PokerStars is celebrating the 15th anniversary of the iconic Sunday Storm with a phased tournament, featuring a $500,000 guaranteed prize pool.

For just an $11 buy-in, players can jump into this special anniversary edition of one of online poker’s most popular tournaments, which continues to stand as a must-play event for players of all levels.

For the past 15 years, the Sunday Storm has been a Sunday staple for poker players worldwide, attracting huge fields and delivering massive guaranteed prize pools, along with unforgettable moments for everyone from casual weekend players to seasoned grinders pursuing a major online score.

To mark its 15th anniversary, the first Phase of the Sunday Storm tournament kicked off on Friday, April 17. With Phase 1s running daily over three action-packed weeks until Sunday, May 10, players have multiple opportunities to join the action now and secure their place in the final stage, Phase 2, on Sunday, May 10, where all returning players will already be in the money.

The Phased format allows players to enter multiple Phase 1 events, cash along the way, and progress at their own pace, offering greater flexibility and making it easier to fit participation around daily schedules while preserving the thrill and prestige of this iconic event. Players can also qualify for less via satellites starting from just $0.55.

In addition, the $300,000 guaranteed Sunday Storm 15th Anniversary Ticket Machine will run from Friday, April 24 to Saturday, May 9, offering players the chance to earn Phase 1 tickets by competing in various daily challenges, such as playing Phase 1 events and knocking out players, with up to three ticket machine entries available per player per day. The more players play, the greater their chances of winning Phase 1 tickets, with daily draws awarding $11 Sunday Storm Anniversary tickets at 00:05 ET.

For more information about the Sunday Storm 15th Anniversary and Phase 1 schedule, go to the PokerStars Blog.

A discussão sobre a proibição de apostas online no Brasil ressurge em um momento sensível do debate público, marcado por soluções simplistas para temas complexos.

Neste artigo, Thiago Iusim, fundador e CEO da Betshield Responsible Gaming, analisa os paralelos entre o mercado de cigarros eletrônicos e o setor de ‘Bets’, destacando como a tentativa de eliminar uma atividade por decreto tende a empurrá-la para a informalidade.

Para ele, a experiência brasileira mostra que proibir não extingue mercados — apenas reduz a capacidade de controle do Estado e amplia riscos para o consumidor.

O Brasil já viu esse filme antes.

Existe uma solução mágica que sempre reaparece no debate público brasileiro, normalmente em período eleitoral, quando um tema se torna politicamente incômodo: proibir.

A lógica é sedutora. No discurso, o “problema” desaparece. Na prática, ele apenas muda de endereço.

O caso dos cigarros eletrônicos mostra isso com clareza.

Os vapes nunca foram autorizados no país. São oficialmente proibidos desde 2009. Em teoria, portanto, não deveriam existir em terras tupiniquins. Na prática, estão por toda parte, sem controle sanitário, sem fiscalização efetiva e sem qualquer garantia sobre a procedência do produto.

A proibição não eliminou o mercado. Apenas eliminou a possibilidade de cercá-lo com regras.

Uma reportagem recente da CNN sobre o avanço das apreensões de cigarros eletrônicos ajuda a dimensionar esse fenômeno. O país não acabou com os vapes. Apenas empurrou esse mercado para um ambiente onde o Estado perdeu capacidade de controle.

O Estado proibiu. O crime organizado agradeceu e aplaudiu de pé.

Essa experiência ajuda a entender o momento atual do debate sobre apostas online no Brasil.

As bets já existiam antes da Lei 14.790/2023. Durante anos, o país conviveu com um mercado ativo, acessível pela internet e operando a partir do exterior, sem arrecadação, sem supervisão e sem instrumentos efetivos de proteção ao consumidor.

A atividade não surgiu com a lei. A lei surgiu porque ela já existia.

Regular foi a forma racional de trazer esse mercado para dentro de um ambiente controlável, com licenças, outorgas, identificação de usuários, prevenção à lavagem de dinheiro, regras de publicidade, mecanismos de proteção ao jogador.

Dezesseis meses depois, o debate público volta a flertar com a mesma solução simplista aplicada aos vapes: a ideia de que proibir faria a atividade desaparecer.

A essa altura, já deveríamos saber que não funciona assim.

No caso das apostas, o Brasil havia escolhido um caminho diferente: regular para controlar. Proteger o cidadão e a economia popular.

Voltar agora a discutir proibição como resposta para um mercado que já existe seria mais do que um erro regulatório.

Seria uma contradição histórica.

Ou, talvez, apenas a manifestação mais confortável de um certo moralismo público que prefere empurrar a atividade para a clandestinidade em vez de reconhecer sua existência.

No plano do discurso, a proibição pode soar vitoriosa. Na prática, ela serve apenas como embalagem moralmente confortável para soluções apressadas e politicamente convenientes.

Isso não passa de fantasia eleitoral. E, desta vez, ninguém poderá dizer que não conhecia o roteiro.

Thiago Iusim
Fundador e CEO da Betshield Responsible Gaming

The debate over banning online betting in Brazil is resurfacing at a sensitive moment in the public discourse, marked by simplistic solutions to complex issues.

In this article, Thiago Iusim, founder and CEO of Betshield Responsible Gaming, analyzes the parallels between the electronic cigarette market and the ‘Bets’ sector, highlighting how attempts to eliminate an activity by decree tend to push it into informality.

According to him, the Brazilian experience shows that prohibition does not eliminate markets — it merely reduces the State’s ability to control them and increases risks for consumers.

Brazil has seen this movie before.

There is a magic solution that always seems to return to public debate, especially in election season, whenever an issue becomes politically inconvenient: ban it.

The logic is seductive. In the political narrative, the issue disappears. In real life, it simply moves elsewhere.

E-cigarettes make that point painfully clear.

Vapes have never been authorized in Brazil. They have been officially banned since 2009. In theory, they should not exist. In practice, they are everywhere, sold through social media, messaging apps, marketplaces, street vendors, and small retail shops, with no sanitary controls, no effective oversight, and no real guarantee of origin.

Prohibition did not eliminate the market.

It only eliminated the possibility of surrounding that market with rules.

A recent CNN report on the surge in e-cigarette seizures helps show the scale of the problem. Brazil did not get rid of vapes. It simply pushed the market into an environment where the state lost the capacity to control it.

The state banned it. Organized crime applauded.

That experience helps explain the current debate around online betting in Brazil.

Bets existed long before Law 14,790/2023. For years, Brazil lived with an active market operating online and from abroad, with no local tax collection, no regulatory oversight, and no effective consumer protection tools.

The activity did not emerge because of the law. The law emerged because the activity already existed.

Regulation was the rational response. It was the way to bring an already existing market into a controllable framework, with licenses, concession fees, user identification, anti-money laundering requirements, advertising rules, and player protection mechanisms.

And yet, just eighteen months later, public debate is once again flirting with the same simplistic solution applied to vapes: the fantasy that prohibition would make the activity disappear.

By now, Brazil should know better.

In the case of betting, the country had chosen a different path: regulate in order to control. Protect consumers. Protect the broader economy.

To now return to prohibition as a response to a market that already exists would be more than a regulatory mistake.

It would be a historical contradiction.

Or perhaps simply the most comfortable expression of a certain kind of public moralism that would rather push an activity into the shadows than acknowledge its existence.

In political discourse, prohibition can sound like victory.

In practice, it often functions as morally comfortable packaging for rushed and politically convenient decisions.

This is nothing more than electoral fantasy. And this time, no one will be able to say they did not know how the story would end.

Thiago Iusim
Founder and CEO of Betshield Responsible Gaming