My attention was drawn to this Panorama program about online poker. The program confused online gambling and online poker, and generally provided a superficial analysis.
There are so many issues with the program, that it is difficult to know where to start. The program went like this:
- Prologue: People are making money online.
- Act 1: Reporter finds the only online poker pro dumb enough to work with him. He's a 20 year-old welsh fast-food worker.
- Act 2: Online pro is dragged to Belfast to play poker with reporter's money.. Guy doubles up first day. Reporter then gets greedy. During this phase, the "pro" apparently doesn't win a single hand. The is some fake angst at the fact that the money is being lost by someone else.
- Act 3: Cut to thief who stole £460k to fund gambling addiction.
- Act 4: Reporter decides to increase the stakes until 3-5 lost hands will bust him. Standard practice is to play with less than 1/20 of your bankroll on a single table.
- Act 5: Reporter duly goes bust. Cue more fake angst.
In the past couple of years, an online poker site (Party Gaming) has IPOed, entered the FTSE 100 index, then dropped out again. The US has arguably broken WTO services rules against the interests of a UK company, yet this wasn't mentioned.
At a time when online gambling is a significant growing industry, this show is a significant missed opportunity. At every turn, the makers could have informed and analysed. Instead, they resorted to cheap theatre.
I eagerly await the Panorama show that addresses any of the following points:
- Why putting all your bankroll on the table is foolish
- How poker and gambling theory have evolved.
- How the US gambling bill is draining liquidity from online poker
- How Party Gaming may be doomed. (Rumour has it that Party's accounts don't specifically mention players' funds, so they may be using these funds as working capital.)
- The diverse ways that people are making money gambling or trading online.
It is not uncommon to hear that reporters are looking to contact online gamblers. Normally, such reporters aren't trusted. It may well be that the gap in understanding within the MSM means that they cannot be trusted.