<< <i>stevek - I understand your mathematical premise very well about not being able to beat the rake (if the same 10 guys played at the same table ad infinitum, the money would eventually be gone). But I liken that statement to those made by the baseball sabrematicians about using your closer in the best situation possible late in the game, not just in the 9th inning. It makes all the sense in the world on paper and in the world of mathematics, but in real world, it doesn't make sense.
For 1/2NL, Poker Stars charges 5% rake for pots up to $60, and nothing for amounts over that. There are tens of thousands of winning live and internet poker players that are good enough to overcome those odds, and have been doing it for 5 or 6 years now.
And I disagree about the game being 90% or 98% luck. There's obviously no way to measure it, but I'd put luck somewhere in the ~80% range. Between playing correct starting hands in position, reading people and betting patterns, and post-flop play, there is enough skill involved to accuount for more than 2% or 10% of anyone's result. >>
It depends on the number of trials. In the short run, luck is the dominant factor. That's why guys like Robert Varkony, or Jerry Yang, can win the WSOP. In the long run, luck ceases to be a concern. What most people don't understand, however, is how long the 'short run' can be. It's very possible for a winning player to have a 300K hand break-even streak, which is something that strikes most new players as unbelievable. But I've personally had streaks of 50K hands where I'm no richer at the end than I was at the beginning, and I know other very compenent players who have streaks that have gone even longer. In high variance games, like Lowball and 7-Stud, these streaks can be even longer (by poker standards Texas Hold 'em (and certainly Omaha 8) is a pretty low-variance game, which is why the games can dry up so fast if there isn't a steady influx of new donators being introduced to the game). >>
t depends on the number of trials. In the short run, luck is the dominant factor. That's why guys like Robert Varkony, or Jerry Yang, can win the WSOP. In the long run, luck ceases to be a concern. What most people don't understand, however, is how long the 'short run' can be. It's very possible for a winning player to have a 300K hand break-even streak, which is something that strikes most new players as unbelievable. But I've personally had streaks of 50K hands where I'm no richer at the end than I was at the beginning, and I know other very compenent players who have streaks that have gone even longer. In high variance games, like Lowball and 7-Stud, these streaks can be even longer (by poker standards Texas Hold 'em (and certainly Omaha 8) is a pretty low-variance game, which is why the games can dry up so fast if there isn't a steady influx of new donators being introduced to the game).
------------------------- "Nothing is worth more than this day" Goethe
" In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." -- Richard Dawkins
Ya know Guy your sigline might actually be a good illustration of this - sometimes it's amazing how long random luck can last and of course random bad luck can last as well. I'm forgetting what the record is for consecutive reds on a roulette table, but I read in one of Scarne's books that he personally observed one time a run of 26 straight reds...amazing...of course if you happen to be betting on black, that would be another story. LOL
I watched on TV the run Jamie Gold had and I have probably played around a half million hands of live poker, and I never saw anyone that hot - just an amazing run of cards. Negreanu had a run similar to that over a number of tournaments, getting the right cards at the right time - and I know there's more to it than that and I basically agree with you about luck in the long-run, but ya know some people are born healthy and rich, and some are born deformed and poor - good luck or bad luck, but certain types of luck don't ever even out.
<< <i>stevek - I understand your mathematical premise very well about not being able to beat the rake (if the same 10 guys played at the same table ad infinitum, the money would eventually be gone). But I liken that statement to those made by the baseball sabrematicians about using your closer in the best situation possible late in the game, not just in the 9th inning. It makes all the sense in the world on paper and in the world of mathematics, but in real world, it doesn't make sense.
For 1/2NL, Poker Stars charges 5% rake for pots up to $60, and nothing for amounts over that. There are tens of thousands of winning live and internet poker players that are good enough to overcome those odds, and have been doing it for 5 or 6 years now.
And I disagree about the game being 90% or 98% luck. There's obviously no way to measure it, but I'd put luck somewhere in the ~80% range. Between playing correct starting hands in position, reading people and betting patterns, and post-flop play, there is enough skill involved to accuount for more than 2% or 10% of anyone's result. >>
Post a link to one, just one, website whereby over a course of some years anyone has proven to beat the game of raked online poker...just one...and please no hand history sites...anyone can have numerous hand history sites and only post the winning ones...proof would simply be an audited tax return by a reputable accounting firm with a letter signed by the accountant that the income came from playing online poker - very simple and easy to do yet not one time has it ever been done, and there's little need to wonder why.
An author of a popular best selling poker book approached me about this subject and I challenged him publicly in another forum to simply provide one example of audited documented proof as I requested. I'm still waiting. LOL
To put in in simple terms, the rake accumulates, hand after hand, day after day, year after year, and becomes a huge amount of money dwarfing most bankrolls by a large amount which is exactly why online poker players, all of them, eventually go broke - some can beat the other players, but none can beat the rake. There's variance in poker but the rake never varies...it accumulates like teaspoons of water and eventually becomes a raging flood washing away your bankroll. Those are the facts, cut and dried, and really quite obvious, although again...I'm happy to look at any PROOF to the contrary....no hearsay, no random posts from poker forums about gamblers bragging about their wins, no anything else other than the stone cold easy to do proof that I requested. And if you've got a better way of proving it, then I'd be happy to listen to that idea, but I don't know of a better way than the one I requested. So...no excuses, no reasons why any proof can't be done...just provide the proof or once again, this case is closed. >>
jlbsquared - Your "golden opportunity" to incinerate my point? Come on...where's a link...just one? LOL
Nam - Aw whatsamatter...arthritis set in and ya can't type on the keyboard? LOL
Come on gentlemen...at least let's hear some lame excuse as to why ya won't post a link...at least give us some pathetic reason why ya don't wanna respond....come on give us something here? I need a good laugh - How about another funny cartoon? Go ahead...call me a dirty name...something...anything? LOL
With all due respect, Steve, it's a little silly to ask people to post personal financial information on a message board in order to prove a point to a stranger on the other end of the connection. So far as I can see I would gain nothing by posting this information-- why do I care if you believe me or not? But, as you'll recall I offered you a wager about three years ago, whereby I would put up $1000, you would put up $500, and I would play 10,000 hands of poker at an online poker room of your choice. You pick the room, we both monitor the account, and we see where things stand after 10K hands. If I'm up, I take your $500 (and my winnings- obviously I would be responsible for my own stake). If I lose, you take my $1000.
If this deal sounds any better to you now than it did three years ago you can PM me and we can work out the details.
<< <i>With all due respect, Steve, it's a little silly to ask people to post personal financial information on a message board in order to prove a point to a stranger on the other end of the connection. So far as I can see I would gain nothing by posting this information-- why do I care if you believe me or not? But, as you'll recall I offered you a wager about three years ago, whereby I would put up $1000, you would put up $500, and I would play 10,000 hands of poker at an online poker room of your choice. You pick the room, we both monitor the account, and we see where things stand after 10K hands. If I'm up, I take your $500 (and my winnings- obviously I would be responsible for my own stake). If I lose, you take my $1000. If this deal sounds any better to you now than it did three years ago you can PM me and we can work out the details. >>
<< <i>With all due respect, Steve, it's a little silly to ask people to post personal financial information on a message board in order to prove a point to a stranger on the other end of the connection. So far as I can see I would gain nothing by posting this information-- why do I care if you believe me or not? But, as you'll recall I offered you a wager about three years ago, whereby I would put up $1000, you would put up $500, and I would play 10,000 hands of poker at an online poker room of your choice. You pick the room, we both monitor the account, and we see where things stand after 10K hands. If I'm up, I take your $500 (and my winnings- obviously I would be responsible for my own stake). If I lose, you take my $1000.
If this deal sounds any better to you now than it did three years ago you can PM me and we can work out the details. >>
And Guy if you recall I stated that I know that you have a wife and at least one child and I have no desire to take your money - I don't need the money that bad - I'm not saying $1,000 is peanuts to me, but it's not worth my time. It would give me no pleasure whatsoever to take money from you especially with you needing it for college and other things.
Guy I have no doubt that you are an excellent poker player, in fact right now if I cared to, I could over the weekend sit in on a local poker game and likely, very likely, win a few hundred dollars, possibly break even, or if I had an awful variance, lose some money. I was a very, VERY good poker player for the class I played in - but I just have no desire to do it anymore, no desire to take their money or take your money...it's just not worth it to me. I succeed very nicely in the world of business and that's where I get my "action" and I get a lot of action which gives me all the adrenaline rushes I need for the week.
Frankly, if unraked poker comes about, I think guys like you and even some others here like Lee will make a small fortune and perhaps even a large fortune because not only will you be better than the other players, many of whom will be newbies and home game players who won't do well with rapid internet play, you'll also not be giving away rake money to the poker website. There's simply too much luck involved in poker to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. But through increased skill over the other players, that small skill edge, you need to understand will now accumulate to the point where over say the course of a few years with patience and steady play, it can add up to a lot of money.
Guy, you know I have deep respect for you, and it wasn't me who regurgitated the thread but I couldn't help myself responding to it - seriously I get no pleasure in calling out good members here - affiliate commission members are what they are and there are tens of thousands of them and one thing that sustains me in recovery from gambling addiction is the Serenity Prayer of "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference" - I did not want to see a possible scammer here sucker in anybody to some scam signup program so I tried to change that, but I also realize I'm not gonna change what some people do here, especially the regulars - You may have noticed that when you and Lee discuss poker and other things i stay out of the way, because I think I have the "wisdom to know the difference" - you know I wish the best and continued success in your endeavors, and if you or Lee or anyone else want to call my comments a copout or whatever, then you're free to go right ahead and do so - I honestly couldn't care less, but I do sometimes enjoy the discussions depending on my mood, I admit it.
I am having more fun, much more fun, in my life staying gambling free than I ever did as a tired, desperate even when winning, adrenaline rush thrill, addicted gambler, and even winning addicted gamblers usually die young...just ask Chip Reese...or I'm sorry we can't ask Chip Reese who RIP recently died at the age of 56 - an addicted gambler as all full time poker pros are but Chip Reese was of course a winning one and one of the nice guys of poker. I have no desire to die at the age of 56. My dad's cousin was a professional gambler from Baltimore, mostly playing in private poker games, he died from a heart attack at the age of 42.
I guess it's all what we want out of life, and so as far as the Serenity Prayer is concerned, I still enjoy combating and it angers me in a motivational sense to see exploitation of people, especially young people, and it always did even in my gambling days. Poker of course is supposed to be a game of blood, but I usually felt bad at the end of the night taking money from poor poker players especially people living in apartment complexes who are struggling to pay their rent. Of course I always justified it by saying to myself if I don't take their money, then somebody else will, and of course having extra money in my pocket made me feel good,. but I'd always windup losing the money back in the stock market or racetrack or bookies anyway...so the winning poker money did me no good anyway. Look at Stu Ungar, perhaps the greatest card player of all time...most poker players know about his poker success...and most people don't know that he was basically unbeatable at gin rummy..and he died at the age of 45, dead broke mostly from sports betting.
It's interesting and I understand that affiliate commission members think they are so clever in enticing and luring people into online poker, and saying and doing almost anything to keep their customers, and if I was an affiliate commission member, which I never have been in any way, shape or form, in my gambling days I would have done the exact same thing...so don't think I don't for a second completely understand the behavior and not for a second do I think I'm better than anyone else here. But what is interesting is that I've found from what I've been told by a number of affiliate commission members, that they windup always losing back their commission money anyway to the gambling website...if it's not losing it back on poker then it's from sports betting, blackjack or other gambling games.
Well, I'll cut it off now before I windup writing a book here (LOL) and again...I truly wish you the best at college and in your new career in economics which I have no doubt that you will be a smashing success. And remember these words if rake free comes about, and you're making a small fortune or even a large fortune taking money off the fish, but possibly inadvertently neglecting your family a bit to earn some extra money playing just "one more hand" again and again - it doesn't do ya any good being the richest man in the graveyard.
<< <i>With all due respect, Steve, it's a little silly to ask people to post personal financial information on a message board in order to prove a point to a stranger on the other end of the connection. So far as I can see I would gain nothing by posting this information-- why do I care if you believe me or not? But, as you'll recall I offered you a wager about three years ago, whereby I would put up $1000, you would put up $500, and I would play 10,000 hands of poker at an online poker room of your choice. You pick the room, we both monitor the account, and we see where things stand after 10K hands. If I'm up, I take your $500 (and my winnings- obviously I would be responsible for my own stake). If I lose, you take my $1000. If this deal sounds any better to you now than it did three years ago you can PM me and we can work out the details. >>
I certainly cannot offer up definitive proof, but I know this..since my first two $200 deposits online were lost learning the game, I haven't put in single nickel after my third $200 deposit 5 years ago. I will conservatively estimate that over the years I have withdrawn 20x what I have deposited. As to the number of hands I've played, I'll estimate it at an average of 10 hours a week for 5 years. Since you can play about 50 hands/hour online, that works out to just shy of 130,000 hands played. And while the number of fishes left playing online (at least in the 1/2NL game I play) is around 10% (as opposed to the 40-50% during the poker boom 4-5 years ago), I promise you that I could continue to play at that pace for another 5 years and would NEVER come anywhere close to giving that money back.
So I will respectfully disagree with your premise that the rake can't be beat. The rake is only unbeatable in a world with a fixed number of players playing with a fixed amount of money.
<< <i>I certainly cannot offer up definitive proof, but I know this..since my first two $200 deposits online were lost learning the game, I haven't put in single nickel after my third $200 deposit 5 years ago. I will conservatively estimate that over the years I have withdrawn 20x what I have deposited. As to the number of hands I've played, I'll estimate it at an average of 10 hours a week for 5 years. Since you can play about 50 hands/hour online, that works out to just shy of 130,000 hands played. And while the number of fishes left playing online (at least in the 1/2NL game I play) is around 10% (as opposed to the 40-50% during the poker boom 4-5 years ago), I promise you that I could continue to play at that pace for another 5 years and would NEVER come anywhere close to giving that money back.
So I will respectfully disagree with your premise that the rake can't be beat. The rake is only unbeatable in a world with a fixed number of players playing with a fixed amount of money. >>
So then why not post the "definitive proof" after publicly making a claim such as this? You'd make much more money enticing players to signup on your affiliate commission program than you would at playing the game because you could then teach them your phenomenal poker skills, and while your customers won't mind being raked by the poker website because they are all eventually 20xing their bankrolls, your customers will in fact likely find joy in the fact that you are getting rich making upwards of 50% commission off their rake. Help me to understand...why not post the "definitive proof", why not be completely transparent and show the world that you are indeed a long term online poker winner, which could make you a lot more, a heckuva lot more money than what you're making now? Thank you and perhaps after reading your reply I'll signup on your affiliate link, resume gambling, and begin the journey to unlimited wealth or even just a cool $4,000 sounds good to me.
believe me Steve, I'd post the definite proof you've been asking for if I had a means to do so. Unfortunately, account history only goes back 2-3 months on most sites, and I didn't have the foresight to save screen shots or check stubs from the withdrawals I've made to prove my success on a web site message board.
I have no interest in signing people up for anything. My only interest is winning the debate on whether the rake can be beat. I've granted you that in a world of fixed players with a fixed amount of money, that the rake eventually wins - there is no debating that. However, in the real world there are always new players and/or new money, and that's where the premise falls apart. I, and probably tens of thousands of online players, can attest that the rake is (easily) beatable.
<< <i>believe me Steve, I'd post the definite proof you've been asking for if I had a means to do so. Unfortunately, account history only goes back 2-3 months on most sites, and I didn't have the foresight to save screen shots or check stubs from the withdrawals I've made to prove my success on a web site message board.
I have no interest in signing people up for anything. My only interest is winning the debate on whether the rake can be beat. I've granted you that in a world of fixed players with a fixed amount of money, that the rake eventually wins - there is no debating that. However, in the real world there are always new players and/or new money, and that's where the premise falls apart. I, and probably tens of thousands of online players, can attest that the rake is (easily) beatable. >>
It's interesting that you mention "tens of thousands" because for sure there are that many gambling website affiliate commission program members out there.
Here's another premise which can apply. I've never stated that an online player couldn't possibly be up some money after the time you've played. To illustrate - There is really no doubt that many, probably the majority of online poker tourneys are rigged for the house - Why do they do this...because they can, that's why. If tourney players believe with that the big tourneys they always enter, that the jackpot is truly paid out each time, then that would be extremely naive, but BTW there's no correlation between intelligence and gambling addiction, and Stu Ungar who had an extraordinarily high IQ, was by every definition an addicted gambler or some may say a compulsive gambler.
Naturally the gambling websites are gonna pay out some money, to spread the word on poker forums that one of their members hit the tourney jackpot, in order to suck-in other players into entering. However as mentioned previously, it is just too easy, child's play, to rig the RNG (dealt cards) and place house bots in position to win the tourney money. Perhaps on the accounting books the tourney money gets paid out...but it gets paid out to interests friendly or owned by the website owners. It's "funny" but not in a laughable way that some losers of the tourney will say that they "know" that it was a real person who won the tourney because they chatted with them while playing the game, as if a live person employed by the poker website couldn't simply be following what their house bots are doing, and just chat with the tourney players to have them believe the bot is a real player - really again...addicted gamblers who don't want to know, and affiliate program members who profit by trying their best to make sure addicted gamblers don't know.
Really...this is all so easy to understand except for an addicted gambler who doesn't want to know. Tourney cuts are already unbeatable in the long run if playing in too many tourneys and the proof of that is the poker tour in which it is a fact that the vast majority of those players are dead broke and in debt, and they only get the buy-in money because gambling websites or other gambling interests pony up the money for them. But let's say a gambling website, just for example sake, on a tourney running every week instead of paying out 52 times per year only pays out every other week 26 times per year...that would mean there's over a 50% house cut, and then players may as well just play the lottery and save time.
So...with that in mind...it is still possible for someone to take say $10 and win say $5,000 in a tourney, and if the player stays at micro limits for ring games, and infrequent small buy-ins with tourneys, then that 5K score could last a long time...but eventually it will be lost, especially because after hitting a jackpot, addicted gamblers by nature will begin betting larger amounts more frequently - all part of the addiction.
<< <i>believe me Steve, I'd post the definite proof you've been asking for if I had a means to do so. Unfortunately, account history only goes back 2-3 months on most sites, and I didn't have the foresight to save screen shots or check stubs from the withdrawals I've made to prove my success on a web site message board.
I have no interest in signing people up for anything. My only interest is winning the debate on whether the rake can be beat. I've granted you that in a world of fixed players with a fixed amount of money, that the rake eventually wins - there is no debating that. However, in the real world there are always new players and/or new money, and that's where the premise falls apart. I, and probably tens of thousands of online players, can attest that the rake is (easily) beatable. >>
It's interesting that you mention "tens of thousands" because for sure there are that many gambling website affiliate commission program members out there.
Here's another premise which can apply. I've never stated that an online player couldn't possibly be up some money after the time you've played. To illustrate - There is really no doubt that many, probably the majority of online poker tourneys are rigged for the house - Why do they do this...because they can, that's why. If tourney players believe with that the big tourneys they always enter, that the jackpot is truly paid out each time, then that would be extremely naive, but BTW there's no correlation between intelligence and gambling addiction, and Stu Ungar who had an extraordinarily high IQ, was by every definition an addicted gambler or some may say a compulsive gambler.
Naturally the gambling websites are gonna pay out some money, to spread the word on poker forums that one of their members hit the tourney jackpot, in order to suck-in other players into entering. However as mentioned previously, it is just too easy, child's play, to rig the RNG (dealt cards) and place house bots in position to win the tourney money. Perhaps on the accounting books the tourney money gets paid out...but it gets paid out to interests friendly or owned by the website owners. It's "funny" but not in a laughable way that some losers of the tourney will say that they "know" that it was a real person who won the tourney because they chatted with them while playing the game, as if a live person employed by the poker website couldn't simply be following what their house bots are doing, and just chat with the tourney players to have them believe the bot is a real player - really again...addicted gamblers who don't want to know, and affiliate program members who profit by trying their best to make sure addicted gamblers don't know.
Really...this is all so easy to understand except for an addicted gambler who doesn't want to know. Tourney cuts are already unbeatable in the long run if playing in too many tourneys and the proof of that is the poker tour in which it is a fact that the vast majority of those players are dead broke and in debt, and they only get the buy-in money because gambling websites or other gambling interests pony up the money for them. But let's say a gambling website, just for example sake, on a tourney running every week instead of paying out 52 times per year only pays out every other week 26 times per year...that would mean there's over a 50% house cut, and then players may as well just play the lottery and save time.
So...with that in mind...it is still possible for someone to take say $10 and win say $5,000 in a tourney, and if the player stays at micro limits for ring games, and infrequent small buy-ins with tourneys, then that 5K score could last a long time...but eventually it will be lost, especially because after hitting a jackpot, addicted gamblers by nature will begin betting larger amounts more frequently - all part of the addiction. >>
While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless.
<< <i>believe me Steve, I'd post the definite proof you've been asking for if I had a means to do so. Unfortunately, account history only goes back 2-3 months on most sites, and I didn't have the foresight to save screen shots or check stubs from the withdrawals I've made to prove my success on a web site message board.
I have no interest in signing people up for anything. My only interest is winning the debate on whether the rake can be beat. I've granted you that in a world of fixed players with a fixed amount of money, that the rake eventually wins - there is no debating that. However, in the real world there are always new players and/or new money, and that's where the premise falls apart. I, and probably tens of thousands of online players, can attest that the rake is (easily) beatable. >>
It's interesting that you mention "tens of thousands" because for sure there are that many gambling website affiliate commission program members out there.
Here's another premise which can apply. I've never stated that an online player couldn't possibly be up some money after the time you've played. To illustrate - There is really no doubt that many, probably the majority of online poker tourneys are rigged for the house - Why do they do this...because they can, that's why. If tourney players believe with that the big tourneys they always enter, that the jackpot is truly paid out each time, then that would be extremely naive, but BTW there's no correlation between intelligence and gambling addiction, and Stu Ungar who had an extraordinarily high IQ, was by every definition an addicted gambler or some may say a compulsive gambler.
Naturally the gambling websites are gonna pay out some money, to spread the word on poker forums that one of their members hit the tourney jackpot, in order to suck-in other players into entering. However as mentioned previously, it is just too easy, child's play, to rig the RNG (dealt cards) and place house bots in position to win the tourney money. Perhaps on the accounting books the tourney money gets paid out...but it gets paid out to interests friendly or owned by the website owners. It's "funny" but not in a laughable way that some losers of the tourney will say that they "know" that it was a real person who won the tourney because they chatted with them while playing the game, as if a live person employed by the poker website couldn't simply be following what their house bots are doing, and just chat with the tourney players to have them believe the bot is a real player - really again...addicted gamblers who don't want to know, and affiliate program members who profit by trying their best to make sure addicted gamblers don't know.
Really...this is all so easy to understand except for an addicted gambler who doesn't want to know. Tourney cuts are already unbeatable in the long run if playing in too many tourneys and the proof of that is the poker tour in which it is a fact that the vast majority of those players are dead broke and in debt, and they only get the buy-in money because gambling websites or other gambling interests pony up the money for them. But let's say a gambling website, just for example sake, on a tourney running every week instead of paying out 52 times per year only pays out every other week 26 times per year...that would mean there's over a 50% house cut, and then players may as well just play the lottery and save time.
So...with that in mind...it is still possible for someone to take say $10 and win say $5,000 in a tourney, and if the player stays at micro limits for ring games, and infrequent small buy-ins with tourneys, then that 5K score could last a long time...but eventually it will be lost, especially because after hitting a jackpot, addicted gamblers by nature will begin betting larger amounts more frequently - all part of the addiction. >>
BTW - if online poker gets legalized, all of the above crap goes away, rigged RNG goes away, house bots go away, cheating rings which are easily detected but gambling websites don't truly want to detect them, the cheating rings will go away, and I think rakes will go away, and also affiliate commission members will go away because commissions won't be paid on rake free games. The internet sites who are gonna do this...and it's obvious who they are...won't need affiliate commission programs...they are already huge and the word will spread in days if not hours, and they will be inundated with players, likely more, much more than some here realize - a lot more because people will be attracted to the game knowing it is now an honest game...and not the current pathetic, losing game for suckers which is the obvious state of online poker to anyone who looks at the facts.
<<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about.
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing.
Just remember poker is a game of money played with cards.You have to be aggressive for the first third of the tournament,then sit back and play ONLY the good hands. (remember the FLOP is 77% of your hand.If your pocket cards don't fit FOLD.)once you are at the final table DEFEND your blinds and try to bully anyone who has less chips than you. You must play aggressive in the final third. Good luck
<< <i>Just remember poker is a game of money played with cards.You have to be aggressive for the first third of the tournament,then sit back and play ONLY the good hands. (remember the FLOP is 77% of your hand.If your pocket cards don't fit FOLD.)once you are at the final table DEFEND your blinds and try to bully anyone who has less chips than you. You must play aggressive in the final third. Good luck >>
I disagree with having to be aggressive early. Blinds are usually small and there's usually too many willing to see the flop with marginal hands because a 3-4x BB bet pre is still a small bet, especially in a deep stack tourney. It really just depends on the number of starting chips and the blind structure. For instance, if you begin with 5K in chips and have 20 minute blinds starting at 25/50, you have plenty of time to be patient. I see too many people stacking off half of their chips trying to become the dominant one at the table. They keep getting caught while tossing out 200 bets trying to steal the 125 in blinds. Further, don't try to bully the short stacks too much by overbetting. If you're going to push them hard, you're usually pricing yourself into a call if they shove all-in. Be sure the hand you're pushing with is a hand you want to go to battle with.
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account.
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue. If, however, it's the stakes of the wager that concern you (either because they're too low or too high), then we can certainly adjust those. And we can even make a deal where the winner donates the money to charity, if that makes it more palatable for you.
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue.
Actually, Steve, I may reconsider-- just to put this issue to bed. What kind of financial proof were you looking for? I remember it involved tax returns, but I don't recall the details. Let me know. >>
Guy - We both know it's a stalemate at this point, no sense regurgitating it...but I would ask a new question to you that I asked in this thread...is if someone is trying to signup people on their affiliate commission program, and let's be honest, on your website there are "bonus whoring" type things which "in theory" could be beneficial to the player, but many of these affiliate commission hucksters out there are pitching the pretense that they are making money playing online poker in order to share their so-called skill and guide losing players into winners. And your site isn't "only" about bonus whoring - I've visited your site before.
There is no doubt in my mind about the 100% certainty of losing money in the long run playing raked online poker, but for argument sake let's say there were some winners, and let's say someone like yourself, which is true, placed a lot of time and effort into developing and running a website mainly designed to signup potential customers to gain profit off their play...Why on earth would you not be totally transparent, publicly, in order to have the best chances of enticing and luring potential customers. Frankly Guy, it just doesn't make sense...and this isn't anything new on my part looking for proof to help affirm credibility...this is often seen done by people in various "get rich" industries such as real estate, posting copies of their audited tax returns top prove credibility. Yet, I have never seen one, yes not one, affiliate commission website attempt to "properly" prove their claims.
So again...help me to understand...why put all that time and effort into a website, look for new customers, do all that hard work, and not do the obvious thing of being transparent with your stated winnings of over six figures. I mean come on Guy, and I know you won't get "insulted" like Lee did here when I was debating this point with him...don't take it personal because I make this same point for everyone not just you, and I think you clearly realize that. So again I ask...Why not post the proof, in my view nobody should have to ask for it...you're an obviously very intelligent individual, and you would have to know that doing this would be highly beneficial to your signup rates because losers want to signup with someone who can show them how to be a winner, otherwise they can just signup anywhere such as on the Cardplayer site or numerous other sites...why should they waste their time signing up with you if you can't really show them how to be a winner?
Come on Guy...you persisted in this point, so let's have a concrete answer, and I mean a concrete answer, otherwise, it's no sense continuing with this point because even though you are very intelligent and bring many interesting ideas to the forum, on this point, because of the desire for profit, I'm not sure there is any credibility. However, I have a feeling you anticipated this reply from me and you have something in mind to post to...so let's see it already.
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue.
Actually, Steve, I may reconsider-- just to put this issue to bed. What kind of financial proof were you looking for? I remember it involved tax returns, but I don't recall the details. Let me know. >>
Guy - We both know it's a stalemate at this point, no sense regurgitating it...but I would ask a new question to you that I asked in this thread...is if someone is trying to signup people on their affiliate commission program, and let's be honest, on your website there are "bonus whoring" type things which "in theory" could be beneficial to the player, but many of these affiliate commission hucksters out there are pitching the pretense that they are making money playing online poker in order to share their so-called skill and guide losing players into winners. And your site isn't "only" about bonus whoring - I've visited your site before.
There is no doubt in my mind about the 100% certainty of losing money in the long run playing raked online poker, but for argument sake let's say there were some winners, and let's say someone like yourself, which is true, placed a lot of time and effort into developing and running a website mainly designed to signup potential customers to gain profit off their play...Why on earth would you not be totally transparent, publicly, in order to have the best chances of enticing and luring potential customers. Frankly Guy, it just doesn't make sense...and this isn't anything new on my part looking for proof to help affirm credibility...this is often seen done by people in various "get rich" industries such as real estate, posting copies of their audited tax returns top prove credibility. Yet, I have never seen one, yes not one, affiliate commission website attempt to "properly" prove their claims.
So again...help me to understand...why put all that time and effort into a website, look for new customers, do all that hard work, and not do the obvious thing of being transparent with your stated winnings of over six figures. I mean come on Guy, and I know you won't get "insulted" like Lee did here when I was debating this point with him...don't take it personal because I make this same point for everyone not just you, and I think you clearly realize that. So again I ask...Why not post the proof, in my view nobody should have to ask for it...you're an obviously very intelligent individual, and you would have to know that doing this would be highly beneficial to your signup rates because losers want to signup with someone who can show them how to be a winner, otherwise they can just signup anywhere such as on the Cardplayer site or numerous other sites...why should they waste their time signing up with you if you can't really show them how to be a winner?
Come on Guy...you persisted in this point, so let's have a concrete answer, and I mean a concrete answer, otherwise, it's no sense continuing with this point because even though you are very intelligent and bring many interesting ideas to the forum, on this point, because of the desire for profit, I'm not sure there is any credibility. However, I have a feeling you anticipated this reply from me and you have something in mind to post to...so let's see it already. >>
Steve, you don't know the first thing about running a gambling portal.
First off, it's an incredible amount of work. My sister and I greatly underestimated the time and energy that we would have to put in to it in order to build an optimized site that ranked high in the SE's. For one thing, you simply can't have reciprocal links; you need backlinks to sites taht you yourself are not linked to. This means you need to build a THIRD site, a 'dummy' site that you link from, and agree to put links to others' sites on that site in exchange for a link to your main site. Then you need to negotiate placement of links and so forth with the other portal owner, because the page rank of your sites is different, etc. etc. etc. In other words, just managing your link exchanges is a full time job.
And that's only the beginning. You need to constantly provide to content, set up RSS feeds, and on and on. And even then you have no guarantee of success. You want to make me a quick $1000, Steve? Then do this-- bet me $1000 that I've never made more than $500 off any of the sites I'm affiliated with. You pick the site, I'll forward you the login info, and you can check the info yourself.
Third, if I wanted to make money off my website I would:
a) Have banner ads to online gambling sites on my home page and on my 2nd tier pages (I don't).
b) My 'lead article' wouldn't be one that announced that "The glory days are behind us, the fish have been cleaned, and what's left are a ton of multi-tabling grinders who are fighting over the few scraps" (I do).
c) I would have updated the website sometime in the past eighteen months (I haven't).
So enough of the portal BS. My sister and I built a website because we thought it would be fun, and it was, but we never made any money off of it and we've basically since abandoned it. That's the fact, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Second, we've reached a point where it's time to walk the walk. You don't think online poker can be beaten, and I know you're wrong. So, let's do the honorable thing: Let's each put our money where our mouths are and see what's what. And no more of this sancimonious crap about 'worrying about my family'. Trust me-- my family is not wanting for bread on the table.
In fact, Steve, I'll even make this concession: I know you're a recovering gambler, so it may not be fair to ask you to make a money bet. But let's do this: I'll play 10,000 hands of raked poker at an online site, and you can monitor the account and the hand histories. After the end of it, if I'm behind I vow to never butt in on another poker thread on the CU forums. If someone mentions poker, and you go on one of your tirades about how it can't be beaten, then I won't say a word. But if I'm ahead then YOU promise to never say another word about online poker, or otherwise share your theories about it's beatability, or (indirectly) call me a liar and a fraud by insisting that the stories of my winning are all a fantasy.
This should be a fantastic bet for you, since by taking it you guarantee that one of the CU board's most notorious gambling liars will forever be silenced. That is, I'll never, ever say anything that might compel another board member to try his hand at online poker. The more I think about it, in fact, the more I think you'll really be doing everyone hear a great favor by taking this 'fun bet', since by accepting you're essentially guaranteed of a) getting the last laugh (because online poker cannot be beaten), and b) doing that much more to ensure that nobody who visits these forums will be hoodwinked into signing up via one of my affiliate accounts. So, what say? Overall, if you're really that sure you're right then this sounds like a FANTASTIC deal for you and your cause.
If you haven't started playing on-line Poker, don't start now! The only thing I've found it good for is tournament play. The cash games, you'll end up losing in the long run, just as one of the articles describes. When I say it's good to play tournaments, I mean when it's snowing outside and you cant make it to the casino because of that. Otherwise, the "hands that are dealt" at times seem unbelievable. Cash games on that site, forget about it. You'll eventually lose to the house or some crazy ass that plays 2-7 vs your KK and hits trips. Simply, I don't trust the computers that deal the hands. I don't believe it's truly random, 100% of the time.
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue.
Actually, Steve, I may reconsider-- just to put this issue to bed. What kind of financial proof were you looking for? I remember it involved tax returns, but I don't recall the details. Let me know. >>
Guy - We both know it's a stalemate at this point, no sense regurgitating it...but I would ask a new question to you that I asked in this thread...is if someone is trying to signup people on their affiliate commission program, and let's be honest, on your website there are "bonus whoring" type things which "in theory" could be beneficial to the player, but many of these affiliate commission hucksters out there are pitching the pretense that they are making money playing online poker in order to share their so-called skill and guide losing players into winners. And your site isn't "only" about bonus whoring - I've visited your site before.
There is no doubt in my mind about the 100% certainty of losing money in the long run playing raked online poker, but for argument sake let's say there were some winners, and let's say someone like yourself, which is true, placed a lot of time and effort into developing and running a website mainly designed to signup potential customers to gain profit off their play...Why on earth would you not be totally transparent, publicly, in order to have the best chances of enticing and luring potential customers. Frankly Guy, it just doesn't make sense...and this isn't anything new on my part looking for proof to help affirm credibility...this is often seen done by people in various "get rich" industries such as real estate, posting copies of their audited tax returns top prove credibility. Yet, I have never seen one, yes not one, affiliate commission website attempt to "properly" prove their claims.
So again...help me to understand...why put all that time and effort into a website, look for new customers, do all that hard work, and not do the obvious thing of being transparent with your stated winnings of over six figures. I mean come on Guy, and I know you won't get "insulted" like Lee did here when I was debating this point with him...don't take it personal because I make this same point for everyone not just you, and I think you clearly realize that. So again I ask...Why not post the proof, in my view nobody should have to ask for it...you're an obviously very intelligent individual, and you would have to know that doing this would be highly beneficial to your signup rates because losers want to signup with someone who can show them how to be a winner, otherwise they can just signup anywhere such as on the Cardplayer site or numerous other sites...why should they waste their time signing up with you if you can't really show them how to be a winner?
Come on Guy...you persisted in this point, so let's have a concrete answer, and I mean a concrete answer, otherwise, it's no sense continuing with this point because even though you are very intelligent and bring many interesting ideas to the forum, on this point, because of the desire for profit, I'm not sure there is any credibility. However, I have a feeling you anticipated this reply from me and you have something in mind to post to...so let's see it already. >>
Steve, you don't know the first thing about running a gambling portal.
First off, it's an incredible amount of work. My sister and I greatly underestimated the time and energy that we would have to put in to it in order to build an optimized site that ranked high in the SE's. For one thing, you simply can't have reciprocal links; you need backlinks to sites taht you yourself are not linked to. This means you need to build a THIRD site, a 'dummy' site that you link from, and agree to put links to others' sites on that site in exchange for a link to your main site. Then you need to negotiate placement of links and so forth with the other portal owner, because the page rank of your sites is different, etc. etc. etc. In other words, just managing your link exchanges is a full time job.
And that's only the beginning. You need to constantly provide to content, set up RSS feeds, and on and on. And even then you have no guarantee of success. You want to make me a quick $1000, Steve? Then do this-- bet me $1000 that I've never made more than $500 off any of the sites I'm affiliated with. You pick the site, I'll forward you the login info, and you can check the info yourself.
Third, if I wanted to make money off my website I would:
a) Have banner ads to online gambling sites on my home page and on my 2nd tier pages (I don't).
b) My 'lead article' wouldn't be one that announced that "The glory days are behind us, the fish have been cleaned, and what's left are a ton of multi-tabling grinders who are fighting over the few scraps" (I do).
c) I would have updated the website sometime in the past eighteen months (I haven't).
So enough of the portal BS. My sister and I built a website because we thought it would be fun, and it was, but we never made any money off of it and we've basically since abandoned it. That's the fact, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Second, we've reached a point where it's time to walk the walk. You don't think online poker can be beaten, and I know you're wrong. So, let's do the honorable thing: Let's each put our money where our mouths are and see what's what. And no more of this sancimonious crap about 'worrying about my family'. Trust me-- my family is not wanting for bread on the table.
In fact, Steve, I'll even make this concession: I know you're a recovering gambler, so it may not be fair to ask you to make a money bet. But let's do this: I'll play 10,000 hands of raked poker at an online site, and you can monitor the account and the hand histories. After the end of it, if I'm behind I vow to never butt in on another poker thread on the CU forums. If someone mentions poker, and you go on one of your tirades about how it can't be beaten, then I won't say a word. But if I'm ahead then YOU promise to never say another word about online poker, or otherwise share your theories about it's beatability, or (indirectly) call me a liar and a fraud by insisting that the stories of my winning are all a fantasy.
This should be a fantastic bet for you, since by taking it you guarantee that one of the CU board's most notorious gambling liars will forever be silenced. That is, I'll never, ever say anything that might compel another board member to try his hand at online poker. The more I think about it, in fact, the more I think you'll really be doing everyone hear a great favor by taking this 'fun bet', since by accepting you're essentially guaranteed of a) getting the last laugh (because online poker cannot be beaten), and b) doing that much more to ensure that nobody who visits these forums will be hoodwinked into signing up via one of my affiliate accounts. So, what say? Overall, if you're really that sure you're right then this sounds like a FANTASTIC deal for you and your cause. >>
Guy - you sound angry, I'm guessing because you're basically checkmated on this point about the impossibility of beating the rake, and you know it. You remind me of the funny bits on Seinfeld where Kramer loses the "one-two-three-shoot" thing, and then always says "let's go two out of three" LOL
I just contacted the NFL commissioners office and asked if the Eagles could go two out of three with the Cardinals.
No two out of threes here Guy - you lost by using every excuse in the book not to post proof of your claims, and it's not just you, it's everyone else as well claiming to make money playing online poker, and any competent scientist would conclude from empirical observation alone of millions of online poker players, tens of thousands of affiliate commission members, and many hundreds if not thousands of poker based websites with affiliate links, the fact that nobody has come forth with documented and audited proof of their claims, clearly illustrates that online poker can't be beat...and this isn't even a close debatable call at this point...the facts are crystal clear, and I do mean crystal clear.
You already lost Guy - You should just admit it, and move on with your life...you'll feel better. And you've already admitted, and I believe you, that you stopped playing online poker. But why would anybody winning over $100,000 stop playing online poker? For some of those trifling reasons you gave? Come on Guy...you're better than this...but you either were addicted or still are addicted and the addiction doesn't want to admit defeat...the addiction wants action...and every Gamblers Anonymous member would fully understand your rationale on this. Of course you may try to spin the facts again or call me dirty names, or something...but I do understand this addiction and the addiction makes liars out of all of us, so the comments weren't personal...and I wasn't being sanctimonious with my other comments...that is truly sad that you took my comments about your family that way.
And just so you know, to enlighten you so to speak, just because you stopped gambling even for a length of time doesn't necessarily mean the addiction is gone. You can still be addicted and just not be gambling right now. In fact most psychiatrists would state that the addiction is never cured - I've never totally agreed that's true for everybody, but it likely is true for most. So be careful - this addiction could flair up again at any time in the future - it's best to stay vigilant towards this addiction.
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue.
Actually, Steve, I may reconsider-- just to put this issue to bed. What kind of financial proof were you looking for? I remember it involved tax returns, but I don't recall the details. Let me know. >>
Guy - We both know it's a stalemate at this point, no sense regurgitating it...but I would ask a new question to you that I asked in this thread...is if someone is trying to signup people on their affiliate commission program, and let's be honest, on your website there are "bonus whoring" type things which "in theory" could be beneficial to the player, but many of these affiliate commission hucksters out there are pitching the pretense that they are making money playing online poker in order to share their so-called skill and guide losing players into winners. And your site isn't "only" about bonus whoring - I've visited your site before.
There is no doubt in my mind about the 100% certainty of losing money in the long run playing raked online poker, but for argument sake let's say there were some winners, and let's say someone like yourself, which is true, placed a lot of time and effort into developing and running a website mainly designed to signup potential customers to gain profit off their play...Why on earth would you not be totally transparent, publicly, in order to have the best chances of enticing and luring potential customers. Frankly Guy, it just doesn't make sense...and this isn't anything new on my part looking for proof to help affirm credibility...this is often seen done by people in various "get rich" industries such as real estate, posting copies of their audited tax returns top prove credibility. Yet, I have never seen one, yes not one, affiliate commission website attempt to "properly" prove their claims.
So again...help me to understand...why put all that time and effort into a website, look for new customers, do all that hard work, and not do the obvious thing of being transparent with your stated winnings of over six figures. I mean come on Guy, and I know you won't get "insulted" like Lee did here when I was debating this point with him...don't take it personal because I make this same point for everyone not just you, and I think you clearly realize that. So again I ask...Why not post the proof, in my view nobody should have to ask for it...you're an obviously very intelligent individual, and you would have to know that doing this would be highly beneficial to your signup rates because losers want to signup with someone who can show them how to be a winner, otherwise they can just signup anywhere such as on the Cardplayer site or numerous other sites...why should they waste their time signing up with you if you can't really show them how to be a winner?
Come on Guy...you persisted in this point, so let's have a concrete answer, and I mean a concrete answer, otherwise, it's no sense continuing with this point because even though you are very intelligent and bring many interesting ideas to the forum, on this point, because of the desire for profit, I'm not sure there is any credibility. However, I have a feeling you anticipated this reply from me and you have something in mind to post to...so let's see it already. >>
Steve, you don't know the first thing about running a gambling portal.
First off, it's an incredible amount of work. My sister and I greatly underestimated the time and energy that we would have to put in to it in order to build an optimized site that ranked high in the SE's. For one thing, you simply can't have reciprocal links; you need backlinks to sites taht you yourself are not linked to. This means you need to build a THIRD site, a 'dummy' site that you link from, and agree to put links to others' sites on that site in exchange for a link to your main site. Then you need to negotiate placement of links and so forth with the other portal owner, because the page rank of your sites is different, etc. etc. etc. In other words, just managing your link exchanges is a full time job.
And that's only the beginning. You need to constantly provide to content, set up RSS feeds, and on and on. And even then you have no guarantee of success. You want to make me a quick $1000, Steve? Then do this-- bet me $1000 that I've never made more than $500 off any of the sites I'm affiliated with. You pick the site, I'll forward you the login info, and you can check the info yourself.
Third, if I wanted to make money off my website I would:
a) Have banner ads to online gambling sites on my home page and on my 2nd tier pages (I don't).
b) My 'lead article' wouldn't be one that announced that "The glory days are behind us, the fish have been cleaned, and what's left are a ton of multi-tabling grinders who are fighting over the few scraps" (I do).
c) I would have updated the website sometime in the past eighteen months (I haven't).
So enough of the portal BS. My sister and I built a website because we thought it would be fun, and it was, but we never made any money off of it and we've basically since abandoned it. That's the fact, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Second, we've reached a point where it's time to walk the walk. You don't think online poker can be beaten, and I know you're wrong. So, let's do the honorable thing: Let's each put our money where our mouths are and see what's what. And no more of this sancimonious crap about 'worrying about my family'. Trust me-- my family is not wanting for bread on the table.
In fact, Steve, I'll even make this concession: I know you're a recovering gambler, so it may not be fair to ask you to make a money bet. But let's do this: I'll play 10,000 hands of raked poker at an online site, and you can monitor the account and the hand histories. After the end of it, if I'm behind I vow to never butt in on another poker thread on the CU forums. If someone mentions poker, and you go on one of your tirades about how it can't be beaten, then I won't say a word. But if I'm ahead then YOU promise to never say another word about online poker, or otherwise share your theories about it's beatability, or (indirectly) call me a liar and a fraud by insisting that the stories of my winning are all a fantasy.
This should be a fantastic bet for you, since by taking it you guarantee that one of the CU board's most notorious gambling liars will forever be silenced. That is, I'll never, ever say anything that might compel another board member to try his hand at online poker. The more I think about it, in fact, the more I think you'll really be doing everyone hear a great favor by taking this 'fun bet', since by accepting you're essentially guaranteed of a) getting the last laugh (because online poker cannot be beaten), and b) doing that much more to ensure that nobody who visits these forums will be hoodwinked into signing up via one of my affiliate accounts. So, what say? Overall, if you're really that sure you're right then this sounds like a FANTASTIC deal for you and your cause. >>
Guy - you sound angry, I'm guessing because you're basically checkmated on this point about the impossibility of beating the rake, and you know it. You remind me of the funny bits on Seinfeld where Kramer loses the "one-two-three-shoot" thing, and then always says "let's go two out of three" LOL
I just contacted the NFL commissioners office and asked if the Eagles could go two out of three with the Cardinals.
No two out of threes here Guy - you lost by using every excuse in the book not to post proof of your claims, and it's not just you, it's everyone else as well claiming to make money playing online poker, and any competent scientist would conclude from empirical observation alone of millions of online poker players, tens of thousands of affiliate commission members, and many hundreds if not thousands of poker based websites with affiliate links, the fact that nobody has come forth with documented and audited proof of their claims, clearly illustrates that online poker can't be beat...and this isn't even a close debatable call at this point...the facts are crystal clear, and I do mean crystal clear.
You already lost Guy - You should just admit it, and move on with your life...you'll feel better. And you've already admitted, and I believe you, that you stopped playing online poker. But why would anybody winning over $100,000 stop playing online poker? For some of those trifling reasons you gave? Come on Guy...you're better than this...but you either were addicted or still are addicted and the addiction doesn't want to admit defeat...the addiction wants action...and every Gamblers Anonymous member would fully understand your rationale on this. Of course you may try to spin the facts again or call me dirty names, or something...but I do understand this addiction and the addiction makes liars out of all of us, so the comments weren't personal...and I wasn't being sanctimonious with my other comments...that is truly sad that you took my comments about your family that way.
And just so you know, to enlighten you so to speak, just because you stopped gambling even for a length of time doesn't necessarily mean the addiction is gone. You can still be addicted and just not be gambling right now. In fact most psychiatrists would state that the addiction is never cured - I've never totally agreed that's true for everybody, but it likely is true for most. So be careful - this addiction could flair up again at any time in the future - it's best to stay vigilant towards this addiction.
Steve >>
LOL. This is classic. Thank you, Steve, for (in my mind) putting this issue to bed. Like I said, this is a great bet for you-- all you have to do is sit back, watch me flail away for 10K hands, and then come back here and gloat over my failure. As a bonus I permanently shut up about all things gambling on this site, and your 'theories' about online gambling will be further confirmed. Do you want to 'really' help keep people here from getting suckered into online gambling? Then take my bet-- because nothing could be a better advertisement for your cause then to watch a 'so called expert' like myself publicly lose.
I think it's telling that in the proposal I set up for you there's positively no risk for you at all-- you only stand to win--- so long as you're correct. If you're wrong, of course, then you have to shut up, but that should be nothing more than an incidental concern to you.
Of course, there's a final catch, and that's the fact that if I can win you'll have to stare in the mirror and finally admit that the reason you were such a terrible gambler was not because 'the game can't be beaten', but because you lack the essentials to beat it. Maybe you're too obtuse, too stubborn, to emotional-- failed gamblers are like snowflakes, in that they come in all shapes and sizes. But if you had to sit there and watch someone succeed where you have so clearly failed I imagine that would be a huge blow to you. Also, it might tempt you to try again. Why not? Someone else could beat the game, so why can't you? Maybe it really was just bad luck the last time. Maybe this time it will be different.....
In any case, this horse is dead. I've given you a chance to load another bullet into your anti-gambling gun completely free of cost , and as the world can see you've had to back down. I've offered you a bet with nearly zero downside (assuming your ideas are correct), and yet you've had to shirk away. Real men walk the walk, Steve-- and I've got my shoes on. And as the rest of this board can see, you, mon ami, do not.
For now, I consider this the final testament on this topic. If anyone who frequents these boards still buys into your hot-air act after watching you back off this wager I've proposed then there isn't much more I can say that would convince them how wrong you clearly are. The final irony here, Steve, is that you've likely done more to entice someone to try online poker by refusing my bet than any one thousand self-professed 'winners' ever could do on their own!
As you may have figured by now, I tend to compartmentalize my Internet activities. You've been outed as a fraud here, in my estimation, but that will not prevent me from having cordial and (hopefully) entertaining exchanges with you on other topics here in the future. Just be advised that this is my last post on this topic, and that I will, at my discretion, link to this thread if this topic should arise again and I find this exchange of ours to be relevant.
Best to you and yours,
Guy
Edit: You raise a fair question about why I would quit after being up six figures. The reasons are as follows:
First, while I was up six figures it wasn't a 'big' six figures. I made between $19K and $28K every year I played poker, but I worked hard for those win rates, and as you can see it wasn't like I was breaking the bank.
Second, as I've said before I became convinced that the game was illegal in Michigan.
Third, playing that much poker brings a significant emotional toll. I won, but it was never easy, and I found it very difficult to deal with the swings.
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue.
Actually, Steve, I may reconsider-- just to put this issue to bed. What kind of financial proof were you looking for? I remember it involved tax returns, but I don't recall the details. Let me know. >>
Guy - We both know it's a stalemate at this point, no sense regurgitating it...but I would ask a new question to you that I asked in this thread...is if someone is trying to signup people on their affiliate commission program, and let's be honest, on your website there are "bonus whoring" type things which "in theory" could be beneficial to the player, but many of these affiliate commission hucksters out there are pitching the pretense that they are making money playing online poker in order to share their so-called skill and guide losing players into winners. And your site isn't "only" about bonus whoring - I've visited your site before.
There is no doubt in my mind about the 100% certainty of losing money in the long run playing raked online poker, but for argument sake let's say there were some winners, and let's say someone like yourself, which is true, placed a lot of time and effort into developing and running a website mainly designed to signup potential customers to gain profit off their play...Why on earth would you not be totally transparent, publicly, in order to have the best chances of enticing and luring potential customers. Frankly Guy, it just doesn't make sense...and this isn't anything new on my part looking for proof to help affirm credibility...this is often seen done by people in various "get rich" industries such as real estate, posting copies of their audited tax returns top prove credibility. Yet, I have never seen one, yes not one, affiliate commission website attempt to "properly" prove their claims.
So again...help me to understand...why put all that time and effort into a website, look for new customers, do all that hard work, and not do the obvious thing of being transparent with your stated winnings of over six figures. I mean come on Guy, and I know you won't get "insulted" like Lee did here when I was debating this point with him...don't take it personal because I make this same point for everyone not just you, and I think you clearly realize that. So again I ask...Why not post the proof, in my view nobody should have to ask for it...you're an obviously very intelligent individual, and you would have to know that doing this would be highly beneficial to your signup rates because losers want to signup with someone who can show them how to be a winner, otherwise they can just signup anywhere such as on the Cardplayer site or numerous other sites...why should they waste their time signing up with you if you can't really show them how to be a winner?
Come on Guy...you persisted in this point, so let's have a concrete answer, and I mean a concrete answer, otherwise, it's no sense continuing with this point because even though you are very intelligent and bring many interesting ideas to the forum, on this point, because of the desire for profit, I'm not sure there is any credibility. However, I have a feeling you anticipated this reply from me and you have something in mind to post to...so let's see it already. >>
Steve, you don't know the first thing about running a gambling portal.
First off, it's an incredible amount of work. My sister and I greatly underestimated the time and energy that we would have to put in to it in order to build an optimized site that ranked high in the SE's. For one thing, you simply can't have reciprocal links; you need backlinks to sites taht you yourself are not linked to. This means you need to build a THIRD site, a 'dummy' site that you link from, and agree to put links to others' sites on that site in exchange for a link to your main site. Then you need to negotiate placement of links and so forth with the other portal owner, because the page rank of your sites is different, etc. etc. etc. In other words, just managing your link exchanges is a full time job.
And that's only the beginning. You need to constantly provide to content, set up RSS feeds, and on and on. And even then you have no guarantee of success. You want to make me a quick $1000, Steve? Then do this-- bet me $1000 that I've never made more than $500 off any of the sites I'm affiliated with. You pick the site, I'll forward you the login info, and you can check the info yourself.
Third, if I wanted to make money off my website I would:
a) Have banner ads to online gambling sites on my home page and on my 2nd tier pages (I don't).
b) My 'lead article' wouldn't be one that announced that "The glory days are behind us, the fish have been cleaned, and what's left are a ton of multi-tabling grinders who are fighting over the few scraps" (I do).
c) I would have updated the website sometime in the past eighteen months (I haven't).
So enough of the portal BS. My sister and I built a website because we thought it would be fun, and it was, but we never made any money off of it and we've basically since abandoned it. That's the fact, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Second, we've reached a point where it's time to walk the walk. You don't think online poker can be beaten, and I know you're wrong. So, let's do the honorable thing: Let's each put our money where our mouths are and see what's what. And no more of this sancimonious crap about 'worrying about my family'. Trust me-- my family is not wanting for bread on the table.
In fact, Steve, I'll even make this concession: I know you're a recovering gambler, so it may not be fair to ask you to make a money bet. But let's do this: I'll play 10,000 hands of raked poker at an online site, and you can monitor the account and the hand histories. After the end of it, if I'm behind I vow to never butt in on another poker thread on the CU forums. If someone mentions poker, and you go on one of your tirades about how it can't be beaten, then I won't say a word. But if I'm ahead then YOU promise to never say another word about online poker, or otherwise share your theories about it's beatability, or (indirectly) call me a liar and a fraud by insisting that the stories of my winning are all a fantasy.
This should be a fantastic bet for you, since by taking it you guarantee that one of the CU board's most notorious gambling liars will forever be silenced. That is, I'll never, ever say anything that might compel another board member to try his hand at online poker. The more I think about it, in fact, the more I think you'll really be doing everyone hear a great favor by taking this 'fun bet', since by accepting you're essentially guaranteed of a) getting the last laugh (because online poker cannot be beaten), and b) doing that much more to ensure that nobody who visits these forums will be hoodwinked into signing up via one of my affiliate accounts. So, what say? Overall, if you're really that sure you're right then this sounds like a FANTASTIC deal for you and your cause. >>
Guy - you sound angry, I'm guessing because you're basically checkmated on this point about the impossibility of beating the rake, and you know it. You remind me of the funny bits on Seinfeld where Kramer loses the "one-two-three-shoot" thing, and then always says "let's go two out of three" LOL
I just contacted the NFL commissioners office and asked if the Eagles could go two out of three with the Cardinals.
No two out of threes here Guy - you lost by using every excuse in the book not to post proof of your claims, and it's not just you, it's everyone else as well claiming to make money playing online poker, and any competent scientist would conclude from empirical observation alone of millions of online poker players, tens of thousands of affiliate commission members, and many hundreds if not thousands of poker based websites with affiliate links, the fact that nobody has come forth with documented and audited proof of their claims, clearly illustrates that online poker can't be beat...and this isn't even a close debatable call at this point...the facts are crystal clear, and I do mean crystal clear.
You already lost Guy - You should just admit it, and move on with your life...you'll feel better. And you've already admitted, and I believe you, that you stopped playing online poker. But why would anybody winning over $100,000 stop playing online poker? For some of those trifling reasons you gave? Come on Guy...you're better than this...but you either were addicted or still are addicted and the addiction doesn't want to admit defeat...the addiction wants action...and every Gamblers Anonymous member would fully understand your rationale on this. Of course you may try to spin the facts again or call me dirty names, or something...but I do understand this addiction and the addiction makes liars out of all of us, so the comments weren't personal...and I wasn't being sanctimonious with my other comments...that is truly sad that you took my comments about your family that way.
And just so you know, to enlighten you so to speak, just because you stopped gambling even for a length of time doesn't necessarily mean the addiction is gone. You can still be addicted and just not be gambling right now. In fact most psychiatrists would state that the addiction is never cured - I've never totally agreed that's true for everybody, but it likely is true for most. So be careful - this addiction could flair up again at any time in the future - it's best to stay vigilant towards this addiction.
Steve >>
LOL. This is classic. Thank you, Steve, for (in my mind) putting this issue to bed. Like I said, this is a great bet for you-- all you have to do is sit back, watch me flail away for 10K hands, and then come back here and gloat over my failure. As a bonus I permanently shut up about all things gambling on this site, and your 'theories' about online gambling will be further confirmed. Do you want to 'really' help keep people here from getting suckered into online gambling? Then take my bet-- because nothing could be a better advertisement for your cause then to watch a 'so called expert' like myself publicly lose.
I think it's telling that in the proposal I set up for you there's positively no risk for you at all-- you only stand to win--- so long as you're correct. If you're wrong, of course, then you have to shut up, but that should be nothing more than an incidental concern to you.
Of course, there's a final catch, and that's the fact that if I can win you'll have to stare in the mirror and finally admit that the reason you were such a terrible gambler was not because 'the game can't be beaten', but because you lack the essentials to beat it. Maybe you're too obtuse, too stubborn, to emotional-- failed gamblers are like snowflakes, in that they come in all shapes and sizes. But if you had to sit there and watch someone succeed where you have so clearly failed I imagine that would be a huge blow to you. Also, it might tempt you to try again. Why not? Someone else could beat the game, so why can't you? Maybe it really was just bad luck the last time. Maybe this time it will be different.....
In any case, this horse is dead. I've given you a chance to load another bullet into your anti-gambling gun completely free of cost , and as the world can see you've had to back down. I've offered you a bet with nearly zero downside (assuming your ideas are correct), and yet you've had to shirk away. Real men walk the walk, Steve-- and I've got my shoes on. And as the rest of this board can see, you, mon ami, do not.
For now, I consider this the final testament on this topic. If anyone who frequents these boards still buys into your hot-air act after watching you back off this wager I've proposed then there isn't much more I can say that would convince them how wrong you clearly are. The final irony here, Steve, is that you've likely done more to entice someone to try online poker by refusing my bet than any one thousand self-professed 'winners' ever could do on their own!
As you may have figured by now, I tend to compartmentalize my Internet activities. You've been outed as a fraud here, in my estimation, but that will not prevent me from having cordial and (hopefully) entertaining exchanges with you on other topics here in the future. Just be advised that this is my last post on this topic, and that I will, at my discretion, link to this thread if this topic should arise again and I find this exchange of ours to be relevant.
Best to you and yours,
Guy
Edit: You raise a fair question about why I would quit after being up six figures. The reasons are as follows:
First, while I was up six figures it wasn't a 'big' six figures. I made between $19K and $28K every year I played poker, but I worked hard for those win rates, and as you can see it wasn't like I was breaking the bank.
Second, as I've said before I became convinced that the game was illegal in Michigan.
Third, playing that much poker brings a significant emotional toll. I won, but it was never easy, and I found it very difficult to deal with the swings.
Fourth, the competition became harder.
Hope that helps, Guy >>
Ahh - I knew the name calling was gonna come out and that's okay. Virtually all of your statements about me are incorrect and the sad thing is you know your statements are incorrect. I've mentioned to you a number of times that I've won money playing poker, that I was basically always successful at playing the game for the low stakes in which I played. I've also stated to you a number of times that I'd have no problem whatsoever in acknowledging that online poker can be beat, If someone would just prove it, just one person. Why would I care if a small percentage of online players win - it's still a highly addictive game and many thousands get devastated from it, and I could still succinctly make my points about gambling addiction.
No Guy, sorry to say on this subject for reasons I believe to be addiction, you've got your head buried deep in the sand and it's interesting because that's unlike you...you normally have an inquisitive mind, but again, frankly, you've got a lot to learn about understanding this addiction, and it is a complicated addiction.
You don't need me to try and prove your point, you don't need me to acknowledge some sort of silly bet, all you'd have to do is start a thread here, or start a thread with a link on your website to 2+2 or if they don't allow that, and you don't want to risk your affiliate members knowing that winning money at online poker is impossible, then just start a blog and post the link here, and I or anyone else can follow it if we so choose. I mean I have to give you these obvious ideas? Your whole premise about not wanting to do something because I won't "bet" with you, is just plain silly...no two ways about it.
I already know the facts are crystal clear and the conclusion is obvious to those without any bias - your bias is profit in the same way a used car salesman talks about how great of a car he's selling when he knows it's a lemon - you know online poker is a lemon, you know it's a sucker's game, but yet you persist in trying to fool people in the name of profit. Even though you've stated you haven't profited much as an affiliate commission member, I'm sure you believe and hope that it only takes one "whale" to signup on your affiliate website, perhaps a rich CU member here, and if that guy has $100,000 in rake for the year, you've just picked up a cool $50,000 for the year at a 50% commission rate...so you're not fooling me Guy, and I doubt if you're fooling many others here, except the other affiliate members here who will stickup for your bogus points about winning money playing online poker...because they have the same profit motive in mind.
I've heard more excuses from affiliate members for not posting the proper proof about their claims, than kids make up excuses for not doing their homework - Guy in my view you have sounded like a kid making excuses for not doing their homework...whether it's the profit motive, the addiction, it's something...and I think you're better than that no matter what you say about me in this thread...whatever it is, I sincerely hope that you overcome whatever it is causing the anger because that could lead back to the gambling and the devastation which accompanies it.
First, while I was up six figures it wasn't a 'big' six figures. I made between $19K and $28K every year I played poker, but I worked hard for those win rates, and as you can see it wasn't like I was breaking the bank.
Second, as I've said before I became convinced that the game was illegal in Michigan.
Third, playing that much poker brings a significant emotional toll. I won, but it was never easy, and I found it very difficult to deal with the swings.
Fourth, the competition became harder.
Boo - I think your #1, #3, and #4 points are the reason most people have given up the game. Mostly #3 and #4 though. Poker, like a lot things, was a fad (something ESPN should realize soon). The recreational player no longer takes the same enjoyment out of it, especially when they are the fish at the table getting their a$$ handed to them.
Steve - I certainly respect your anti-gambling stance, and generally enjoy your posts, but I've found your posts on poker to be way off-base. Your position about auditable proof is laughable, because so few people actually keep daily or weekly logs of their account activity, and you know there is no way for anybody to go back and retrieve it. Also, I'd be willing to bet that less than 1% of those that have ever posted on this forum on poker topics have an affiliate program, where they are raking in hundreds of dollars, and probably less than 10% even know they exist. Most people simply enjoy the game and want to talk about it, and have no alternative motives.
<< <i>First, while I was up six figures it wasn't a 'big' six figures. I made between $19K and $28K every year I played poker, but I worked hard for those win rates, and as you can see it wasn't like I was breaking the bank.
Second, as I've said before I became convinced that the game was illegal in Michigan.
Third, playing that much poker brings a significant emotional toll. I won, but it was never easy, and I found it very difficult to deal with the swings.
Fourth, the competition became harder.
Boo - I think your #1, #3, and #4 points are the reason most people have given up the game. Mostly #3 and #4 though. Poker, like a lot things, was a fad (something ESPN should realize soon). The recreational player no longer takes the same enjoyment out of it, especially when they are the fish at the table getting their a$$ handed to them.
Steve - I certainly respect your anti-gambling stance, and generally enjoy your posts, but I've found your posts on poker to be way off-base. Your position about auditable proof is laughable, because so few people actually keep daily or weekly logs of their account activity, and you know there is no way for anybody to go back and retrieve it. Also, I'd be willing to bet that less than 1% of those that have ever posted on this forum on poker topics have an affiliate program, where they are raking in hundreds of dollars, and probably less than 10% even know they exist. Most people simply enjoy the game and want to talk about it, and have no alternative motives.
/end thread >>
I believe I stated this before or at least implied it, I've got no problem with disagreements on my viewpoints, it's okay to disagree...and I've got no problems at all with gamblers...just to make it crystal clear...no problems at all with gamblers - it's the exploitation of gamblers that bugs me. But can't you see the deeper tone to Guy's post? I do because I was addicted to gambling, and that addiction could flare up again unless I remain vigilant towards the addiction. Guy may deny this, but in my opinion, he fits every classic definition of a gambling addict for a variety of reasons. The addiction is always looking for reasons and excuses to resume gambling again after a period of abstinence. Guy stated he hasn't played poker in quite some time, and the addiction doesn't like that one bit. Calling me out with his silly proposed bet which would accomplish nothing, is the addiction finding a reason to go back to playing online poker. His calling me out in order to resume gambling has nothing to do with me, and nothing to do with anything else other than the addiction.
Which is why addicts blame their wives for the gambling, blame family members and friends, blame any or all sort of circumstances...but the addiction can also flare up under the seemingly best of circumstances. Guy is studying hard in college to pursue his goal of a career in economics and I think that is wonderful. However, the addiction doesn't want that...the addiction tugs at him saying "Okay Guy let's give that online poker thing another good try, this economics crap is tedious and boring, let's go back to the action, the excitement, the constant adrenaline rush thrill of online poker, and maybe win a big tournament and perhaps get featured in poker magazines everywhere, if Chris Moneymaker can do it, then I can do it, because I know I can play poker better than him." - I expect Guy to laugh at this and that's okay, but he's knows it's the truth - I may not have all the reasons for his addiction right because I don't know Guy personally, but it's obvious to me the addiction is flaring up, raising it's ugly head, and hopefully Guy, with the knowledge he's hopefully gained from the posts here, he won't succumb to the addiction.
Go ahead Guy...give us a sarcastic "hallelujah" to my comments - LOL...but you know and I know it's the truth.
Comments
Rakes are beaten by all-in bets!
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
<< <i>
<< <i>stevek - I understand your mathematical premise very well about not being able to beat the rake (if the same 10 guys played at the same table ad infinitum, the money would eventually be gone). But I liken that statement to those made by the baseball sabrematicians about using your closer in the best situation possible late in the game, not just in the 9th inning. It makes all the sense in the world on paper and in the world of mathematics, but in real world, it doesn't make sense.
For 1/2NL, Poker Stars charges 5% rake for pots up to $60, and nothing for amounts over that. There are tens of thousands of winning live and internet poker players that are good enough to overcome those odds, and have been doing it for 5 or 6 years now.
And I disagree about the game being 90% or 98% luck. There's obviously no way to measure it, but I'd put luck somewhere in the ~80% range. Between playing correct starting hands in position, reading people and betting patterns, and post-flop play, there is enough skill involved to accuount for more than 2% or 10% of anyone's result. >>
It depends on the number of trials. In the short run, luck is the dominant factor. That's why guys like Robert Varkony, or Jerry Yang, can win the WSOP. In the long run, luck ceases to be a concern. What most people don't understand, however, is how long the 'short run' can be. It's very possible for a winning player to have a 300K hand break-even streak, which is something that strikes most new players as unbelievable. But I've personally had streaks of 50K hands where I'm no richer at the end than I was at the beginning, and I know other very compenent players who have streaks that have gone even longer. In high variance games, like Lowball and 7-Stud, these streaks can be even longer (by poker standards Texas Hold 'em (and certainly Omaha 8) is a pretty low-variance game, which is why the games can dry up so fast if there isn't a steady influx of new donators being introduced to the game). >>
t depends on the number of trials. In the short run, luck is the dominant factor. That's why guys like Robert Varkony, or Jerry Yang, can win the WSOP. In the long run, luck ceases to be a concern. What most people don't understand, however, is how long the 'short run' can be. It's very possible for a winning player to have a 300K hand break-even streak, which is something that strikes most new players as unbelievable. But I've personally had streaks of 50K hands where I'm no richer at the end than I was at the beginning, and I know other very compenent players who have streaks that have gone even longer. In high variance games, like Lowball and 7-Stud, these streaks can be even longer (by poker standards Texas Hold 'em (and certainly Omaha 8) is a pretty low-variance game, which is why the games can dry up so fast if there isn't a steady influx of new donators being introduced to the game).
-------------------------
"Nothing is worth more than this day"
Goethe
" In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."
-- Richard Dawkins
Ya know Guy your sigline might actually be a good illustration of this - sometimes it's amazing how long random luck can last and of course random bad luck can last as well. I'm forgetting what the record is for consecutive reds on a roulette table, but I read in one of Scarne's books that he personally observed one time a run of 26 straight reds...amazing...of course if you happen to be betting on black, that would be another story. LOL
I watched on TV the run Jamie Gold had and I have probably played around a half million hands of live poker, and I never saw anyone that hot - just an amazing run of cards. Negreanu had a run similar to that over a number of tournaments, getting the right cards at the right time - and I know there's more to it than that and I basically agree with you about luck in the long-run, but ya know some people are born healthy and rich, and some are born deformed and poor - good luck or bad luck, but certain types of luck don't ever even out.
<< <i>
<< <i>stevek - I understand your mathematical premise very well about not being able to beat the rake (if the same 10 guys played at the same table ad infinitum, the money would eventually be gone). But I liken that statement to those made by the baseball sabrematicians about using your closer in the best situation possible late in the game, not just in the 9th inning. It makes all the sense in the world on paper and in the world of mathematics, but in real world, it doesn't make sense.
For 1/2NL, Poker Stars charges 5% rake for pots up to $60, and nothing for amounts over that. There are tens of thousands of winning live and internet poker players that are good enough to overcome those odds, and have been doing it for 5 or 6 years now.
And I disagree about the game being 90% or 98% luck. There's obviously no way to measure it, but I'd put luck somewhere in the ~80% range. Between playing correct starting hands in position, reading people and betting patterns, and post-flop play, there is enough skill involved to accuount for more than 2% or 10% of anyone's result. >>
Post a link to one, just one, website whereby over a course of some years anyone has proven to beat the game of raked online poker...just one...and please no hand history sites...anyone can have numerous hand history sites and only post the winning ones...proof would simply be an audited tax return by a reputable accounting firm with a letter signed by the accountant that the income came from playing online poker - very simple and easy to do yet not one time has it ever been done, and there's little need to wonder why.
An author of a popular best selling poker book approached me about this subject and I challenged him publicly in another forum to simply provide one example of audited documented proof as I requested. I'm still waiting. LOL
To put in in simple terms, the rake accumulates, hand after hand, day after day, year after year, and becomes a huge amount of money dwarfing most bankrolls by a large amount which is exactly why online poker players, all of them, eventually go broke - some can beat the other players, but none can beat the rake. There's variance in poker but the rake never varies...it accumulates like teaspoons of water and eventually becomes a raging flood washing away your bankroll. Those are the facts, cut and dried, and really quite obvious, although again...I'm happy to look at any PROOF to the contrary....no hearsay, no random posts from poker forums about gamblers bragging about their wins, no anything else other than the stone cold easy to do proof that I requested. And if you've got a better way of proving it, then I'd be happy to listen to that idea, but I don't know of a better way than the one I requested. So...no excuses, no reasons why any proof can't be done...just provide the proof or once again, this case is closed. >>
jlbsquared - Your "golden opportunity" to incinerate my point? Come on...where's a link...just one? LOL
Nam - Aw whatsamatter...arthritis set in and ya can't type on the keyboard? LOL
Come on gentlemen...at least let's hear some lame excuse as to why ya won't post a link...at least give us some pathetic reason why ya don't wanna respond....come on give us something here? I need a good laugh - How about another funny cartoon? Go ahead...call me a dirty name...something...anything? LOL
If this deal sounds any better to you now than it did three years ago you can PM me and we can work out the details.
<< <i>With all due respect, Steve, it's a little silly to ask people to post personal financial information on a message board in order to prove a point to a stranger on the other end of the connection. So far as I can see I would gain nothing by posting this information-- why do I care if you believe me or not? But, as you'll recall I offered you a wager about three years ago, whereby I would put up $1000, you would put up $500, and I would play 10,000 hands of poker at an online poker room of your choice. You pick the room, we both monitor the account, and we see where things stand after 10K hands. If I'm up, I take your $500 (and my winnings- obviously I would be responsible for my own stake). If I lose, you take my $1000. If this deal sounds any better to you now than it did three years ago you can PM me and we can work out the details. >>
will the mute button be on or off?
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
<< <i>With all due respect, Steve, it's a little silly to ask people to post personal financial information on a message board in order to prove a point to a stranger on the other end of the connection. So far as I can see I would gain nothing by posting this information-- why do I care if you believe me or not? But, as you'll recall I offered you a wager about three years ago, whereby I would put up $1000, you would put up $500, and I would play 10,000 hands of poker at an online poker room of your choice. You pick the room, we both monitor the account, and we see where things stand after 10K hands. If I'm up, I take your $500 (and my winnings- obviously I would be responsible for my own stake). If I lose, you take my $1000.
If this deal sounds any better to you now than it did three years ago you can PM me and we can work out the details. >>
And Guy if you recall I stated that I know that you have a wife and at least one child and I have no desire to take your money - I don't need the money that bad - I'm not saying $1,000 is peanuts to me, but it's not worth my time. It would give me no pleasure whatsoever to take money from you especially with you needing it for college and other things.
Guy I have no doubt that you are an excellent poker player, in fact right now if I cared to, I could over the weekend sit in on a local poker game and likely, very likely, win a few hundred dollars, possibly break even, or if I had an awful variance, lose some money. I was a very, VERY good poker player for the class I played in - but I just have no desire to do it anymore, no desire to take their money or take your money...it's just not worth it to me. I succeed very nicely in the world of business and that's where I get my "action" and I get a lot of action which gives me all the adrenaline rushes I need for the week.
Frankly, if unraked poker comes about, I think guys like you and even some others here like Lee will make a small fortune and perhaps even a large fortune because not only will you be better than the other players, many of whom will be newbies and home game players who won't do well with rapid internet play, you'll also not be giving away rake money to the poker website. There's simply too much luck involved in poker to overcome the long term accumulative effects of the rake. But through increased skill over the other players, that small skill edge, you need to understand will now accumulate to the point where over say the course of a few years with patience and steady play, it can add up to a lot of money.
Guy, you know I have deep respect for you, and it wasn't me who regurgitated the thread but I couldn't help myself responding to it - seriously I get no pleasure in calling out good members here - affiliate commission members are what they are and there are tens of thousands of them and one thing that sustains me in recovery from gambling addiction is the Serenity Prayer of "God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference" - I did not want to see a possible scammer here sucker in anybody to some scam signup program so I tried to change that, but I also realize I'm not gonna change what some people do here, especially the regulars - You may have noticed that when you and Lee discuss poker and other things i stay out of the way, because I think I have the "wisdom to know the difference" - you know I wish the best and continued success in your endeavors, and if you or Lee or anyone else want to call my comments a copout or whatever, then you're free to go right ahead and do so - I honestly couldn't care less, but I do sometimes enjoy the discussions depending on my mood, I admit it.
I am having more fun, much more fun, in my life staying gambling free than I ever did as a tired, desperate even when winning, adrenaline rush thrill, addicted gambler, and even winning addicted gamblers usually die young...just ask Chip Reese...or I'm sorry we can't ask Chip Reese who RIP recently died at the age of 56 - an addicted gambler as all full time poker pros are but Chip Reese was of course a winning one and one of the nice guys of poker. I have no desire to die at the age of 56. My dad's cousin was a professional gambler from Baltimore, mostly playing in private poker games, he died from a heart attack at the age of 42.
I guess it's all what we want out of life, and so as far as the Serenity Prayer is concerned, I still enjoy combating and it angers me in a motivational sense to see exploitation of people, especially young people, and it always did even in my gambling days. Poker of course is supposed to be a game of blood, but I usually felt bad at the end of the night taking money from poor poker players especially people living in apartment complexes who are struggling to pay their rent. Of course I always justified it by saying to myself if I don't take their money, then somebody else will, and of course having extra money in my pocket made me feel good,. but I'd always windup losing the money back in the stock market or racetrack or bookies anyway...so the winning poker money did me no good anyway. Look at Stu Ungar, perhaps the greatest card player of all time...most poker players know about his poker success...and most people don't know that he was basically unbeatable at gin rummy..and he died at the age of 45, dead broke mostly from sports betting.
It's interesting and I understand that affiliate commission members think they are so clever in enticing and luring people into online poker, and saying and doing almost anything to keep their customers, and if I was an affiliate commission member, which I never have been in any way, shape or form, in my gambling days I would have done the exact same thing...so don't think I don't for a second completely understand the behavior and not for a second do I think I'm better than anyone else here. But what is interesting is that I've found from what I've been told by a number of affiliate commission members, that they windup always losing back their commission money anyway to the gambling website...if it's not losing it back on poker then it's from sports betting, blackjack or other gambling games.
Well, I'll cut it off now before I windup writing a book here (LOL) and again...I truly wish you the best at college and in your new career in economics which I have no doubt that you will be a smashing success. And remember these words if rake free comes about, and you're making a small fortune or even a large fortune taking money off the fish, but possibly inadvertently neglecting your family a bit to earn some extra money playing just "one more hand" again and again - it doesn't do ya any good being the richest man in the graveyard.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>With all due respect, Steve, it's a little silly to ask people to post personal financial information on a message board in order to prove a point to a stranger on the other end of the connection. So far as I can see I would gain nothing by posting this information-- why do I care if you believe me or not? But, as you'll recall I offered you a wager about three years ago, whereby I would put up $1000, you would put up $500, and I would play 10,000 hands of poker at an online poker room of your choice. You pick the room, we both monitor the account, and we see where things stand after 10K hands. If I'm up, I take your $500 (and my winnings- obviously I would be responsible for my own stake). If I lose, you take my $1000. If this deal sounds any better to you now than it did three years ago you can PM me and we can work out the details. >>
will the mute button be on or off?
rd
off
So I will respectfully disagree with your premise that the rake can't be beat. The rake is only unbeatable in a world with a fixed number of players playing with a fixed amount of money.
<< <i>I certainly cannot offer up definitive proof, but I know this..since my first two $200 deposits online were lost learning the game, I haven't put in single nickel after my third $200 deposit 5 years ago. I will conservatively estimate that over the years I have withdrawn 20x what I have deposited. As to the number of hands I've played, I'll estimate it at an average of 10 hours a week for 5 years. Since you can play about 50 hands/hour online, that works out to just shy of 130,000 hands played. And while the number of fishes left playing online (at least in the 1/2NL game I play) is around 10% (as opposed to the 40-50% during the poker boom 4-5 years ago), I promise you that I could continue to play at that pace for another 5 years and would NEVER come anywhere close to giving that money back.
So I will respectfully disagree with your premise that the rake can't be beat. The rake is only unbeatable in a world with a fixed number of players playing with a fixed amount of money. >>
So then why not post the "definitive proof" after publicly making a claim such as this? You'd make much more money enticing players to signup on your affiliate commission program than you would at playing the game because you could then teach them your phenomenal poker skills, and while your customers won't mind being raked by the poker website because they are all eventually 20xing their bankrolls, your customers will in fact likely find joy in the fact that you are getting rich making upwards of 50% commission off their rake. Help me to understand...why not post the "definitive proof", why not be completely transparent and show the world that you are indeed a long term online poker winner, which could make you a lot more, a heckuva lot more money than what you're making now? Thank you and perhaps after reading your reply I'll signup on your affiliate link, resume gambling, and begin the journey to unlimited wealth or even just a cool $4,000 sounds good to me.
I have no interest in signing people up for anything. My only interest is winning the debate on whether the rake can be beat. I've granted you that in a world of fixed players with a fixed amount of money, that the rake eventually wins - there is no debating that. However, in the real world there are always new players and/or new money, and that's where the premise falls apart. I, and probably tens of thousands of online players, can attest that the rake is (easily) beatable.
<< <i>believe me Steve, I'd post the definite proof you've been asking for if I had a means to do so. Unfortunately, account history only goes back 2-3 months on most sites, and I didn't have the foresight to save screen shots or check stubs from the withdrawals I've made to prove my success on a web site message board.
I have no interest in signing people up for anything. My only interest is winning the debate on whether the rake can be beat. I've granted you that in a world of fixed players with a fixed amount of money, that the rake eventually wins - there is no debating that. However, in the real world there are always new players and/or new money, and that's where the premise falls apart. I, and probably tens of thousands of online players, can attest that the rake is (easily) beatable. >>
It's interesting that you mention "tens of thousands" because for sure there are that many gambling website affiliate commission program members out there.
Here's another premise which can apply. I've never stated that an online player couldn't possibly be up some money after the time you've played. To illustrate - There is really no doubt that many, probably the majority of online poker tourneys are rigged for the house - Why do they do this...because they can, that's why. If tourney players believe with that the big tourneys they always enter, that the jackpot is truly paid out each time, then that would be extremely naive, but BTW there's no correlation between intelligence and gambling addiction, and Stu Ungar who had an extraordinarily high IQ, was by every definition an addicted gambler or some may say a compulsive gambler.
Naturally the gambling websites are gonna pay out some money, to spread the word on poker forums that one of their members hit the tourney jackpot, in order to suck-in other players into entering. However as mentioned previously, it is just too easy, child's play, to rig the RNG (dealt cards) and place house bots in position to win the tourney money. Perhaps on the accounting books the tourney money gets paid out...but it gets paid out to interests friendly or owned by the website owners. It's "funny" but not in a laughable way that some losers of the tourney will say that they "know" that it was a real person who won the tourney because they chatted with them while playing the game, as if a live person employed by the poker website couldn't simply be following what their house bots are doing, and just chat with the tourney players to have them believe the bot is a real player - really again...addicted gamblers who don't want to know, and affiliate program members who profit by trying their best to make sure addicted gamblers don't know.
Really...this is all so easy to understand except for an addicted gambler who doesn't want to know. Tourney cuts are already unbeatable in the long run if playing in too many tourneys and the proof of that is the poker tour in which it is a fact that the vast majority of those players are dead broke and in debt, and they only get the buy-in money because gambling websites or other gambling interests pony up the money for them. But let's say a gambling website, just for example sake, on a tourney running every week instead of paying out 52 times per year only pays out every other week 26 times per year...that would mean there's over a 50% house cut, and then players may as well just play the lottery and save time.
So...with that in mind...it is still possible for someone to take say $10 and win say $5,000 in a tourney, and if the player stays at micro limits for ring games, and infrequent small buy-ins with tourneys, then that 5K score could last a long time...but eventually it will be lost, especially because after hitting a jackpot, addicted gamblers by nature will begin betting larger amounts more frequently - all part of the addiction.
<< <i>
<< <i>believe me Steve, I'd post the definite proof you've been asking for if I had a means to do so. Unfortunately, account history only goes back 2-3 months on most sites, and I didn't have the foresight to save screen shots or check stubs from the withdrawals I've made to prove my success on a web site message board.
I have no interest in signing people up for anything. My only interest is winning the debate on whether the rake can be beat. I've granted you that in a world of fixed players with a fixed amount of money, that the rake eventually wins - there is no debating that. However, in the real world there are always new players and/or new money, and that's where the premise falls apart. I, and probably tens of thousands of online players, can attest that the rake is (easily) beatable. >>
It's interesting that you mention "tens of thousands" because for sure there are that many gambling website affiliate commission program members out there.
Here's another premise which can apply. I've never stated that an online player couldn't possibly be up some money after the time you've played. To illustrate - There is really no doubt that many, probably the majority of online poker tourneys are rigged for the house - Why do they do this...because they can, that's why. If tourney players believe with that the big tourneys they always enter, that the jackpot is truly paid out each time, then that would be extremely naive, but BTW there's no correlation between intelligence and gambling addiction, and Stu Ungar who had an extraordinarily high IQ, was by every definition an addicted gambler or some may say a compulsive gambler.
Naturally the gambling websites are gonna pay out some money, to spread the word on poker forums that one of their members hit the tourney jackpot, in order to suck-in other players into entering. However as mentioned previously, it is just too easy, child's play, to rig the RNG (dealt cards) and place house bots in position to win the tourney money. Perhaps on the accounting books the tourney money gets paid out...but it gets paid out to interests friendly or owned by the website owners. It's "funny" but not in a laughable way that some losers of the tourney will say that they "know" that it was a real person who won the tourney because they chatted with them while playing the game, as if a live person employed by the poker website couldn't simply be following what their house bots are doing, and just chat with the tourney players to have them believe the bot is a real player - really again...addicted gamblers who don't want to know, and affiliate program members who profit by trying their best to make sure addicted gamblers don't know.
Really...this is all so easy to understand except for an addicted gambler who doesn't want to know. Tourney cuts are already unbeatable in the long run if playing in too many tourneys and the proof of that is the poker tour in which it is a fact that the vast majority of those players are dead broke and in debt, and they only get the buy-in money because gambling websites or other gambling interests pony up the money for them. But let's say a gambling website, just for example sake, on a tourney running every week instead of paying out 52 times per year only pays out every other week 26 times per year...that would mean there's over a 50% house cut, and then players may as well just play the lottery and save time.
So...with that in mind...it is still possible for someone to take say $10 and win say $5,000 in a tourney, and if the player stays at micro limits for ring games, and infrequent small buy-ins with tourneys, then that 5K score could last a long time...but eventually it will be lost, especially because after hitting a jackpot, addicted gamblers by nature will begin betting larger amounts more frequently - all part of the addiction. >>
While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless.
<< <i>
<< <i>believe me Steve, I'd post the definite proof you've been asking for if I had a means to do so. Unfortunately, account history only goes back 2-3 months on most sites, and I didn't have the foresight to save screen shots or check stubs from the withdrawals I've made to prove my success on a web site message board.
I have no interest in signing people up for anything. My only interest is winning the debate on whether the rake can be beat. I've granted you that in a world of fixed players with a fixed amount of money, that the rake eventually wins - there is no debating that. However, in the real world there are always new players and/or new money, and that's where the premise falls apart. I, and probably tens of thousands of online players, can attest that the rake is (easily) beatable. >>
It's interesting that you mention "tens of thousands" because for sure there are that many gambling website affiliate commission program members out there.
Here's another premise which can apply. I've never stated that an online player couldn't possibly be up some money after the time you've played. To illustrate - There is really no doubt that many, probably the majority of online poker tourneys are rigged for the house - Why do they do this...because they can, that's why. If tourney players believe with that the big tourneys they always enter, that the jackpot is truly paid out each time, then that would be extremely naive, but BTW there's no correlation between intelligence and gambling addiction, and Stu Ungar who had an extraordinarily high IQ, was by every definition an addicted gambler or some may say a compulsive gambler.
Naturally the gambling websites are gonna pay out some money, to spread the word on poker forums that one of their members hit the tourney jackpot, in order to suck-in other players into entering. However as mentioned previously, it is just too easy, child's play, to rig the RNG (dealt cards) and place house bots in position to win the tourney money. Perhaps on the accounting books the tourney money gets paid out...but it gets paid out to interests friendly or owned by the website owners. It's "funny" but not in a laughable way that some losers of the tourney will say that they "know" that it was a real person who won the tourney because they chatted with them while playing the game, as if a live person employed by the poker website couldn't simply be following what their house bots are doing, and just chat with the tourney players to have them believe the bot is a real player - really again...addicted gamblers who don't want to know, and affiliate program members who profit by trying their best to make sure addicted gamblers don't know.
Really...this is all so easy to understand except for an addicted gambler who doesn't want to know. Tourney cuts are already unbeatable in the long run if playing in too many tourneys and the proof of that is the poker tour in which it is a fact that the vast majority of those players are dead broke and in debt, and they only get the buy-in money because gambling websites or other gambling interests pony up the money for them. But let's say a gambling website, just for example sake, on a tourney running every week instead of paying out 52 times per year only pays out every other week 26 times per year...that would mean there's over a 50% house cut, and then players may as well just play the lottery and save time.
So...with that in mind...it is still possible for someone to take say $10 and win say $5,000 in a tourney, and if the player stays at micro limits for ring games, and infrequent small buy-ins with tourneys, then that 5K score could last a long time...but eventually it will be lost, especially because after hitting a jackpot, addicted gamblers by nature will begin betting larger amounts more frequently - all part of the addiction. >>
BTW - if online poker gets legalized, all of the above crap goes away, rigged RNG goes away, house bots go away, cheating rings which are easily detected but gambling websites don't truly want to detect them, the cheating rings will go away, and I think rakes will go away, and also affiliate commission members will go away because commissions won't be paid on rake free games. The internet sites who are gonna do this...and it's obvious who they are...won't need affiliate commission programs...they are already huge and the word will spread in days if not hours, and they will be inundated with players, likely more, much more than some here realize - a lot more because people will be attracted to the game knowing it is now an honest game...and not the current pathetic, losing game for suckers which is the obvious state of online poker to anyone who looks at the facts.
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about.
Man o man! I've made 5 final tables in a row! since posting here! Maybe posting on this thread was lucky?
Cashed 3 (2 chopped, and 1 gave me my entry money back). And the other two? nothing but air!
rd
P.S. These are smaller NL tourneys (30 to 60 participants) (buy-ins: $120 to $200)
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing.
Stevek,
"seven out take the do's, pay the dont's!"
I had it backwards, I typed too fast (thanks for noticing my type-o!)... I do like & play craps. (and trust me, "I know the pass line!")
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
<< <i>Just remember poker is a game of money played with cards.You have to be aggressive for the first third of the tournament,then sit back and play ONLY the good hands. (remember the FLOP is 77% of your hand.If your pocket cards don't fit FOLD.)once you are at the final table DEFEND your blinds and try to bully anyone who has less chips than you. You must play aggressive in the final third. Good luck >>
I disagree with having to be aggressive early. Blinds are usually small and there's usually too many willing to see the flop with marginal hands because a 3-4x BB bet pre is still a small bet, especially in a deep stack tourney. It really just depends on the number of starting chips and the blind structure. For instance, if you begin with 5K in chips and have 20 minute blinds starting at 25/50, you have plenty of time to be patient. I see too many people stacking off half of their chips trying to become the dominant one at the table. They keep getting caught while tossing out 200 bets trying to steal the 125 in blinds. Further, don't try to bully the short stacks too much by overbetting. If you're going to push them hard, you're usually pricing yourself into a call if they shove all-in. Be sure the hand you're pushing with is a hand you want to go to battle with.
<< <i>
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue. If, however, it's the stakes of the wager that concern you (either because they're too low or too high), then we can certainly adjust those. And we can even make a deal where the winner donates the money to charity, if that makes it more palatable for you.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue.
Actually, Steve, I may reconsider-- just to put this issue to bed. What kind of financial proof were you looking for? I remember it involved tax returns, but I don't recall the details. Let me know. >>
Guy - We both know it's a stalemate at this point, no sense regurgitating it...but I would ask a new question to you that I asked in this thread...is if someone is trying to signup people on their affiliate commission program, and let's be honest, on your website there are "bonus whoring" type things which "in theory" could be beneficial to the player, but many of these affiliate commission hucksters out there are pitching the pretense that they are making money playing online poker in order to share their so-called skill and guide losing players into winners. And your site isn't "only" about bonus whoring - I've visited your site before.
There is no doubt in my mind about the 100% certainty of losing money in the long run playing raked online poker, but for argument sake let's say there were some winners, and let's say someone like yourself, which is true, placed a lot of time and effort into developing and running a website mainly designed to signup potential customers to gain profit off their play...Why on earth would you not be totally transparent, publicly, in order to have the best chances of enticing and luring potential customers. Frankly Guy, it just doesn't make sense...and this isn't anything new on my part looking for proof to help affirm credibility...this is often seen done by people in various "get rich" industries such as real estate, posting copies of their audited tax returns top prove credibility. Yet, I have never seen one, yes not one, affiliate commission website attempt to "properly" prove their claims.
So again...help me to understand...why put all that time and effort into a website, look for new customers, do all that hard work, and not do the obvious thing of being transparent with your stated winnings of over six figures. I mean come on Guy, and I know you won't get "insulted" like Lee did here when I was debating this point with him...don't take it personal because I make this same point for everyone not just you, and I think you clearly realize that. So again I ask...Why not post the proof, in my view nobody should have to ask for it...you're an obviously very intelligent individual, and you would have to know that doing this would be highly beneficial to your signup rates because losers want to signup with someone who can show them how to be a winner, otherwise they can just signup anywhere such as on the Cardplayer site or numerous other sites...why should they waste their time signing up with you if you can't really show them how to be a winner?
Come on Guy...you persisted in this point, so let's have a concrete answer, and I mean a concrete answer, otherwise, it's no sense continuing with this point because even though you are very intelligent and bring many interesting ideas to the forum, on this point, because of the desire for profit, I'm not sure there is any credibility. However, I have a feeling you anticipated this reply from me and you have something in mind to post to...so let's see it already.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue.
Actually, Steve, I may reconsider-- just to put this issue to bed. What kind of financial proof were you looking for? I remember it involved tax returns, but I don't recall the details. Let me know. >>
Guy - We both know it's a stalemate at this point, no sense regurgitating it...but I would ask a new question to you that I asked in this thread...is if someone is trying to signup people on their affiliate commission program, and let's be honest, on your website there are "bonus whoring" type things which "in theory" could be beneficial to the player, but many of these affiliate commission hucksters out there are pitching the pretense that they are making money playing online poker in order to share their so-called skill and guide losing players into winners. And your site isn't "only" about bonus whoring - I've visited your site before.
There is no doubt in my mind about the 100% certainty of losing money in the long run playing raked online poker, but for argument sake let's say there were some winners, and let's say someone like yourself, which is true, placed a lot of time and effort into developing and running a website mainly designed to signup potential customers to gain profit off their play...Why on earth would you not be totally transparent, publicly, in order to have the best chances of enticing and luring potential customers. Frankly Guy, it just doesn't make sense...and this isn't anything new on my part looking for proof to help affirm credibility...this is often seen done by people in various "get rich" industries such as real estate, posting copies of their audited tax returns top prove credibility. Yet, I have never seen one, yes not one, affiliate commission website attempt to "properly" prove their claims.
So again...help me to understand...why put all that time and effort into a website, look for new customers, do all that hard work, and not do the obvious thing of being transparent with your stated winnings of over six figures. I mean come on Guy, and I know you won't get "insulted" like Lee did here when I was debating this point with him...don't take it personal because I make this same point for everyone not just you, and I think you clearly realize that. So again I ask...Why not post the proof, in my view nobody should have to ask for it...you're an obviously very intelligent individual, and you would have to know that doing this would be highly beneficial to your signup rates because losers want to signup with someone who can show them how to be a winner, otherwise they can just signup anywhere such as on the Cardplayer site or numerous other sites...why should they waste their time signing up with you if you can't really show them how to be a winner?
Come on Guy...you persisted in this point, so let's have a concrete answer, and I mean a concrete answer, otherwise, it's no sense continuing with this point because even though you are very intelligent and bring many interesting ideas to the forum, on this point, because of the desire for profit, I'm not sure there is any credibility. However, I have a feeling you anticipated this reply from me and you have something in mind to post to...so let's see it already.
Steve, you don't know the first thing about running a gambling portal.
First off, it's an incredible amount of work. My sister and I greatly underestimated the time and energy that we would have to put in to it in order to build an optimized site that ranked high in the SE's. For one thing, you simply can't have reciprocal links; you need backlinks to sites taht you yourself are not linked to. This means you need to build a THIRD site, a 'dummy' site that you link from, and agree to put links to others' sites on that site in exchange for a link to your main site. Then you need to negotiate placement of links and so forth with the other portal owner, because the page rank of your sites is different, etc. etc. etc. In other words, just managing your link exchanges is a full time job.
And that's only the beginning. You need to constantly provide to content, set up RSS feeds, and on and on. And even then you have no guarantee of success. You want to make me a quick $1000, Steve? Then do this-- bet me $1000 that I've never made more than $500 off any of the sites I'm affiliated with. You pick the site, I'll forward you the login info, and you can check the info yourself.
Third, if I wanted to make money off my website I would:
a) Have banner ads to online gambling sites on my home page and on my 2nd tier pages (I don't).
b) My 'lead article' wouldn't be one that announced that "The glory days are behind us, the fish have been cleaned, and what's left are a ton of multi-tabling grinders who are fighting over the few scraps" (I do).
c) I would have updated the website sometime in the past eighteen months (I haven't).
So enough of the portal BS. My sister and I built a website because we thought it would be fun, and it was, but we never made any money off of it and we've basically since abandoned it. That's the fact, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Second, we've reached a point where it's time to walk the walk. You don't think online poker can be beaten, and I know you're wrong. So, let's do the honorable thing: Let's each put our money where our mouths are and see what's what. And no more of this sancimonious crap about 'worrying about my family'. Trust me-- my family is not wanting for bread on the table.
In fact, Steve, I'll even make this concession: I know you're a recovering gambler, so it may not be fair to ask you to make a money bet. But let's do this: I'll play 10,000 hands of raked poker at an online site, and you can monitor the account and the hand histories. After the end of it, if I'm behind I vow to never butt in on another poker thread on the CU forums. If someone mentions poker, and you go on one of your tirades about how it can't be beaten, then I won't say a word. But if I'm ahead then YOU promise to never say another word about online poker, or otherwise share your theories about it's beatability, or (indirectly) call me a liar and a fraud by insisting that the stories of my winning are all a fantasy.
This should be a fantastic bet for you, since by taking it you guarantee that one of the CU board's most notorious gambling liars will forever be silenced. That is, I'll never, ever say anything that might compel another board member to try his hand at online poker. The more I think about it, in fact, the more I think you'll really be doing everyone hear a great favor by taking this 'fun bet', since by accepting you're essentially guaranteed of a) getting the last laugh (because online poker cannot be beaten), and b) doing that much more to ensure that nobody who visits these forums will be hoodwinked into signing up via one of my affiliate accounts. So, what say? Overall, if you're really that sure you're right then this sounds like a FANTASTIC deal for you and your cause.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue.
Actually, Steve, I may reconsider-- just to put this issue to bed. What kind of financial proof were you looking for? I remember it involved tax returns, but I don't recall the details. Let me know. >>
Guy - We both know it's a stalemate at this point, no sense regurgitating it...but I would ask a new question to you that I asked in this thread...is if someone is trying to signup people on their affiliate commission program, and let's be honest, on your website there are "bonus whoring" type things which "in theory" could be beneficial to the player, but many of these affiliate commission hucksters out there are pitching the pretense that they are making money playing online poker in order to share their so-called skill and guide losing players into winners. And your site isn't "only" about bonus whoring - I've visited your site before.
There is no doubt in my mind about the 100% certainty of losing money in the long run playing raked online poker, but for argument sake let's say there were some winners, and let's say someone like yourself, which is true, placed a lot of time and effort into developing and running a website mainly designed to signup potential customers to gain profit off their play...Why on earth would you not be totally transparent, publicly, in order to have the best chances of enticing and luring potential customers. Frankly Guy, it just doesn't make sense...and this isn't anything new on my part looking for proof to help affirm credibility...this is often seen done by people in various "get rich" industries such as real estate, posting copies of their audited tax returns top prove credibility. Yet, I have never seen one, yes not one, affiliate commission website attempt to "properly" prove their claims.
So again...help me to understand...why put all that time and effort into a website, look for new customers, do all that hard work, and not do the obvious thing of being transparent with your stated winnings of over six figures. I mean come on Guy, and I know you won't get "insulted" like Lee did here when I was debating this point with him...don't take it personal because I make this same point for everyone not just you, and I think you clearly realize that. So again I ask...Why not post the proof, in my view nobody should have to ask for it...you're an obviously very intelligent individual, and you would have to know that doing this would be highly beneficial to your signup rates because losers want to signup with someone who can show them how to be a winner, otherwise they can just signup anywhere such as on the Cardplayer site or numerous other sites...why should they waste their time signing up with you if you can't really show them how to be a winner?
Come on Guy...you persisted in this point, so let's have a concrete answer, and I mean a concrete answer, otherwise, it's no sense continuing with this point because even though you are very intelligent and bring many interesting ideas to the forum, on this point, because of the desire for profit, I'm not sure there is any credibility. However, I have a feeling you anticipated this reply from me and you have something in mind to post to...so let's see it already.
Steve, you don't know the first thing about running a gambling portal.
First off, it's an incredible amount of work. My sister and I greatly underestimated the time and energy that we would have to put in to it in order to build an optimized site that ranked high in the SE's. For one thing, you simply can't have reciprocal links; you need backlinks to sites taht you yourself are not linked to. This means you need to build a THIRD site, a 'dummy' site that you link from, and agree to put links to others' sites on that site in exchange for a link to your main site. Then you need to negotiate placement of links and so forth with the other portal owner, because the page rank of your sites is different, etc. etc. etc. In other words, just managing your link exchanges is a full time job.
And that's only the beginning. You need to constantly provide to content, set up RSS feeds, and on and on. And even then you have no guarantee of success. You want to make me a quick $1000, Steve? Then do this-- bet me $1000 that I've never made more than $500 off any of the sites I'm affiliated with. You pick the site, I'll forward you the login info, and you can check the info yourself.
Third, if I wanted to make money off my website I would:
a) Have banner ads to online gambling sites on my home page and on my 2nd tier pages (I don't).
b) My 'lead article' wouldn't be one that announced that "The glory days are behind us, the fish have been cleaned, and what's left are a ton of multi-tabling grinders who are fighting over the few scraps" (I do).
c) I would have updated the website sometime in the past eighteen months (I haven't).
So enough of the portal BS. My sister and I built a website because we thought it would be fun, and it was, but we never made any money off of it and we've basically since abandoned it. That's the fact, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Second, we've reached a point where it's time to walk the walk. You don't think online poker can be beaten, and I know you're wrong. So, let's do the honorable thing: Let's each put our money where our mouths are and see what's what. And no more of this sancimonious crap about 'worrying about my family'. Trust me-- my family is not wanting for bread on the table.
In fact, Steve, I'll even make this concession: I know you're a recovering gambler, so it may not be fair to ask you to make a money bet. But let's do this: I'll play 10,000 hands of raked poker at an online site, and you can monitor the account and the hand histories. After the end of it, if I'm behind I vow to never butt in on another poker thread on the CU forums. If someone mentions poker, and you go on one of your tirades about how it can't be beaten, then I won't say a word. But if I'm ahead then YOU promise to never say another word about online poker, or otherwise share your theories about it's beatability, or (indirectly) call me a liar and a fraud by insisting that the stories of my winning are all a fantasy.
This should be a fantastic bet for you, since by taking it you guarantee that one of the CU board's most notorious gambling liars will forever be silenced. That is, I'll never, ever say anything that might compel another board member to try his hand at online poker. The more I think about it, in fact, the more I think you'll really be doing everyone hear a great favor by taking this 'fun bet', since by accepting you're essentially guaranteed of a) getting the last laugh (because online poker cannot be beaten), and b) doing that much more to ensure that nobody who visits these forums will be hoodwinked into signing up via one of my affiliate accounts. So, what say? Overall, if you're really that sure you're right then this sounds like a FANTASTIC deal for you and your cause. >>
Guy - you sound angry, I'm guessing because you're basically checkmated on this point about the impossibility of beating the rake, and you know it. You remind me of the funny bits on Seinfeld where Kramer loses the "one-two-three-shoot" thing, and then always says "let's go two out of three" LOL
I just contacted the NFL commissioners office and asked if the Eagles could go two out of three with the Cardinals.
No two out of threes here Guy - you lost by using every excuse in the book not to post proof of your claims, and it's not just you, it's everyone else as well claiming to make money playing online poker, and any competent scientist would conclude from empirical observation alone of millions of online poker players, tens of thousands of affiliate commission members, and many hundreds if not thousands of poker based websites with affiliate links, the fact that nobody has come forth with documented and audited proof of their claims, clearly illustrates that online poker can't be beat...and this isn't even a close debatable call at this point...the facts are crystal clear, and I do mean crystal clear.
You already lost Guy - You should just admit it, and move on with your life...you'll feel better. And you've already admitted, and I believe you, that you stopped playing online poker. But why would anybody winning over $100,000 stop playing online poker? For some of those trifling reasons you gave? Come on Guy...you're better than this...but you either were addicted or still are addicted and the addiction doesn't want to admit defeat...the addiction wants action...and every Gamblers Anonymous member would fully understand your rationale on this. Of course you may try to spin the facts again or call me dirty names, or something...but I do understand this addiction and the addiction makes liars out of all of us, so the comments weren't personal...and I wasn't being sanctimonious with my other comments...that is truly sad that you took my comments about your family that way.
And just so you know, to enlighten you so to speak, just because you stopped gambling even for a length of time doesn't necessarily mean the addiction is gone. You can still be addicted and just not be gambling right now. In fact most psychiatrists would state that the addiction is never cured - I've never totally agreed that's true for everybody, but it likely is true for most. So be careful - this addiction could flair up again at any time in the future - it's best to stay vigilant towards this addiction.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue.
Actually, Steve, I may reconsider-- just to put this issue to bed. What kind of financial proof were you looking for? I remember it involved tax returns, but I don't recall the details. Let me know. >>
Guy - We both know it's a stalemate at this point, no sense regurgitating it...but I would ask a new question to you that I asked in this thread...is if someone is trying to signup people on their affiliate commission program, and let's be honest, on your website there are "bonus whoring" type things which "in theory" could be beneficial to the player, but many of these affiliate commission hucksters out there are pitching the pretense that they are making money playing online poker in order to share their so-called skill and guide losing players into winners. And your site isn't "only" about bonus whoring - I've visited your site before.
There is no doubt in my mind about the 100% certainty of losing money in the long run playing raked online poker, but for argument sake let's say there were some winners, and let's say someone like yourself, which is true, placed a lot of time and effort into developing and running a website mainly designed to signup potential customers to gain profit off their play...Why on earth would you not be totally transparent, publicly, in order to have the best chances of enticing and luring potential customers. Frankly Guy, it just doesn't make sense...and this isn't anything new on my part looking for proof to help affirm credibility...this is often seen done by people in various "get rich" industries such as real estate, posting copies of their audited tax returns top prove credibility. Yet, I have never seen one, yes not one, affiliate commission website attempt to "properly" prove their claims.
So again...help me to understand...why put all that time and effort into a website, look for new customers, do all that hard work, and not do the obvious thing of being transparent with your stated winnings of over six figures. I mean come on Guy, and I know you won't get "insulted" like Lee did here when I was debating this point with him...don't take it personal because I make this same point for everyone not just you, and I think you clearly realize that. So again I ask...Why not post the proof, in my view nobody should have to ask for it...you're an obviously very intelligent individual, and you would have to know that doing this would be highly beneficial to your signup rates because losers want to signup with someone who can show them how to be a winner, otherwise they can just signup anywhere such as on the Cardplayer site or numerous other sites...why should they waste their time signing up with you if you can't really show them how to be a winner?
Come on Guy...you persisted in this point, so let's have a concrete answer, and I mean a concrete answer, otherwise, it's no sense continuing with this point because even though you are very intelligent and bring many interesting ideas to the forum, on this point, because of the desire for profit, I'm not sure there is any credibility. However, I have a feeling you anticipated this reply from me and you have something in mind to post to...so let's see it already.
Steve, you don't know the first thing about running a gambling portal.
First off, it's an incredible amount of work. My sister and I greatly underestimated the time and energy that we would have to put in to it in order to build an optimized site that ranked high in the SE's. For one thing, you simply can't have reciprocal links; you need backlinks to sites taht you yourself are not linked to. This means you need to build a THIRD site, a 'dummy' site that you link from, and agree to put links to others' sites on that site in exchange for a link to your main site. Then you need to negotiate placement of links and so forth with the other portal owner, because the page rank of your sites is different, etc. etc. etc. In other words, just managing your link exchanges is a full time job.
And that's only the beginning. You need to constantly provide to content, set up RSS feeds, and on and on. And even then you have no guarantee of success. You want to make me a quick $1000, Steve? Then do this-- bet me $1000 that I've never made more than $500 off any of the sites I'm affiliated with. You pick the site, I'll forward you the login info, and you can check the info yourself.
Third, if I wanted to make money off my website I would:
a) Have banner ads to online gambling sites on my home page and on my 2nd tier pages (I don't).
b) My 'lead article' wouldn't be one that announced that "The glory days are behind us, the fish have been cleaned, and what's left are a ton of multi-tabling grinders who are fighting over the few scraps" (I do).
c) I would have updated the website sometime in the past eighteen months (I haven't).
So enough of the portal BS. My sister and I built a website because we thought it would be fun, and it was, but we never made any money off of it and we've basically since abandoned it. That's the fact, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Second, we've reached a point where it's time to walk the walk. You don't think online poker can be beaten, and I know you're wrong. So, let's do the honorable thing: Let's each put our money where our mouths are and see what's what. And no more of this sancimonious crap about 'worrying about my family'. Trust me-- my family is not wanting for bread on the table.
In fact, Steve, I'll even make this concession: I know you're a recovering gambler, so it may not be fair to ask you to make a money bet. But let's do this: I'll play 10,000 hands of raked poker at an online site, and you can monitor the account and the hand histories. After the end of it, if I'm behind I vow to never butt in on another poker thread on the CU forums. If someone mentions poker, and you go on one of your tirades about how it can't be beaten, then I won't say a word. But if I'm ahead then YOU promise to never say another word about online poker, or otherwise share your theories about it's beatability, or (indirectly) call me a liar and a fraud by insisting that the stories of my winning are all a fantasy.
This should be a fantastic bet for you, since by taking it you guarantee that one of the CU board's most notorious gambling liars will forever be silenced. That is, I'll never, ever say anything that might compel another board member to try his hand at online poker. The more I think about it, in fact, the more I think you'll really be doing everyone hear a great favor by taking this 'fun bet', since by accepting you're essentially guaranteed of a) getting the last laugh (because online poker cannot be beaten), and b) doing that much more to ensure that nobody who visits these forums will be hoodwinked into signing up via one of my affiliate accounts. So, what say? Overall, if you're really that sure you're right then this sounds like a FANTASTIC deal for you and your cause. >>
Guy - you sound angry, I'm guessing because you're basically checkmated on this point about the impossibility of beating the rake, and you know it. You remind me of the funny bits on Seinfeld where Kramer loses the "one-two-three-shoot" thing, and then always says "let's go two out of three" LOL
I just contacted the NFL commissioners office and asked if the Eagles could go two out of three with the Cardinals.
No two out of threes here Guy - you lost by using every excuse in the book not to post proof of your claims, and it's not just you, it's everyone else as well claiming to make money playing online poker, and any competent scientist would conclude from empirical observation alone of millions of online poker players, tens of thousands of affiliate commission members, and many hundreds if not thousands of poker based websites with affiliate links, the fact that nobody has come forth with documented and audited proof of their claims, clearly illustrates that online poker can't be beat...and this isn't even a close debatable call at this point...the facts are crystal clear, and I do mean crystal clear.
You already lost Guy - You should just admit it, and move on with your life...you'll feel better. And you've already admitted, and I believe you, that you stopped playing online poker. But why would anybody winning over $100,000 stop playing online poker? For some of those trifling reasons you gave? Come on Guy...you're better than this...but you either were addicted or still are addicted and the addiction doesn't want to admit defeat...the addiction wants action...and every Gamblers Anonymous member would fully understand your rationale on this. Of course you may try to spin the facts again or call me dirty names, or something...but I do understand this addiction and the addiction makes liars out of all of us, so the comments weren't personal...and I wasn't being sanctimonious with my other comments...that is truly sad that you took my comments about your family that way.
And just so you know, to enlighten you so to speak, just because you stopped gambling even for a length of time doesn't necessarily mean the addiction is gone. You can still be addicted and just not be gambling right now. In fact most psychiatrists would state that the addiction is never cured - I've never totally agreed that's true for everybody, but it likely is true for most. So be careful - this addiction could flair up again at any time in the future - it's best to stay vigilant towards this addiction.
Steve >>
LOL. This is classic. Thank you, Steve, for (in my mind) putting this issue to bed. Like I said, this is a great bet for you-- all you have to do is sit back, watch me flail away for 10K hands, and then come back here and gloat over my failure. As a bonus I permanently shut up about all things gambling on this site, and your 'theories' about online gambling will be further confirmed. Do you want to 'really' help keep people here from getting suckered into online gambling? Then take my bet-- because nothing could be a better advertisement for your cause then to watch a 'so called expert' like myself publicly lose.
I think it's telling that in the proposal I set up for you there's positively no risk for you at all-- you only stand to win--- so long as you're correct. If you're wrong, of course, then you have to shut up, but that should be nothing more than an incidental concern to you.
Of course, there's a final catch, and that's the fact that if I can win you'll have to stare in the mirror and finally admit that the reason you were such a terrible gambler was not because 'the game can't be beaten', but because you lack the essentials to beat it. Maybe you're too obtuse, too stubborn, to emotional-- failed gamblers are like snowflakes, in that they come in all shapes and sizes. But if you had to sit there and watch someone succeed where you have so clearly failed I imagine that would be a huge blow to you. Also, it might tempt you to try again. Why not? Someone else could beat the game, so why can't you? Maybe it really was just bad luck the last time. Maybe this time it will be different.....
In any case, this horse is dead. I've given you a chance to load another bullet into your anti-gambling gun completely free of cost , and as the world can see you've had to back down. I've offered you a bet with nearly zero downside (assuming your ideas are correct), and yet you've had to shirk away. Real men walk the walk, Steve-- and I've got my shoes on. And as the rest of this board can see, you, mon ami, do not.
For now, I consider this the final testament on this topic. If anyone who frequents these boards still buys into your hot-air act after watching you back off this wager I've proposed then there isn't much more I can say that would convince them how wrong you clearly are. The final irony here, Steve, is that you've likely done more to entice someone to try online poker by refusing my bet than any one thousand self-professed 'winners' ever could do on their own!
As you may have figured by now, I tend to compartmentalize my Internet activities. You've been outed as a fraud here, in my estimation, but that will not prevent me from having cordial and (hopefully) entertaining exchanges with you on other topics here in the future. Just be advised that this is my last post on this topic, and that I will, at my discretion, link to this thread if this topic should arise again and I find this exchange of ours to be relevant.
Best to you and yours,
Guy
Edit: You raise a fair question about why I would quit after being up six figures. The reasons are as follows:
First, while I was up six figures it wasn't a 'big' six figures. I made between $19K and $28K every year I played poker, but I worked hard for those win rates, and as you can see it wasn't like I was breaking the bank.
Second, as I've said before I became convinced that the game was illegal in Michigan.
Third, playing that much poker brings a significant emotional toll. I won, but it was never easy, and I found it very difficult to deal with the swings.
Fourth, the competition became harder.
Hope that helps,
Guy
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i><<< While Stevek are at polar ends of the debate on whether the rake ensures that anyone's mathematical expecation in a poker game is less than zero, I completely agree that issues regarding the integrity of the games are pertinent and (probably) not baseless. >>>
Guy - You and others should be licking your chops because if rake free comes about in the US, I'll be quite surprised if you don't make a killing on it. But please, and I know you won't, don't stop your college studies because ya never know what the future may bring. And don't forget, you'll likely "kill" the smaller ring games, but you may get bored and decide to move up to the bigger games against the rocks who could crush you...be careful. All of course hypothetical right now, but with Barney Frank leading the way, a Democratic administration and congress, and state governments clawing to generate more revenue, I can't see how all this isn't going to come about. >>
You might be surprised to learn that I haven't played a single hand of poker since November of 2006. While in the past the legality of it was kind of murky, I'm convinced now that it really is illegal (at least in Michigan), and with two childern at home I don't think it's worth the risk. Also, the games have gotten MUCH TOUGHER in the past three years, and I have no interest in playing against opponents who play better than I do.
Even if we did see a move to legalized, rake free poker, I'd be surprised if I did much with it. I've never really been a gambler (I shoot dice about twice a year, and that's the extent of it), because at my core I'm too risk-adverse to enjoy it. Now, with the added responsibilities of having a family, the game seems even less appealing. >>
And there's gonna be another problem with rake free poker. It has never been proven that any commercially available bots have been successful against the rake in the long term. But the "problem" with bots, even if they were successful against the rake, is they would have to constantly play day and night to eek out a small win percentage...and then the bot owners get detected and caught for various reasons which you probably are aware.
But with rake free, the bot owner wouldn't have to get greedy, just program a bot to operate the way a normal player would, and not just consecutively run...it's no sense going into a long illustration about this here, suffice to say that yes with rake free the fish will be beaten and money can be made by the more skilled players, but I do believe that they'll be bots galore on the rake free sites, and bots are very tough to beat in a game like holdem - whether bots can actually be beat by above average skilled players is debatable.
Guy - Congrats on your second child...I didn't realize you had two kids now...I think it's admirable that it seems to me like your making the best choice between spending quality time with your family and working hard to succeed in the "real world", instead of wasting "addicted time" in front of an internet screen playing online poker, and living in a fantasy world which unfortunately for too many people becomes all too real when the rent comes due and the money which should be in the player's bank account, is instead in the gambling website owner's bank account. >>
Not to nitpick, Steve, (and I do thank you for the kind words), but there's no 'fantasy world' dimension to it-- or at least there wasn't for me. I made over six figures in winnings for the five years that I played online, and I am sure that if I chose to keep playing I could keep winning (though not at the rate at which I won earlier, due to the decreased number of bad players). Like I said before, I'm not about to post private financial information on an Internet message board in order to prove a point. But should you ever change your mind about the wager I proposed then please PM me so we can work out the logistics. And don't worry about whether or not I can afford it; trust me when I say that for me, money is not an issue.
Actually, Steve, I may reconsider-- just to put this issue to bed. What kind of financial proof were you looking for? I remember it involved tax returns, but I don't recall the details. Let me know. >>
Guy - We both know it's a stalemate at this point, no sense regurgitating it...but I would ask a new question to you that I asked in this thread...is if someone is trying to signup people on their affiliate commission program, and let's be honest, on your website there are "bonus whoring" type things which "in theory" could be beneficial to the player, but many of these affiliate commission hucksters out there are pitching the pretense that they are making money playing online poker in order to share their so-called skill and guide losing players into winners. And your site isn't "only" about bonus whoring - I've visited your site before.
There is no doubt in my mind about the 100% certainty of losing money in the long run playing raked online poker, but for argument sake let's say there were some winners, and let's say someone like yourself, which is true, placed a lot of time and effort into developing and running a website mainly designed to signup potential customers to gain profit off their play...Why on earth would you not be totally transparent, publicly, in order to have the best chances of enticing and luring potential customers. Frankly Guy, it just doesn't make sense...and this isn't anything new on my part looking for proof to help affirm credibility...this is often seen done by people in various "get rich" industries such as real estate, posting copies of their audited tax returns top prove credibility. Yet, I have never seen one, yes not one, affiliate commission website attempt to "properly" prove their claims.
So again...help me to understand...why put all that time and effort into a website, look for new customers, do all that hard work, and not do the obvious thing of being transparent with your stated winnings of over six figures. I mean come on Guy, and I know you won't get "insulted" like Lee did here when I was debating this point with him...don't take it personal because I make this same point for everyone not just you, and I think you clearly realize that. So again I ask...Why not post the proof, in my view nobody should have to ask for it...you're an obviously very intelligent individual, and you would have to know that doing this would be highly beneficial to your signup rates because losers want to signup with someone who can show them how to be a winner, otherwise they can just signup anywhere such as on the Cardplayer site or numerous other sites...why should they waste their time signing up with you if you can't really show them how to be a winner?
Come on Guy...you persisted in this point, so let's have a concrete answer, and I mean a concrete answer, otherwise, it's no sense continuing with this point because even though you are very intelligent and bring many interesting ideas to the forum, on this point, because of the desire for profit, I'm not sure there is any credibility. However, I have a feeling you anticipated this reply from me and you have something in mind to post to...so let's see it already.
Steve, you don't know the first thing about running a gambling portal.
First off, it's an incredible amount of work. My sister and I greatly underestimated the time and energy that we would have to put in to it in order to build an optimized site that ranked high in the SE's. For one thing, you simply can't have reciprocal links; you need backlinks to sites taht you yourself are not linked to. This means you need to build a THIRD site, a 'dummy' site that you link from, and agree to put links to others' sites on that site in exchange for a link to your main site. Then you need to negotiate placement of links and so forth with the other portal owner, because the page rank of your sites is different, etc. etc. etc. In other words, just managing your link exchanges is a full time job.
And that's only the beginning. You need to constantly provide to content, set up RSS feeds, and on and on. And even then you have no guarantee of success. You want to make me a quick $1000, Steve? Then do this-- bet me $1000 that I've never made more than $500 off any of the sites I'm affiliated with. You pick the site, I'll forward you the login info, and you can check the info yourself.
Third, if I wanted to make money off my website I would:
a) Have banner ads to online gambling sites on my home page and on my 2nd tier pages (I don't).
b) My 'lead article' wouldn't be one that announced that "The glory days are behind us, the fish have been cleaned, and what's left are a ton of multi-tabling grinders who are fighting over the few scraps" (I do).
c) I would have updated the website sometime in the past eighteen months (I haven't).
So enough of the portal BS. My sister and I built a website because we thought it would be fun, and it was, but we never made any money off of it and we've basically since abandoned it. That's the fact, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
Second, we've reached a point where it's time to walk the walk. You don't think online poker can be beaten, and I know you're wrong. So, let's do the honorable thing: Let's each put our money where our mouths are and see what's what. And no more of this sancimonious crap about 'worrying about my family'. Trust me-- my family is not wanting for bread on the table.
In fact, Steve, I'll even make this concession: I know you're a recovering gambler, so it may not be fair to ask you to make a money bet. But let's do this: I'll play 10,000 hands of raked poker at an online site, and you can monitor the account and the hand histories. After the end of it, if I'm behind I vow to never butt in on another poker thread on the CU forums. If someone mentions poker, and you go on one of your tirades about how it can't be beaten, then I won't say a word. But if I'm ahead then YOU promise to never say another word about online poker, or otherwise share your theories about it's beatability, or (indirectly) call me a liar and a fraud by insisting that the stories of my winning are all a fantasy.
This should be a fantastic bet for you, since by taking it you guarantee that one of the CU board's most notorious gambling liars will forever be silenced. That is, I'll never, ever say anything that might compel another board member to try his hand at online poker. The more I think about it, in fact, the more I think you'll really be doing everyone hear a great favor by taking this 'fun bet', since by accepting you're essentially guaranteed of a) getting the last laugh (because online poker cannot be beaten), and b) doing that much more to ensure that nobody who visits these forums will be hoodwinked into signing up via one of my affiliate accounts. So, what say? Overall, if you're really that sure you're right then this sounds like a FANTASTIC deal for you and your cause. >>
Guy - you sound angry, I'm guessing because you're basically checkmated on this point about the impossibility of beating the rake, and you know it. You remind me of the funny bits on Seinfeld where Kramer loses the "one-two-three-shoot" thing, and then always says "let's go two out of three" LOL
I just contacted the NFL commissioners office and asked if the Eagles could go two out of three with the Cardinals.
No two out of threes here Guy - you lost by using every excuse in the book not to post proof of your claims, and it's not just you, it's everyone else as well claiming to make money playing online poker, and any competent scientist would conclude from empirical observation alone of millions of online poker players, tens of thousands of affiliate commission members, and many hundreds if not thousands of poker based websites with affiliate links, the fact that nobody has come forth with documented and audited proof of their claims, clearly illustrates that online poker can't be beat...and this isn't even a close debatable call at this point...the facts are crystal clear, and I do mean crystal clear.
You already lost Guy - You should just admit it, and move on with your life...you'll feel better. And you've already admitted, and I believe you, that you stopped playing online poker. But why would anybody winning over $100,000 stop playing online poker? For some of those trifling reasons you gave? Come on Guy...you're better than this...but you either were addicted or still are addicted and the addiction doesn't want to admit defeat...the addiction wants action...and every Gamblers Anonymous member would fully understand your rationale on this. Of course you may try to spin the facts again or call me dirty names, or something...but I do understand this addiction and the addiction makes liars out of all of us, so the comments weren't personal...and I wasn't being sanctimonious with my other comments...that is truly sad that you took my comments about your family that way.
And just so you know, to enlighten you so to speak, just because you stopped gambling even for a length of time doesn't necessarily mean the addiction is gone. You can still be addicted and just not be gambling right now. In fact most psychiatrists would state that the addiction is never cured - I've never totally agreed that's true for everybody, but it likely is true for most. So be careful - this addiction could flair up again at any time in the future - it's best to stay vigilant towards this addiction.
Steve >>
LOL. This is classic. Thank you, Steve, for (in my mind) putting this issue to bed. Like I said, this is a great bet for you-- all you have to do is sit back, watch me flail away for 10K hands, and then come back here and gloat over my failure. As a bonus I permanently shut up about all things gambling on this site, and your 'theories' about online gambling will be further confirmed. Do you want to 'really' help keep people here from getting suckered into online gambling? Then take my bet-- because nothing could be a better advertisement for your cause then to watch a 'so called expert' like myself publicly lose.
I think it's telling that in the proposal I set up for you there's positively no risk for you at all-- you only stand to win--- so long as you're correct. If you're wrong, of course, then you have to shut up, but that should be nothing more than an incidental concern to you.
Of course, there's a final catch, and that's the fact that if I can win you'll have to stare in the mirror and finally admit that the reason you were such a terrible gambler was not because 'the game can't be beaten', but because you lack the essentials to beat it. Maybe you're too obtuse, too stubborn, to emotional-- failed gamblers are like snowflakes, in that they come in all shapes and sizes. But if you had to sit there and watch someone succeed where you have so clearly failed I imagine that would be a huge blow to you. Also, it might tempt you to try again. Why not? Someone else could beat the game, so why can't you? Maybe it really was just bad luck the last time. Maybe this time it will be different.....
In any case, this horse is dead. I've given you a chance to load another bullet into your anti-gambling gun completely free of cost , and as the world can see you've had to back down. I've offered you a bet with nearly zero downside (assuming your ideas are correct), and yet you've had to shirk away. Real men walk the walk, Steve-- and I've got my shoes on. And as the rest of this board can see, you, mon ami, do not.
For now, I consider this the final testament on this topic. If anyone who frequents these boards still buys into your hot-air act after watching you back off this wager I've proposed then there isn't much more I can say that would convince them how wrong you clearly are. The final irony here, Steve, is that you've likely done more to entice someone to try online poker by refusing my bet than any one thousand self-professed 'winners' ever could do on their own!
As you may have figured by now, I tend to compartmentalize my Internet activities. You've been outed as a fraud here, in my estimation, but that will not prevent me from having cordial and (hopefully) entertaining exchanges with you on other topics here in the future. Just be advised that this is my last post on this topic, and that I will, at my discretion, link to this thread if this topic should arise again and I find this exchange of ours to be relevant.
Best to you and yours,
Guy
Edit: You raise a fair question about why I would quit after being up six figures. The reasons are as follows:
First, while I was up six figures it wasn't a 'big' six figures. I made between $19K and $28K every year I played poker, but I worked hard for those win rates, and as you can see it wasn't like I was breaking the bank.
Second, as I've said before I became convinced that the game was illegal in Michigan.
Third, playing that much poker brings a significant emotional toll. I won, but it was never easy, and I found it very difficult to deal with the swings.
Fourth, the competition became harder.
Hope that helps,
Guy >>
Ahh - I knew the name calling was gonna come out and that's okay. Virtually all of your statements about me are incorrect and the sad thing is you know your statements are incorrect. I've mentioned to you a number of times that I've won money playing poker, that I was basically always successful at playing the game for the low stakes in which I played. I've also stated to you a number of times that I'd have no problem whatsoever in acknowledging that online poker can be beat, If someone would just prove it, just one person. Why would I care if a small percentage of online players win - it's still a highly addictive game and many thousands get devastated from it, and I could still succinctly make my points about gambling addiction.
No Guy, sorry to say on this subject for reasons I believe to be addiction, you've got your head buried deep in the sand and it's interesting because that's unlike you...you normally have an inquisitive mind, but again, frankly, you've got a lot to learn about understanding this addiction, and it is a complicated addiction.
You don't need me to try and prove your point, you don't need me to acknowledge some sort of silly bet, all you'd have to do is start a thread here, or start a thread with a link on your website to 2+2 or if they don't allow that, and you don't want to risk your affiliate members knowing that winning money at online poker is impossible, then just start a blog and post the link here, and I or anyone else can follow it if we so choose. I mean I have to give you these obvious ideas? Your whole premise about not wanting to do something because I won't "bet" with you, is just plain silly...no two ways about it.
I already know the facts are crystal clear and the conclusion is obvious to those without any bias - your bias is profit in the same way a used car salesman talks about how great of a car he's selling when he knows it's a lemon - you know online poker is a lemon, you know it's a sucker's game, but yet you persist in trying to fool people in the name of profit. Even though you've stated you haven't profited much as an affiliate commission member, I'm sure you believe and hope that it only takes one "whale" to signup on your affiliate website, perhaps a rich CU member here, and if that guy has $100,000 in rake for the year, you've just picked up a cool $50,000 for the year at a 50% commission rate...so you're not fooling me Guy, and I doubt if you're fooling many others here, except the other affiliate members here who will stickup for your bogus points about winning money playing online poker...because they have the same profit motive in mind.
I've heard more excuses from affiliate members for not posting the proper proof about their claims, than kids make up excuses for not doing their homework - Guy in my view you have sounded like a kid making excuses for not doing their homework...whether it's the profit motive, the addiction, it's something...and I think you're better than that no matter what you say about me in this thread...whatever it is, I sincerely hope that you overcome whatever it is causing the anger because that could lead back to the gambling and the devastation which accompanies it.
Steve
Second, as I've said before I became convinced that the game was illegal in Michigan.
Third, playing that much poker brings a significant emotional toll. I won, but it was never easy, and I found it very difficult to deal with the swings.
Fourth, the competition became harder.
Boo - I think your #1, #3, and #4 points are the reason most people have given up the game. Mostly #3 and #4 though. Poker, like a lot things, was a fad (something ESPN should realize soon). The recreational player no longer takes the same enjoyment out of it, especially when they are the fish at the table getting their a$$ handed to them.
Steve - I certainly respect your anti-gambling stance, and generally enjoy your posts, but I've found your posts on poker to be way off-base. Your position about auditable proof is laughable, because so few people actually keep daily or weekly logs of their account activity, and you know there is no way for anybody to go back and retrieve it. Also, I'd be willing to bet that less than 1% of those that have ever posted on this forum on poker topics have an affiliate program, where they are raking in hundreds of dollars, and probably less than 10% even know they exist. Most people simply enjoy the game and want to talk about it, and have no alternative motives.
/end thread
<< <i>First, while I was up six figures it wasn't a 'big' six figures. I made between $19K and $28K every year I played poker, but I worked hard for those win rates, and as you can see it wasn't like I was breaking the bank.
Second, as I've said before I became convinced that the game was illegal in Michigan.
Third, playing that much poker brings a significant emotional toll. I won, but it was never easy, and I found it very difficult to deal with the swings.
Fourth, the competition became harder.
Boo - I think your #1, #3, and #4 points are the reason most people have given up the game. Mostly #3 and #4 though. Poker, like a lot things, was a fad (something ESPN should realize soon). The recreational player no longer takes the same enjoyment out of it, especially when they are the fish at the table getting their a$$ handed to them.
Steve - I certainly respect your anti-gambling stance, and generally enjoy your posts, but I've found your posts on poker to be way off-base. Your position about auditable proof is laughable, because so few people actually keep daily or weekly logs of their account activity, and you know there is no way for anybody to go back and retrieve it. Also, I'd be willing to bet that less than 1% of those that have ever posted on this forum on poker topics have an affiliate program, where they are raking in hundreds of dollars, and probably less than 10% even know they exist. Most people simply enjoy the game and want to talk about it, and have no alternative motives.
/end thread >>
I believe I stated this before or at least implied it, I've got no problem with disagreements on my viewpoints, it's okay to disagree...and I've got no problems at all with gamblers...just to make it crystal clear...no problems at all with gamblers - it's the exploitation of gamblers that bugs me. But can't you see the deeper tone to Guy's post? I do because I was addicted to gambling, and that addiction could flare up again unless I remain vigilant towards the addiction. Guy may deny this, but in my opinion, he fits every classic definition of a gambling addict for a variety of reasons. The addiction is always looking for reasons and excuses to resume gambling again after a period of abstinence. Guy stated he hasn't played poker in quite some time, and the addiction doesn't like that one bit. Calling me out with his silly proposed bet which would accomplish nothing, is the addiction finding a reason to go back to playing online poker. His calling me out in order to resume gambling has nothing to do with me, and nothing to do with anything else other than the addiction.
Which is why addicts blame their wives for the gambling, blame family members and friends, blame any or all sort of circumstances...but the addiction can also flare up under the seemingly best of circumstances. Guy is studying hard in college to pursue his goal of a career in economics and I think that is wonderful. However, the addiction doesn't want that...the addiction tugs at him saying "Okay Guy let's give that online poker thing another good try, this economics crap is tedious and boring, let's go back to the action, the excitement, the constant adrenaline rush thrill of online poker, and maybe win a big tournament and perhaps get featured in poker magazines everywhere, if Chris Moneymaker can do it, then I can do it, because I know I can play poker better than him." - I expect Guy to laugh at this and that's okay, but he's knows it's the truth - I may not have all the reasons for his addiction right because I don't know Guy personally, but it's obvious to me the addiction is flaring up, raising it's ugly head, and hopefully Guy, with the knowledge he's hopefully gained from the posts here, he won't succumb to the addiction.
Go ahead Guy...give us a sarcastic "hallelujah" to my comments - LOL...but you know and I know it's the truth.
Steve