Res Ipsa Poker

How to final table a blogger donkament:

1. Chip up 50% or so early by cracking AAxx with random rags.
2. Lose your internet connection (I dislike my $%^&* ISP) about 30 minutes in.
3. Never get reconnected.

Apparently doing that was good enough for sixth place in Saturdays With Dr. Pauly, which is better than anything else I've "accomplished" lately.

Go figure.


Otherwise ...

For the second week running, I was completely owned by one player in the Riverchasers. This week's player-who-is-better-than-me was CndyCarr10 or something like that. His/her stack was fluctuating like crazy. I picked up a couple thousand chips early with some solid play and then with the blinds in the 25/50 range and 5000 chips or so I picked up KK. I raised from late position. One caller, CC10 from the big blind. Flop is 9 high. I bet. Call. Turn is a 6. More chips go in. River is another 9. I know I'm hosed and safely check behind - I'm not good at hand reading but even I could see that CC10 was holding something like 96s. Which he/she was. Back down to 2000 chips.

I know you need to be aggressive to win these stupid things, but my timing stinks. So, for that matter, does my bet sizing.

Anyway, I went kablooey again at the hands of CC10. After watching him/her play a wide range of hands (and win with most of them), we checked a hand to the end and I figured my rivered TPTK with the suited jackace was probably good. Nope, the same card made a straight - which I admit I didn't see - out of 98s. Bad time to jam.

The usual lineup awaits this week. I probably won't play the MATH, may or may not be around for Tuesday's events and we'll see how things go later on. It's going to be brutal at work coming off vacation.

***

In case you've been living under a rock, another payment processor - ePassporte - has shut out U.S. players under pressure. I never used ePassporte, largely because of fees but also because I haven't initiated a financial transaction in either direction since the UIGEA. Still, this is not a good thing.

It does make me wonder, though, how many layers of separation would be required before a transferring offshore entity would be sufficiently insulated from U.S. government authority? For example:

1. U.S. player --> transfers money into an account at Offshore Bank (account is titled in the name of the U.S. player, so this transfer is kosher as long as any necessary paperwork such as a TD9022.1 is done).

2. Player --> transfers money from his account at Offshore Bank to Middleman Co. (Middleman Co. is a financial services outfit/transfer agent, but is not itself in the online gambling business. You can set up some kind of legal fiction - this is a purchase of gift cards or something legitimate in whatever jurisdiction this is in).

3. Funds are transferred from Middleman Co. to online site.

This is essentially the model we've had, but Middleman Co. has caved under U.S. pressure. Is it possible to have a Middleman Co. that's entirely offshore and simply won't care about U.S. government actions?

Would you need to insert additional layers of middlemen before the funds would be "safe"?

I assume that you would need to use at least one level of middleman because of the ease of which the U.S. government could shut off transfers to Offshore Bank if they were an obvious sham or front. I am also assuming that it would be difficult to find a bank that was willing/able to remain entirely clear of U.S. jurisdiction.

As a practical matter, I think it's obvious that the more middlemen that are required, the less likely it is that the casual player will bother, which explains how the U.S. government may yet strangle online poker simply through frustration.

Curious. Something to ponder, anyway.

* NOTE: This is purely an academic and theoretical exercise. To the extent that anything along these lines would be considered money laundering or otherwise illegal, I don't advocate doing so.