There is plenty that can be discussed regarding the issue of online poker and its security. Since the inception of the game, there has been talk about these issues, including collusion, “ghosting” (the practice of watching a player in action and telling them how to play), chip dumping and multi-accounting, just to name a few. For the most part, the online poker industry has combated those and other issues fairly well and, with active intrastate online poker rooms in Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware, there have been no reports of such activities. Some of online poker’s opponents, however, still feel this is an issue.
Let’s meet a couple of those opponents.
First up is Cheri Jacobus, who is little more than a paid political shill. Her Twitter account states that she is a “GOP consultant, TV pundit and wrote for The Hill (the political website monitoring Washington, D. C.).” The creator of Capitol Strategies (a PR firm), Jacobus has the ear of many politicians because of her work with the Republican National Committee and her credentials as a professor of political management at George Washington University.
The second is James Thackston, who operates a website, undetectablelaundering.com, that purports to be able to demonstrate how online poker sites (among other things) are rife with people who can transfer money (“launder” he calls it) with each other and in huge amounts. He also purports to be able to show that geolocation systems can be flouted by the usage of remote access programs (such as GoToMyPC) to allow players from outside a regulated state to play in games.
Thackston is the party that has been driving much of these twos discussions (Jacobus is just a voice that has jumped on his bandwagon). He has been in contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (DGE) in attempting to set up a laundering/cheating team demonstration and how it could work online poker – provided he has immunity from prosecution. He’s also been able to capture the attention of one of the legends in the game of poker, Dewey Tomko, in supporting his efforts for such a demonstration.
Between these two, there has been a great deal of discussion with the online poker community regarding several issues of the game. I say discussion, but normally it devolves into simple rhetoric and snide remarks (from both sides, admittedly) and nothing gets accomplished. There is one point that the Jacobus/Thackston team needs to be called out upon, though.
Both have suggested that Thackston get a “free pass” to show regulators how a 50 player “mule team” could launder money, never mind the fact that Thackston has only shown this in “play money” mode (an apples and oranges comparison to “real money” online poker). Under Thackston’s theory, this “team” could shift money around, laundering it from its previous “bad” purposes to now “clean” money.
There are several problems with this. Long ago, online poker rooms set their systems that ONE player, let alone a massive team such as Thackston is suggesting, couldn’t just open an account, drop a large sum in the account, play for a few hours and cash it out immediately. Secondly, the “mule teams” that Thackston employs don’t perform their actions on such a massive scale; it’s usually a small, three or four person outfit as to limit the potential exposure. Finally, there’s the actual actions of transferring money between “mules” that Thackston has forgotten about. Unless they are playing Heads Up (something that the online site monitor very heavily), there are other players on the virtual felt that would love to scoop up some of that money when playing against them (and let’s not even get into the factor that we are talking “digital” money, not actual cash).
Here’s the proposal, Ms. Jacobus and Mr. Thackston: Instead of talking about it, actually put up your own money and prove the accusations or shut up on the subject.
Raise your $50,000/$100,000 bankroll that you would like to “launder,” gather your 50 player “mule team” and head to Nevada or New Jersey. Set up accounts, fund them and perform Thackston’s theories under a real-world scenario, then get the money back out of the system after only a few hours of play. It would also help if you had an independent auditor, such as PriceWaterhouseCoopers, to review the situation instead of each other’s words. IF you could do all of this without the Nevada Gaming Control Board or the Division of Gaming Enforcement crashing through your hotel room door before you could scatter, then you might have the poker community’s attention.
Trying to get those organizations to allow you a “free pass” to “demonstrate” only serves your purposes. These two organizations have gone to great lengths to provide a heavily regulated, clean game for customers (have we heard anything regarding underage gambling, problem gambling or players from out of state on the Nevada or New Jersey sites? Nope.) and they aren’t going to give you carte blanche to run amok. Thus, if you want to prove your theories, put up or shut up.
While we may grow tired of hearing the same rantings from Sheldon Adelson’s bag man Andy Abboud, the rantings of Jacobus and Thackston is actually something that can be readily rectified. Prove what you say is true – using your own dime – and, if it works, then a discussion can begin with full knowledge and unbiased documentation. Until then, stay out of ring and let the real fight be conducted.
