Online Poker Kings Get Cashed Out

When you've turned nothing into something once already, you tend to feel like you can do it again. There's faith your luck will turn. Perhaps it's delusion. But for a professional poker player, self-confidence is essential.

So it is for Walter Wright, who now finds himself in Costa Rica. He left his wife and two children behind to redeem their failing finances and faltering marriage by doing something that's now illegal in the United States—playing poker online.

Wright's life began to change in 2005, when he followed his then-girlfriend from New Orleans to Virginia, where she was beginning law school at Washington and Lee University. He had played strategy and role-playing video games as a kid in Houston and later began to obsess over chess. That's when he noticed his chess buddies were becoming increasingly dedicated to online poker and raving about the returns. Wright became engrossed.

He started as most people do, playing what's known the "cash game." It's simple poker—win by pushing your advantage when the cards are good and bluffing when they're not. If you know the odds, bet wisely, and seek out tables with lesser players, within a year or two, you can be making a grand a week or more. Five to 10 times more.

Wright started at low-stakes Texas Hold'em with table limits of just 25 and 50 cents. The beauty of playing online is that he could work eight tables at once. It wasn't the best of money. Pokerstars.com was taking its own cut from the pots, generally capped at $2 to $3 per pot. But as a volume player, he also received rewards points redeemable for things such as Amazon gift certificates, which he used to buy food in bulk.

>Unless you can cite supporting statistical data, I’ll contend that you are woefully misguided on the matter.

>I’d wager (i.e., gamble) that the casinos in Vegas (or Atlantic City) make 98% of their profits off of people who are not habitual gamblers. Just like brewers and distillers make 98% of their profits off of people who are not alcoholics.

Looks like you lost the bet.
The first study I found said this:

The proportion of gambling revenue derived from problem gamblers is an important issue when considering the appropriateness of government-sponsored gambling. Figures obtained from prior research are tentative due to methodological problems and the mismatch between reported expenditures and actual gambling revenue. Using improved methods for assessing the prevalence of problem gambling and the accuracy of self-reported gambling expenditures, the present study estimates that the 4.8 percent of problem gamblers in Ontario in 2003 accounted for approximately 36 percent of Ontario gambling revenue. This proportion varied as a function of game type, with a lower proportion for lotteries, instant win tickets, bingo, and raffles, and a higher proportion for horse racing and slot machines.

(You guessed 2% of revenue from problem gamblers, this study estimates 36% )

>Purveyors of legal products should not be held responsible for the small fraction of people who misuse and abuse the product. Would you hold automobile companies responsible for reckless drivers?

I don’t know how I could have been more clear that I wasn’t advocating government involvement.

the present study estimates that the 4.8 percent of problem gamblers in Ontario in 2003 accounted for approximately 36 percent of Ontario gambling revenue.

There is something about the cited report which makes me highly skeptical. Could it be that "4.8% of problem gamblers accounted for 36% of gambling revenue". What percentage of revenue did all "problem gamblers" account for? What about "non-problem gamblers"? Do they even exist.

Did this report classify all gamblers as "problem gamblers"? Was it a self-serving study conducted by an anti-gambling organization?

Sounds like it to me.

the present study estimates that the 4.8 percent of problem gamblers in Ontario in 2003 accounted for approximately 36 percent of Ontario gambling revenue.

Did this report classify all gamblers as "problem gamblers"? Was it a self-serving study conducted by an anti-gambling organization?

Sounds like it to me.

the present study estimates that the 4.8 percent of problem gamblers in Ontario in 2003 accounted for approximately 36 percent of Ontario gambling revenue.

Did this report classify all gamblers as "problem gamblers"? Was it a self-serving study conducted by an anti-gambling organization?

Sounds like it to me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.