Here is another hand that will likely be a column. I held KhQs in the cutoff in a $60-$120 game. I young up-and-coming pro (“Shirley’) limped in early position. She does this a lot, and I don’t think it is correct very often, as you know. Everyone folded to me, and I raised to kill the blinds. And excellent player in the big blind (“Pat”) called and Shirley re-raised.

This limp reraise from a conservative player who has not made this play before (after about 30 hours at the same table) is almost certainly aces, and I determined to treat it as such. Should I call or fold? I will be getting 8:1 in the highly likely event that Pat calls as well, and I am playing against a face-up hand. Even though I know I am way behind, I am now getting a price to see the flop (of course, has she open raised I would have folded, but you need to take circumstances as they are). The flop came Jh7h3h, so I had a K-high flush draw and little else.

Pat bet out immediately. What can this bet be? We need to start by assuming that Pat also knows Shirley has aces. He would hardly lead with a hand he knows is beat, so he must beat aces. The board is too disjoint for him to have two-pair, so he has a set or a flush. Can he have a nut flush draw? If he did, he would have checked, hoping Shirley bet and I called so he could get three-way action.

Shirley raised. I was not sure Shirley understood how well Pat played, and how transparent her pre-flop play was, but I felt at this point my second nut draw merited a (nervous) call. Not surprisingly, Pat three-bet. This tilted the scales toward a flush, since I had called, and Pat had to know I knew about Shirley’s aces, so I must have a big heart or better or a set myself. I suspect with a set he would have waited for the turn, checking and calling if a heart fell, and check-raising Shirley (and me) if a blank hit.

Shirley and I called. Indeed, a blank hit the turn and Pat bet out. Shirley called. Now I had a somewhat unusually problem. I knew what Pat had, and I thought he had made it very clear. But the question was, did Shirley know? The odds of her having the ace of hearts knowing she ha aces was 50%. But she should have realized by now that if she did not hold the ace of hearts, she was drawing dead and should fold. But did she actually understand what was happening? If she did, then I was drawing dead and should fold. If she did not, then I had a 50-50 chance to have the best draw.

By that time, the pot held 11 big bets. Since Pat had a flush, I had seven hearts to make my hand, but only half the time (if Shirley would call here with any two aces). That’s an average of 3.5 outs for 43 unknown cards (we know my hand, the board, Pat’s two hearts and one of Shirley’s aces). So I am getting the right price if Shirley is not reading this situation correctly, and drawing dead if she is).

Because there had to be some chance that she was, and there was a small chance that Pat was holding the nut flush and playing it strongly from the get-go, I felt I had to fold here, in spite of the large pot.

As it happened, the river was a heart and Pat won with his 10-high flush, as Shirley’s aces did not include the ace of trump. I was surprised that a pro like her would have either mis-read or not bothered to read the hands and situation, but my mis-read of her cost me a pot in that instance. Perhaps I should have realized it what she raised on the flop, but I didn’t.

I don’t usually write about politics and poker, but today I will vary my play by discussing the recently passed Internet gambling act (buried in the port security act by Majority Leader Bill Frist).

First, let’s be clear: the bill does not make playing poker (or gambling in any form) on the Internet illegal for the bettor/player. It does make it harder to fund gambling accounts. It almost certainly means you will not be able to write a check on a US bank directly to an online gambling site.

Exactly how hard will take several months to figure out, as the act allows nine months to figure out enforcement methodologies (and will in point of fact more likely take years). Banks are supposed to participate in figuring out how to enforce it…it is doubtful they will be gung-ho about dealing with restrictions on where they can send money and for what purpose. It remains to be seen.

Should you rush to take your money out of off line sites? My overall guess is no, but I would be careful about keeping huge sums. Party Poker in particular has issued a statement (why I don’t know) that they will at some point stop accepting action from US customers. Already, they have stopped allowing internal money transfers to US accounts. That means I can no longer accept Party transfers into my account for lesson payment. And, in fact, I have withdrawn my money from Party except for a token amount.

On the other hand, several on-line companies have issued statements stating that will continue to operate accounts for US customers, and have even said that former Party customers are welcome (I hear, but have not confirmed that Paradise and True Poker are among these). Others have issued vague statements about studying the situation.

Advertising will be much more difficult, and people whose revenue depends on affiliate sponsorship or TV and print advertising will take some from of hit. How much is in doubt and the “.net” designation may or may not help. Only time will tell here, but many fine poker people will be badly hurt by this legislation.

The Poker Players Alliance is going to try to carve out an exemption for poker, but, even though I am a member and support the group, I don’t really foresee a majority of both houses voting to legalize on-line poker in an up or down vote. Maybe an amendment to some other bill may pass, just as the current bill slid in.

Opinions vary on how this will affect the future of poker. Here is mine, worth whatever you paid for it.

Poker was OK before this bill and will be fine afterwards. B&M play may actually increase for a few years as players who live near casinos and cardrooms venture out of their homes. On-line play will go down considerably, and the games will get tougher still. Many fewer new players will try to sign up.

In my view, the lifeblood of the game has already been secured by thousands of non-on-line players who saw poker on TV and now play home games or dorm games every week. TV poker will be OK, except that some of the terrible shows will fail (as they should with or without this bill). Advertising revenues will go down if “.net” ads cannot lead directly to “.com” conversions, so fewer shows will be seen, but some will survive. And most of the new players already created will continue to play in home games and visit Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Tunica, Los Angeles, and other poker friendly cities to play their favorite game live.

Poker magazines will probably get thinner and fewer on-line sites will advertise (or perhaps even be allowed to). Some of the more marginal ones will fail, and others will be forced to reduce content.

There is still plenty of time before any enforcement of this bill actually occurs. But as on-line sites, their attorneys and the Justice Department start to interpret this law, many changes will happen to our world. For example, I doubt very much of next year’s WSOP main even will have 8,700 players again. We will all have to follow events and hope for the best.