
from the no,-seriously dept
I think we have a winner, already, for most bizarre story of the month. Yesterday, Broadband Reports had a random story about DSL service going down in New Mexico due to "random gunfire", which seems odd enough. However, the impact of that loss of DSL was beyond what many could imagine. That's because one local resident, just as the random gunfire erupted, happened to be playing poker online, and just happened to have pocket aces (the best hand) in the middle of a round with a lot of money at stake. He claims that just as the DSL service went down (yes, remember, due to random gunfire), he clicked to go "all in." However, service dropped, and by the time it came back, the game was over. Apparently, the system folded his pocket aces, since he wasn't responding -- but when the service came back, it remembered the "all in" click -- dumping all his money in on a hand where he had nothing. The guy, needless to say, is a bit pissed off. He wants to blame someone, but Qwest, the DSL provider isn't taking responsibility (can you believe them?). The online poker site also said too bad. Obviously, he's going after the wrong people. The person to blame is the "random" shooter who took out DSL in New Mexico. So, remember kids, when trying to raise tuition money or seed funding while playing poker online, it's best to do so on a connection you know is secure where there's no random gunfire shooting out DSL lines... or, maybe go wireless, since that's much tougher to take out with a gunfire.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The obvious target to sue...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The obvious target to sue...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The obvious target to sue...
Well, most of us agree with you that it's likely to be a load of bullshit, but if you do work for Qwest, you might want to inform "Qwest spokesman Vince Hancock" as he's the one quoted in the article as saying that service was down as a result of random gun fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No way
What probably happened was that he went all in, was called by one or more players, and lost the hand. I am 99% sure that is what actually happened. No good poker site would register an all in bet and then forfeit a player's interest in the pot for disconnecting. The big sites, Pokerstars, Party, Pacific, Paradise, Bodog, UB, Pokerroom, Full Tilt, etc, all have all in protection unless you abuse it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No way
My guess is that he just didn't realize that whoever called him had pocket K's and the board ended up as 2*6*10*10*K.
Sorry buddy, you straight up lost, fair and square. Don't like the river? Stop playing poker. Pocket Aces is NEVER a guaranteed win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No way
Otherwise, he wouldn't have lost all the money to an all in bet and his hand would have just been folded for not responding in time.
And if the poker site had a policy to put people all in when they lose their connection, they warn you of this BEFORE you join the table. It's all in plain site with warnings to let you know. If he ignored this, it's, once again, his own fault.
But more likely, all that happened was he was beat. He just didn't get to see the bad beat with his own eyes and therefore I am sure it was rather frustrating to regain a connection and see that he lost everything.
Even if he hadn't lost the connection, he would have still been all in on pocket aces and lost.
I'm not understanding why there is confusion with this. He simply didn't understand what was happening at the time and was upset about losing his money. But it was his own bad decision making that did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No way
An all-in-on-disconnect policy actually just treats you as if you were all-in: any bets after that point go to a side pot, and you can win whatever was in the pot when you disconnected if you end up with the best hand. Whatever money you had at the table that you didn't bet doesn't get automatically bet for you; it ends up in your account if you don't come back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No way
Apparently you didn't read the article, though, as you'd know that he likely supposedly was at pre-flop, and probably didn't have any money in, and even then sites that do have all-in protection would fold the hand if you disconnected, and didn't come back within a min or two.
There's no site that would forfeit after it took the all-in request (except for when poker.com was broken after their last major upgrade, but that's fixed).
I do agree more with your theory on what -actually- happened. There's no way the client would save the "All In" click and transmit it when the connection is back up. It probably went through, then he got disconnected, and came back after losing. Either that or he just sat there and clicked the button the whole time :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a min!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a min!
Like all gambling laws in the U.S., the focus is on the operator, the house... not the players.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a min!
http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-na-cards27nov27,1,2368814.story?coll=la-headl ines-business-careers&ctrack=1&cset=true
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a min!
Specifically regarding online poker, it is probably legal for two reasons:
1. Most laws dealing with gambling are so illegal casinos don't spring up and take bets without a license.
2. Poker is not like other casino games... it is more like chess or a sport, on which it is perfectly legal to make a private bet.
3. The most important reason. All of the "action" takes place on foreign servers in the islands and in Canada or the UK where online poker is legal to operate. Therefore the action is on their side of "the pond" and in their jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a min!
I live in an area of the US where I can drive 15 minutes and LEGALLY gamble at a real casino. Plus there are all the arguments of holdem not being a casino game. You play the players with skill to win and not the odds nearly as much as typical casino games.
Making "sidebets" while playing holdem with people is no different to me than, say, betting $20 bucks on who wins the Superbowl. You research and determine who you think is the best using your own sources and following the players' abilities and then you place a wager on it. I don't see the government cracking down on these types of bets.
As far as I'm concerned, when I play online, I am playing ONLY the people sitting at my table and the money exchanged is a PRIVATE bet just as betting on a sporting event with friends is PRIVATE. The online programs are just a place to meet people who enjoy the same entertainment as me. Kind of like logging onto Yahoo to play some chess. If I wanted, I could place a private bet on who wins the chess games. This is MY DECISION and it's MY MONEY.
What's with all the control issues in the world these days? If something doesn't affect or hurt people, what gives them the right to rain on everyone else's parade?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess that's one way to win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On-Line Poker for Money is Illegal in the United S
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On-Line Poker for Money is Illegal in the Unit
You're an idiot and NO he doesn't deserve "time in the slammer" for law related reasons AS WELL AS for MORAL reasons?
Where the hell do you get off deciding someone who has done nothing to harm others be put in prison? You fucking Nazi. Keep you lame ass comments to yourself TROLL, no one cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On-Line Poker for Money is Illegal in the Unit
I'm sure you have friends or family that play poker at home with REAL money. Maybe even you do. That's illegal also.
Do you think they should go to the slammer or you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On-Line Poker for Money is Illegal in the Unit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On-Line Poker for Money is Illegal in the Unit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On-Line Poker for Money is Illegal in the United S
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Always cracks me up when people convince themselves that they are doing something legal when they damn well know it isn't. That doesn't stop me from downloading, gambling, speeding, or making rolling right turns but I'm not stupid enough to delude myself that is "legal".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
IN MOST STATES
Yeah, that's right, NOT ALL STATES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I was proving a point and I AM correct when I say the law is unclear on a national level. Some states say it's illegal, some say it's not, and some simply don't care.
Even the random (most likely unreliable) website you posted proves my point. Why don't you actually try reading it.
And what makes you think you can trust some random .com website with the address "http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/" Do you also get your credit report from "http://www.get-your-free-credit-report-here-this-isnt-a-ploy-to-steal-your-personal-info-i-promise. com"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News Headlines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't online poker easy to scam?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fear Factor DVD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
berkah365
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
situs slot online paling top
Top4d merupakan salah satu situs slot online paling top denga minimal deposit hanya Rp 5.000 saja dan minimal betting cukup Rp 100 perak saja anda sudah bisa bermain di http://top4d.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]