In the most recent match up between man and machine, it was man that squeaked out a victory, though just barely. The competition was a highly anticipated poker match between a couple of poker professionals and a new computer program called Polaris.

As our own Zac Bissonnette discussed over the weekend, as computer programs get better at gaming applications, eventually this technology may get transferred to the stock market to form the "perfect trader." But the newest program put to the test this week was only narrowly edged out by its human competition.

Polaris was recently developed at the University of Alberta in Canada. The university also recently released a checkers program that cannot be beaten by a human (but can end in a draw if its human counterpart plays the perfect game), and decided it was time to put its Polaris poker program to the test against two professional Texas Hold'Em players.

The is talk that the United States may reconsider its ban on online gambling and, if it is repealed, several companies stand to benefit. The House of Representatives has said it will hold a hearing to look at online gambling on Friday, and Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has said that online gambling ought to be legalized, and introduced a bill in April that would repeal the ban.

It's hard to justify the ban on online gambling, given that so many other forms of gambling are legal. The passing of the ban was a classic example of special interest politics, with Las Vegas casinos lobbying hard, not wanting to lose gambling dollars to the internet. Frank has called the issue "a matter of individual freedom" and a repeal of the ban should stand a good chance at passing.

If it does, Cryptologic (NASDAQ: CRYP), which provides software for numerous on ling gaming sites, could be a huge beneficiary. And while World Poker Tour Enterprises's (NASDAQ: WPTE) gambling site hasn't allowed American gamblers in years, its television show would likely prosper in the event of legalization. If people can player poker online, interest in the game will increase.

But stock picks aside, I've never understood the justification for the ban on online gambling. Given that most states have lotteries, how can the government claim to be banning it for moral reasons? The ban appears to have been a result of a desire to protect the Lottery and Las Vegas's monopoly, and that's wrong. Who are these guys in Washington working for anyway?

As sports columnist Blackie Sherrod once wrote "If you bet on a horse, that's gambling. If you bet you can make three spades, that's entertainment. If you bet cotton will go up three points, that's business. See the difference?"

Apparently the law sees a principled distinction between these three forms of betting, and poker enthusiasts and Harvard professors are doing research to try to prove that poker is a game of skill, in the hope that such a determination could lead to the legalization of online poker betting. According to the Wall Street Journal, our government categorizes games that are considered to be dominated by chance are gambling, while those that are mainly skill are not. Congressman Barney Frank has introduced a bill that would legalize online gambling, saying that gambling is a personal freedom issue.

But here's what I don't understand: How can you possibly argue that day-trading Pink Sheets stocks is a game of skill, but poker is a game of chance? Does anyone honestly think that?

You could possibly argue that day-trading is legal because it serves an economic purpose -- the liquidity that trading provides encourages investment. Without the ability to sell shares, people would be less likely to invest in American businesses.

But online poker can serve an economic function as well: By legitimizing the games, the government could collect tax revenue. And with record deficits and a soaring national debt, doesn't the government have better things to do than battle the imaginary dragon of online poker? Maybe they could start by getting rid of the The Lottery.

Poker fans rejoice! House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Barney Frank, introduced a bill on Thursday that would allow Americans to gamble online once again. The bill would allow online gambling companies to apply for licenses to accept bets from U.S. citizens. Frank referred to the ban on gambling as "an inappropriate interference on the personal freedom of Americans" and called internet gambling a victimless crime. The WTO has previously declared the U.S. ban illegal.

Congratulations to Mr. Frank for standing up on this issue. I will give a piece of pie to anyone who can make a compelling case as to why it isn't hypocritical for states to offer lotteries while simultaneously cracking down on people who play online poker. How can you muster up moral outrage when you're selling the same product? This is like Hostess accusing McDonald's of marketing unhealthy foods.

If you're a political junkie closely following this issue and counting probable votes, here are a couple stocks that could be affected:

Cryptologic (NASDAQ: CRYP) - This company provides the software platforms for numerous online gambling ventures. The stock took a beating when Americans were banned from internet gambling, but has since recovered and is close to its 52-week high.

World Poker Tour Enterprises (NASDAQ: WPTE) - This company produces the World Poker Tour Series on the Travel Channel (soon to be moving to the Game Show Network) and also operates an online gambling site. While the company hasn't targeted U.S. consumers in the past, that could possibly change.

Mixed martial arts, also known as ultimate fighting, is probably the most dangerous sport on television. Enjoying a huge surge in popularity, it's wooing major networks with it's ability to target the 18-35 year old male demographic that can be so difficult to reach.International Fight League (OTCBB: IFLI), one of the premier organizations in the field, has seen its share price shoot up from the low-single digits in November all the way up to 17 dollars, before the recent pull-back to Tuesday's closing price of $11.90. While it may be as exciting to watch, it may also be as dangerous as stepping on the mixed-martial arts star Jens Pulver.

The IFL has been riding high with contracts with Fox Sports Net and MyNetworkTv. That's what the company does. It produces live events and television shows. The hype and excitement reminds of the ever-so-briefly high-flying World Poker Tour Enterprises, which produces poker shows for the Travel Channel. Take a look at this chart for WPTE (You may remember the bizarre disappearing bid for the company from poker legend Doyle Brunson):

John Kay has an excellent piece in the Feb. 6 Financial Times where he discusses the similarities between investing and gambling. He points out that the great majority of fund managers have inconsistent results from year to year. He concludes in the last paragraph of the article, "If the measure of skill is how often good performance repeats itself, poker is a more skillful activity than investment management."

Most of the article concerns the history of London's Gutshot Club, but Kay suggests the London Stock Exchange should take note of some lessons from the gambling world. "In life as in poker, the occasional coup does not necessarily demonstrate skill and superlative performance is not the ability to eliminate chance," Kay observes. "That is how we know Warren Buffett is a skilled investor and Johnny Chan a skilled poker player."

To learn more about the similarities between poker and investing, and the psychology of money, I have a couple book recommendations:

Poker Face of Wall Street: This is written by Aaron Brown, a professional trader and professional poker player. He uses gambling to teach investors how to analyze and embrace financial risk. It's an entertaining read.

Why Smart People Make Big Money Mistakes: This is the classic book on the field of behavioral finance. Authors Gary Belsky and Thomas Gilovich hope to help readers make more money by showing them the psychological reasons why so many people make the same financial blunders. Every investor needs to read this book.