Internet Poker vs. Live PokerI'm not a big fan of Internet gambling, because I think that too many consumers of Internet slots, blackjack, and other Player vs. House games (poker isn't a Player vs. House game; I'll get to poker in a moment) are problem gamblers for whom the Internet has made access easier.
In addition to that troubling issue, there is also the potential problem (as yet unproven) that the software of an Internet casino based in an unregulated country could be "cooked," as we say-that is, your Internet blackjack dealer might wind up with an unreasonably high number of good hands.
This SHOULDN'T happen, for the same reasons why people shouldn't fear it in regular casinos: the built-in house edge should provide sufficient profit for the house, without any cheating. If a casino did cheat, people would lose too quickly, and take their business elsewhere.
But a land-based casino with a multi-million dollar investment has a lot more to lose from a cheating scandal than a cybercasino, so I'm still a bit wary of Player vs. House Internet gaming.
Internet sports bettors also encounter a number of problems not found when betting with a regular sports book. You're still playing against the House, and if you start winning too regularly, you may find-as some of my very savvy sports betting friends have found-your bets getting cancelled for strange reasons. I see a lot of Internet sports books marketing themselves by proudly announcing "we pay on time!" Gee, thanks a lot.
Why would such marketing statements be necessary, do you think, unless there had been problems with some slow-paying cyber-sports parlors in the past?
So, until the Internet "Player vs. House" gaming industry gets one whole heck of a lot better-regulated than it is right now, my advice is "just say no."
What about cyber-poker? Poker works differently, both in cyberspace and in real poker rooms. The house doesn't play against the player. The house makes its money by charging the players a fee: sometimes it's an hourly rate, sometimes it's a per-round rate, and sometimes it's a percentage of the pot.
In all of these cases, you can see that the House doesn't really mind if you're good (unlike blackjack or sports betting, where being good means being asked to leave), because you aren't winning the House's money. The House's only interest is having a full table, and the more full tables the better. The best way to have full tables is to provide good service, so the interests of the House and the Player/Customer overlap significantly.
This is also true in
live poker online, so I wouldn't be worried about getting cheated by the House in a cyber-poker game; it could happen, I think, but the operators would have to be morons. The only realistic fear about casino ownership is, are they adequately capitalized to pay you when you win? Even though this shouldn't be a problem-for every player who wins, there has to be one who loses, a very different situation than sports betting-I could envision it, if the operators were undercapitalized or faced losses from other business operations.
So, my first advice about cyber-poker is, if you're going to play, make sure you play in a casino whose ownership is either quite wealthy, quite well-known (so they have valuable reputations at stake), or both. (By the way, I don't own stock in, or part of, any casino, cyber or otherwise).
There is one major concern for cyber-poker players, related to a common fear in live Poker - partnerships. In live poker games, players always have to be wary about players who pool their resources, in an effort to trap other players. It isn't a question of passing Aces back and forth under the table, but rather partnership play, which works something like this:
Players A and C are partners; Player B is just a regular player. Player A bets, B calls, C raises, A raises, and B folds, because he figures that his hand isn't strong enough to play against C, who has raised, and A, who has re-raised. A and C later split up B's money.
World-class players aren't too afraid of this sort of thing, because usually they will wait until they have the sort of powerful hand that will bust up A and C. Merely good players worry, but they do have casino personnel on hand to help keep an eye out for this sort of thing, and they also know that the cheating partners have to fear getting the tar beat out of them if the other players discover what's happening.
The risks of partnership cheating in cyber-poker increase, for a few reasons. First, the cyber-players don't have to fear physical reprisal; at worst, they'll lose their money. Second, you don't need two players; one player, with two computers, two telephone lines, and two separate accounts, can do it all by himself, and he has the additional advantage of being able to see his "teammate's" hand.
How do you protect yourself from this? Like most forms of cheating, a suspicious nature is a good start. If the same two players keep re-raising each other, be wary. They might just be wild players, or something might be happening.
But I also think the cybercasino needs to help. They need some sort of appeal and review process, where a player who thinks he's been the victim of sharp practice can press a button and have some casino employee review the hands and the betting. If Player C has made it three bets with 7-2 offsuit, we know what's going on. The cheaters should then be permanently barred (tougher in cyberspace than in real casinos), their accounts frozen, and the losing player should be awarded the pot (or pots) that the cheaters took down.
If you can find a cyber-poker situation where the ownership is well capitalized and where there is an effective review process, I'd say you're probably as safe playing cyber-poker as the live version. I do not endorse (explicitly or implicitly) any particular cyber-poker room, so don't write asking for recommendations. For people who don't live within an easy drive of live poker rooms, you're probably better off (financially) than you are in private games, where cheating can REALLY get serious, and which can be hijacked (robbed).