<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players.... >>
What is interesting though about your comment is that it is possible to do this although I don't know the procedure. But sophistcated computer hacks can "hijack" a computer that isn't properly protected with firewalls and install a program that would enable them to see on their screen everything you see on your screen - which of course would include your hole cards.
<< <i>Steve, What would you accept as proper documentation, auditing, and time frame for disproving your theory?
Joe >>
Anyone posting in a public forum claiming to be winning money playing online poker should know that taxes have to be paid on that money. Since these posters have publicly stated that they are winning money, therefore opening themselves up to scrutiny, then it should not be any problem for them to provide the following information. Simply post proof of this winning money in that same public forum. Post it there or on a blog where everyone can see it including IRS agents who may decide to review the accuracy of the information to make sure the poster is not a tax cheat. Post copies of the most recent federal income tax returns. Post copies of estimated tax payment forms and canceled checks made out to the IRS. Post copies of credit card transactions and statements from the gambling websites regarding deposits and withdrawals. Before posting though, take all of this paperwork to a reputable accounting firm and have it audited. The CPA will match-up credit card transactions with bank account statements and other documents necessary for a proper audit. Also post a signed letter from this accounting firm certifying the accuracy of the paperwork. Since the poster presumably has already properly filed this paperwork and paid taxes to the IRS, all this information should be complete and readily available to be handed over to the accounting firm for the audit. The audit would probably cost a few thousand dollars, but since a number of these posters claim to be making seemingly unlimited amounts of money playing online poker, this expense should be peanuts to them. It has never been witnessed anyone claiming to be winning money playing online poker stepping forward with this very simple task of properly proving it. Unless information such as this is posted, then any claims about winning money playing online poker is only a rumor.
No one has stepped forth with proof about winning because winning money in the long-run playing poker against a house cut is impossible. Do some players win money in the short-run? Yes, that is possible and it does happen. Some fortunate players can win a poker tournament or two and start believing that they are some kind of superior poker player who could make a fortune playing online poker. However the fact is that unless these fortunate winners immediately quit playing after winning a tournament or two, then they eventually will gamble back all of the money won and lose more. Unfortunately, most if not all poker players do not quit playing after winning a tournament because of a fantasy dream belief that they can constantly win more.
There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for any player to overcome even the tiniest of house cuts in the long-run. Poker books and articles spin the effects of the house cut with various misinformation and fuzzy math to fool people into believing that online poker can be beat. You must understand that even the tiniest of house cuts add up with each hand played to the point where everyone playing online poker will sooner or later lose their bankroll. A smaller house cut would allow players to be able to keep their bankrolls longer, but eventually all bankrolls will be lost. To some players these house cuts may seem tiny like a teaspoon of water. But those teaspoons of water accumulate to the point where a bankroll is washed away in a raging flood of many thousands of teaspoons of water.
Winning in the long-run playing online poker was already impossible and now it is even more impossible because of poker bots. Poker bots are now rampant at online poker tables. When poker bots collude at the same table and know each other's hole cards, then the individual human players do not stand any chance of winning against them, even if there was not any house cut. Now with these poker bots, the sucker’s game of online poker has become even more of a sucker’s game. Note though that there has never been any documented proof that poker bots can win money. All poker bots offered for sale to the public have turned out to be money losers. The bankrolls of these poker bots get ground out by the house cut in the exact same manner as human players. So basically the debate is over regarding the possibility of an individual being able to win money at online poker. >>
That's pretty much the reply I expected. Why on earth would someone spend thousands of dollars to satisfy the arbitrary criteria of some random person on the Internet?
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players.... >>
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players.... >>
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker >>
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it.
<< <i>Steve, What would you accept as proper documentation, auditing, and time frame for disproving your theory?
Joe >>
Anyone posting in a public forum claiming to be winning money playing online poker should know that taxes have to be paid on that money. Since these posters have publicly stated that they are winning money, therefore opening themselves up to scrutiny, then it should not be any problem for them to provide the following information. Simply post proof of this winning money in that same public forum. Post it there or on a blog where everyone can see it including IRS agents who may decide to review the accuracy of the information to make sure the poster is not a tax cheat. Post copies of the most recent federal income tax returns. Post copies of estimated tax payment forms and canceled checks made out to the IRS. Post copies of credit card transactions and statements from the gambling websites regarding deposits and withdrawals. Before posting though, take all of this paperwork to a reputable accounting firm and have it audited. The CPA will match-up credit card transactions with bank account statements and other documents necessary for a proper audit. Also post a signed letter from this accounting firm certifying the accuracy of the paperwork. Since the poster presumably has already properly filed this paperwork and paid taxes to the IRS, all this information should be complete and readily available to be handed over to the accounting firm for the audit. The audit would probably cost a few thousand dollars, but since a number of these posters claim to be making seemingly unlimited amounts of money playing online poker, this expense should be peanuts to them. It has never been witnessed anyone claiming to be winning money playing online poker stepping forward with this very simple task of properly proving it. Unless information such as this is posted, then any claims about winning money playing online poker is only a rumor.
No one has stepped forth with proof about winning because winning money in the long-run playing poker against a house cut is impossible. Do some players win money in the short-run? Yes, that is possible and it does happen. Some fortunate players can win a poker tournament or two and start believing that they are some kind of superior poker player who could make a fortune playing online poker. However the fact is that unless these fortunate winners immediately quit playing after winning a tournament or two, then they eventually will gamble back all of the money won and lose more. Unfortunately, most if not all poker players do not quit playing after winning a tournament because of a fantasy dream belief that they can constantly win more.
There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for any player to overcome even the tiniest of house cuts in the long-run. Poker books and articles spin the effects of the house cut with various misinformation and fuzzy math to fool people into believing that online poker can be beat. You must understand that even the tiniest of house cuts add up with each hand played to the point where everyone playing online poker will sooner or later lose their bankroll. A smaller house cut would allow players to be able to keep their bankrolls longer, but eventually all bankrolls will be lost. To some players these house cuts may seem tiny like a teaspoon of water. But those teaspoons of water accumulate to the point where a bankroll is washed away in a raging flood of many thousands of teaspoons of water.
Winning in the long-run playing online poker was already impossible and now it is even more impossible because of poker bots. Poker bots are now rampant at online poker tables. When poker bots collude at the same table and know each other's hole cards, then the individual human players do not stand any chance of winning against them, even if there was not any house cut. Now with these poker bots, the sucker’s game of online poker has become even more of a sucker’s game. Note though that there has never been any documented proof that poker bots can win money. All poker bots offered for sale to the public have turned out to be money losers. The bankrolls of these poker bots get ground out by the house cut in the exact same manner as human players. So basically the debate is over regarding the possibility of an individual being able to win money at online poker. >>
That's pretty much the reply I expected. Why on earth would someone spend thousands of dollars to satisfy the arbitrary criteria of some random person on the Internet?
Joe >>
You make a valid point. But it's not up to me to "prove it" - it's up to the person making the claim to prove it...after all they made the claim not me. If there is a more effective way of proving it then let us know.
And just displaying poker stats isn't even close to good enough to proving anything because anyone could have multiple poker stats and only show the winning ones.
My "criteria" actually agrees with your point. Why should anyone believe the arbitrary statements of anyone else on the internet regarding claims about winning money in the long-run playing online poker?
From the tone of your post I think you may know that there is a big industry out there that for their huge financial gain wants to perpetuate the myth of gamblers winning at online poker. Say someone was earning $300 per month, or $3,000 per month or $30,000 per month or more from affiliate commission programs - they would have enormous financial incentive to want to perpetuate that myth...and that's exactly what they do. And of course those making lusty amounts of money through these commission programs are going to state how much they "win" playing online poker, and/or invent countless numbers of alt-ID's on other forums such as poker forums claiming the same. This is their way of promoting their money fleecing activity.
The others claiming to win money at online poker are gambling addicts who by nature tend to tell tall tales about their gambling wins. They might win $1K on Friday and lose $2K on Saturday but just mention to people the $1K win - this isn't knocking any individual - this is a common occurance which even non-addicted gamblers do. Gamblers love to stretch the truth or alter the truth to suit their egos.
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players.... >>
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker >>
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
Are you serious?
Think about it... 8 handed table and you are, essentially, sitting at 4 of the seats. Of the x number of hole cards, you know HALF of them.
You have a huge advantage over the marks.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players.... >>
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker >>
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
John Scarne (RIP), perhaps the world's foremost expert on gambling and poker, who guys such as Doyle learned from, stated (paraphrase) "If six poker players were sitting at the table, three chumps and the other three were the world's top poker players, if the three chumps knew each other's hole cards, the chumps would consistently beat the three top players."
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players.... >>
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker >>
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
John Scarne (RIP), perhaps the world's foremost expert on gambling and poker, who guys such as Doyle learned from, stated (paraphrase) "If six poker players were sitting at the table, three chumps and the other three were the world's top poker players, if the three chumps knew each other's hole cards, the chumps would consistently beat the three top players."
- >>
Yes because they could squeeze, meaning Friend 1 could bet, friend 2 calls, Pro 1 reraises, friend 1 re-reraises and friend 2 pushes, this leaves pro thinking his hand is obv beat. Knowing 6 cards out of a 52 card deck will not help you that much. You cheat by betting players out.
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players.... >>
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker >>
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
John Scarne (RIP), perhaps the world's foremost expert on gambling and poker, who guys such as Doyle learned from, stated (paraphrase) "If six poker players were sitting at the table, three chumps and the other three were the world's top poker players, if the three chumps knew each other's hole cards, the chumps would consistently beat the three top players."
- >>
Yes because they could squeeze, meaning Friend 1 could bet, friend 2 calls, Pro 1 reraises, friend 1 re-reraises and friend 2 pushes, this leaves pro thinking his hand is obv beat. Knowing 6 cards out of a 52 card deck will not help you that much. You cheat by betting players out. >>
There's more to it than just that. By knowing if your odds are improving or getting worse, you have a significant advantage over one who doesn't.
Take a statisitics class and it will make more sense.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players.... >>
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker >>
Yes in this day and age it's quite easy for say three buddies out of state, so that their addresses in no way can be similar, simply have some kind of conferencing system to quickly inform each other of their hole cards. When I address "nobody" winning at online poker, I am presuming as a given - honest individual players. Whether or not colluders can win at online poker I have no idea but I have never discounted that possibility. The colluders will always beat the individual players but can the colluders win money at a large enough rate to overcome the rake? Again...I'm not sure and may not ever know because it is unlikely that a cheating ring is going to expose themselves publicly.
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players.... >>
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker >>
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
John Scarne (RIP), perhaps the world's foremost expert on gambling and poker, who guys such as Doyle learned from, stated (paraphrase) "If six poker players were sitting at the table, three chumps and the other three were the world's top poker players, if the three chumps knew each other's hole cards, the chumps would consistently beat the three top players."
- >>
Yes because they could squeeze, meaning Friend 1 could bet, friend 2 calls, Pro 1 reraises, friend 1 re-reraises and friend 2 pushes, this leaves pro thinking his hand is obv beat. Knowing 6 cards out of a 52 card deck will not help you that much. You cheat by betting players out. >>
There's more to it than just that. By knowing if your odds are improving or getting worse, you have a significant advantage over one who doesn't.
Take a statisitics class and it will make more sense. >>
I can't say it any better than Stown said it.
Randymoss84 you really need to quit playing poker - take that money you won and run...and run fast. You seem intelligent, but are quite naive about poker and gambling - put the money you luckily won into starting your own business or something like that.
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players.... >>
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker >>
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
John Scarne (RIP), perhaps the world's foremost expert on gambling and poker, who guys such as Doyle learned from, stated (paraphrase) "If six poker players were sitting at the table, three chumps and the other three were the world's top poker players, if the three chumps knew each other's hole cards, the chumps would consistently beat the three top players."
- >>
Yes because they could squeeze, meaning Friend 1 could bet, friend 2 calls, Pro 1 reraises, friend 1 re-reraises and friend 2 pushes, this leaves pro thinking his hand is obv beat. Knowing 6 cards out of a 52 card deck will not help you that much. You cheat by betting players out. >>
There's more to it than just that. By knowing if your odds are improving or getting worse, you have a significant advantage over one who doesn't.
Take a statisitics class and it will make more sense. >>
I can't say it any better than Stown said it.
Randymoss84 you really need to quit playing poker - take that money you won and run...and run fast. You seem intelligent, but are quite naive about poker and gambling - put the money you luckily won into starting your own business or something like that.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>* This poll has nothing to do with any particular thread which may, or may not, still be in existence on the Sports Talk Forum >>
Hmmm, I wonder....
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Speaking of delusional, with all that has transpired in the world of online poker over the past few years, with all the rampant cheating, bots, RNG manipulation, and I could go on and on...you'd have to be delusional to believe that money could be made by any individual playing online poker. It was a sucker's game and now its become even a bigger sucker's game.
Yes, delusional, or just young & naive, or the usual circumstance of getting addicted to it...to believe that raked online poker can be beat in the long-run.
The great thing about all my comments on this thread, which have also been posted by others a number of times in poker forums, not a single person, yes not one, has stepped forth with audited documented proof of winning money in the long-run at online poker.
Frankly, this discussion bores me now because the facts are so obvious, so crystal clear, about online poker being such a pathetic loser sucker's game that can't possibly be beat. Raked online ring games are pathetic money losers almost beyond belief. However a poker tournament could be won, but even any real poker pro would tell you, that those online tournaments are basically the same thing as buying a lottery ticket...somebody has to win, unless it's a house bot, and that fact unfortunately does make online poker terribly addicting...the hope that the next bet could lead to a hot streak or perhaps a big win...which yes is possible but in the long-run any winning money will be lost back and more.
<< <i>Speaking of delusional, with all that has transpired in the world of online poker over the past few years, with all the rampant cheating, bots, RNG manipulation, and I could go on and on...you'd have to be delusional to believe that money could be made by any individual playing online poker. It was a sucker's game and now its become even a bigger sucker's game.
Yes, delusional, or just young & naive, or the usual circumstance of getting addicted to it...to believe that raked online poker can be beat in the long-run.
The great thing about all my comments on this thread, which have also been posted by others a number of times in poker forums, not a single person, yes not one, has stepped forth with audited documented proof of winning money in the long-run at online poker.
Frankly, this discussion bores me now because the facts are so obvious, so crystal clear, about online poker being such a pathetic loser sucker's game that can't possibly be beat. Raked online ring games are pathetic money losers almost beyond belief. However a poker tournament could be won, but even any real poker pro would tell you, that those online tournaments are basically the same thing as buying a lottery ticket...somebody has to win, unless it's a house bot, and that fact unfortunately does make online poker terribly addicting...the hope that the next bet could lead to a hot streak or perhaps a big win...which yes is possible but in the long-run any winning money will be lost back and more.
Those are the facts. Case closed.
- >>
Nu uh.
I have a friend who knew this guy who sat next to this other guy who said he made millions on on-line poker and now lives in the caribbean making 30%.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>Speaking of delusional, with all that has transpired in the world of online poker over the past few years, with all the rampant cheating, bots, RNG manipulation, and I could go on and on...you'd have to be delusional to believe that money could be made by any individual playing online poker. It was a sucker's game and now its become even a bigger sucker's game.
Yes, delusional, or just young & naive, or the usual circumstance of getting addicted to it...to believe that raked online poker can be beat in the long-run.
The great thing about all my comments on this thread, which have also been posted by others a number of times in poker forums, not a single person, yes not one, has stepped forth with audited documented proof of winning money in the long-run at online poker.
Frankly, this discussion bores me now because the facts are so obvious, so crystal clear, about online poker being such a pathetic loser sucker's game that can't possibly be beat. Raked online ring games are pathetic money losers almost beyond belief. However a poker tournament could be won, but even any real poker pro would tell you, that those online tournaments are basically the same thing as buying a lottery ticket...somebody has to win, unless it's a house bot, and that fact unfortunately does make online poker terribly addicting...the hope that the next bet could lead to a hot streak or perhaps a big win...which yes is possible but in the long-run any winning money will be lost back and more.
Those are the facts. Case closed.
- >>
Nu uh.
I have a friend who knew this guy who sat next to this other guy who said he made millions on on-line poker and now lives in the caribbean making 30%.
>>
LOL
Hey man - I know you and others here like to gamble and believe it or not I've got no problem with that. I ain't the least bit, not even a smigeon against gamblers. I just can't stand the parasites who profit off the backs of addicted gamblers with their lying BS.
I'll root for anyone here anytime they're entered in a poker tournament or make a sports bet. All I can say is "be careful" - gambling has a way of biting people in the arse often when they least expect it or are unprepared for it. Better in my view to understand exactly what gambling is, and the highly addictive nature of the activity to many people out there.
Poker on TV originated in Europe and was brought to this country by ESPN who wanted to see if the trend would catch on here.
Obviously it has. ESPN seems to use it to fill in dead times on their schedule when they don't have any contracts with various other sports to show a game.
I find it boring and a waste of time and immediately change the channel when it shows up.
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
So is washing dishes and cleaning out a litter box but I hope those are not on ESPN's radar as a new spectator sport. >>
I'd be interested in watching hot cheerleaders wash dishes... Ooooh, the suds Not so much with the litter box though Well, they do have to bend over to do it so maybe I'll change my mind so long as there's no closeups on the litter.
Poker is not a sport. Although ESPNs original programming was to include almost everything competitive. They've had darts, boat racing, boggle tournaments, dog shows, baseball etc... None of those things are sports either, but I guess some like to watch them.
stevek- I've made a living playing poker over the last 6 years (as my main source of income) and over 80% of my total income over that time has come from online cash games (not tournaments). And even that number is skewed low due to a recent score in a live tourney, so before that it was closer to 85%. Shorthanded games (2-4 handed) will always be profitable for a good player due to the increased edge a player has over fewer lesser skilled opponents. I don't know, maybe I'm just a lucky addict. As far as documented proof, I'm not sure what I could show you to prove that I'm a winning player over 6 years, other than the fact that I now own a car, a house, paid for my wedding and am about to start having kids, and I was broke (and in serious debt), waiting tables and living at my mom's house as recently as 4 years ago. The only other thing I do currently for income besides play poker is sell cards, and 100% of that goes back into cards.
<< <i>stevek- I've made a living playing poker over the last 6 years (as my main source of income) and over 80% of my total income over that time has come from online cash games (not tournaments). And even that number is skewed low due to a recent score in a live tourney, so before that it was closer to 85%. Shorthanded games (2-4 handed) will always be profitable for a good player due to the increased edge a player has over fewer lesser skilled opponents. I don't know, maybe I'm just a lucky addict. As far as documented proof, I'm not sure what I could show you to prove that I'm a winning player over 6 years, other than the fact that I now own a car, a house, paid for my wedding and am about to start having kids, and I was broke (and in serious debt), waiting tables and living at my mom's house as recently as 4 years ago. The only other thing I do currently for income besides play poker is sell cards, and 100% of that goes back into cards.
And no, I don't consider it a sport. >>
Lee - I've already stated what it would take. I'm not going to "accuse" you personally or anybody else personally of anything, but often, quite often, a number of people mark down gambling winnings on their tax returns when in fact the money was made through other activities, often illegal activities, for example from the sale of drugs. This is an old trick, the IRS knows about it, but they don't care - they collect taxes - they don't care where the money comes from as long as taxes are paid on it. Of course nobody is going to write down "drug dealer" on their tax return. Don't huff at me for accusing you of anything - I am not accusing you of anything...Okay!
But this is all why the tax return would have to be audited and documented by a reputable accounting firm, and the documentation reviewable by the public to have credibility. It's really quite obvious and quite simple and quite easy to do this, but yet nobody comes forth.
I even recently had a long discussion about this at http://p098.ezboard.com/General-Discussion/fnomorepokerfrm2?page=1 with an author of a recently published top selling poker book, yet even this guy would not come forth with the proof, using every excuse in the book - basically I called his 2/7 os bluff and he folded.
I post in that forum as Phillysteve because my real name was already in use when I signed up at Ezboard. I don't own the forum but I know who does, and he basically doesn't post any more and doesn't have any interest in discussing poker at this point - he's quit gambling and moved on with his life...doing well.
Anyone can state whatever they want to in an internet forum, and anyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe...but I won't believe any claims of winning in the long-run at online poker until someone comes forth with the proof as requested - a very simple and easy proof. I don't expect that proof to be forthcoming anytime soon because it's so crystal clear that raked online poker can't be beat, and it's not even close.
When the forum owner played poker at WSEX when it was rake free, and he saw the rake amount calculated, he was amazed at how fast the rake accumulates and adds up - it helped him to realize that raked online poker truly is a game for suckers.
The con game from affiliate commission hucksters and poker websites to paraphrase is "All ya gotta be is a percentage amount better than the other players, than the rake percentage, and you can make money playing online poker" - this phrase is one of the slickest phrases ever in the long history of con games perpetrated on naive people, and in this case also addicted gamblers.
What the hucksters don't state when trying to entice and lure their customers into playing and continuing to play online poker is that there is variance in poker which every poker player understands, but the rake accumulates whether you are winning or losing money...there is no variance in the rake...it continues to accumulate to the point where it will eventually wipeout any size bankroll.
Unraked poker is a game of pure skill and most if not all poker players in clubs and homes already know this. Raked poker is a sucker's game and the "real" pros who make their living playing in clubs and homes against other gamblers, also know this as well.
Believe what you want. I could care less. Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe I'm lying. Go on believing what you believe because I'm certainly not going to kill myself trying to prove that I'm a profitable poker player online.
I do have one question though- it seems like you're trying to bend over backwards to prove to everybody that raked poker can't be beat. Why? I'm an atheist and don't go around trying to prove that god doesn't exist to religious people. It seems like an exercise in frustration and wasting time.
<< <i>Believe what you want. I could care less. Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe I'm lying. Go on believing what you believe because I'm certainly not going to kill myself trying to prove that I'm a profitable poker player online.
I do have one question though- it seems like you're trying to bend over backwards to prove to everybody that raked poker can't be beat. Why? I'm an atheist and don't go around trying to prove that god doesn't exist to religious people. It seems like an exercise in frustration and wasting time. >>
Lee - I hope you are winning money. I've stated many times here and elsewhere that I root for gamblers, never against them.
You say "maybe I'm just lucky?" and I realize you are being facetious towards me, and that's okay. But there's a true story about a lady in the US who hit the lottery for over a million dollars, and incredibly she hit it again about a year later for over a million dollars. Amazing but true. I also heard another person somewhere did the same thing recently, might have been a European lottery.
Sometimes random good luck is hard to fathom but it happens. Why does a guy such as Audie Murphy come out of WW2 unscathed despite so many German bullets shot at him, yet many of his buddies around him were killed. Again...good luck can work in mysterious ways, or maybe it's just random circumstances and occurances.
Look at the top so-called poker "pros" seen on TV. Sure they're good poker players, and anyone who understands poker can see the difference in the class of talent. Perhaps about five or so of them are truly consistent winning pros. The rest of them?...basically they are there in the limelight because of getting a lucky variance at the right time in the right tournament. They'll go broke sooner or later from entering too many raked poker tournaments.
The facts are, as you may know, that most of the so-called pros seen on TV are broke - sponsors provide their buy-in money for the tournaments...this has been publically stated by Barry Greenstein and others the fact that most poker players seen on TV are broke, and some of them are not even considered good poker players.
You ask "why?" - Even when I was a gambler, I disliked con artists and scammers, and I especially loathe them now. Either something bugs someone or it doesn't - to me online poker is a sickening scam, and I absolutely believe online poker will go down in history as one of the worst scams of this early 21st century.
BTW - that lady in the US who hit the lottery twice - she is now dead broke and in debt...in worse shape now than she was before hitting the first lottery. Should be a lesson to all gamblers who get lucky and win big that they should permanently quit gambling and save the winning money. Unfortunately most if not virtually all gamblers don't quit gambling after a big win and they windup squandering the money or losing it back from increased gambling.
For a lot of people, winning the lottery is the American dream. But for many lottery winners, the reality is more like a nightmare.
"Winning the lottery isn't always what it's cracked up to be," says Evelyn Adams, who won the New Jersey lottery not just once, but twice (1985, 1986), to the tune of $5.4 million. Today the money is all gone and Adams lives in a trailer.
"I won the American dream but I lost it, too. It was a very hard fall. It's called rock bottom," says Adams.
"Everybody wanted my money. Everybody had their hand out. I never learned one simple word in the English language -- 'No.' I wish I had the chance to do it all over again. I'd be much smarter about it now," says Adams, who also lost money at the slot machines in Atlantic City.
"I was a big-time gambler," admits Adams. "I didn't drop a million dollars, but it was a lot of money. I made mistakes, some I regret, some I don't. I'm human. I can't go back now so I just go forward, one step at a time."
Unraked poker is a game of pure skill and most if not all poker players in clubs and homes already know this. Raked poker is a sucker's game and the "real" pros who make their living playing in clubs and homes against other gamblers, also know this as well.
Actually, this logic makes me understand how little knowledge you have about the game. Internet sites generally rake in 10% of each pot with a max of $3 or $4 per pot. When you're playing 25/50 NL 4 handed and the rake maxes out at $3 or $4 a hand, it becomes fairly insignificant how much the house takes out because it's usually around 1% of the average pot. So if unraked poker is in fact a skill game (like you said), then by your reasoning a good player playing shorthanded against bad players cannot overcome the house raking $3 out of each pot. I can understand (but don't necessarily agree with) your reasoning when it comes to low stakes, but taking $3 out of each $400 pot really does not determine what is a profitable game and what is not. Assuming there are good players and bad players at each stake level, there has to be a point where skill level will overcome rake because the rake maxes out ($3 or $4 per hand) and the stakes do not. What if they only raked $1 out of each pot? What about 2 cents? How low does the rake need to be to make good players profitable in your eyes?
Poker is a game of skill, like you said. Some people are more skillful than others. These are both facts. If a person's skill over another can overcome the rake, they become profitable. I'm not sure how this is unclear.
<< <i>Unraked poker is a game of pure skill and most if not all poker players in clubs and homes already know this. Raked poker is a sucker's game and the "real" pros who make their living playing in clubs and homes against other gamblers, also know this as well.
Actually, this logic makes me understand how little knowledge you have about the game. Internet sites generally rake in 10% of each pot with a max of $3 or $4 per pot. When you're playing 25/50 NL 4 handed and the rake maxes out at $3 or $4 a hand, it becomes fairly insignificant how much the house takes out because it's usually around 1% of the average pot. So if unraked poker is in fact a skill game (like you said), then by your reasoning a good player playing shorthanded against bad players cannot overcome the house raking $3 out of each pot. I can understand (but don't necessarily agree with) your reasoning when it comes to low stakes, but taking $3 out of each $400 pot really does not determine what is a profitable game and what is not. Assuming there are good players and bad players at each stake level, there has to be a point where skill level will overcome rake because the rake maxes out ($3 or $4 per hand) and the stakes do not. What if they only raked $1 out of each pot? What about 2 cents? How low does the rake need to be to make good players profitable in your eyes?
Poker is a game of skill, like you said. Some people are more skillful than others. These are both facts. If a person's skill over another can overcome the rake, they become profitable. I'm not sure how this is unclear. >>
<<< how little knowledge you have about the game. >>>
LOL - Not the first time I've heard that one. It's interesting that those who disagree with me often make comments such as that, but those who agree with me often say I've got more knowledge about poker than anyone they've ever known.
The facts are that I've played a lot of poker in my life, a lot, and I've actually no doubt made "good money" at it over the years for the low stakes in which I used to play. I was generally better than the other players who I played against and usually won money almost every time I played. However when I decided to quit gambling, I also decided to quit playing poker as well.
I could sit down tonight in an unraked poker game, in the homes or clubs in which I used to play, and win some money, maybe a few hundred dollars for the low stakes I've played in, probably a bit less than that, and if I would receive a bad variance for the night, then I'd likely lose some money...but I just grew tired of gambling in general and simply choose not to play poker as well. To spend all night playing poker, just to win on the average say $100, isn't worth it to me anymore. Especially having to breathe in the second hand cigarette smoke prevalent at most poker games - the health risk isn't worth the money to me.
I could address the numbers you provided in detail, and make a valid counterpoint to everything you stated, but frankly I've already done this numerous times, not only at the link I provided but in other forums as well and sometimes I get to the point where I'm a little burnt out chatting against online poker, but obviously I've got some energy left on the subject as I'm chatting here (LOL) - In reality, I'm not against poker at all, I've never knocked poker games played in homes or clubs even though I caution that gambling addiction can also occur there. What I am against and what does truly bug me is the "exploitation" of people by gambling businesses, and gambling websites are the worst at this exploitation, with poker websites being among them.
I'll wrapup this post with this thought...the forum owner I mentioned has publically stated that he lost around $75,000 playing online poker over about 3 years. I did the rake calculations based on how much he told me he played and bet, and not to my surprise but to his surprise it came out to right around $75,000. So basically he broke even against the other players with the rake crushing his bankroll. We chatted back and forth privately and it was clear that even if he was a certain percentage better than the other players, that no way he still could have overcame this $75,000 nut.
In online poker in which there are no body tells from the players, no voice inflections from the players, and no other physical tells, frankly I know, and the poker pros who I know, who play for a living in private clubs also know that it is a first class joke to believe that the online poker rake can be overcome by an honest poker playing individual, even a small rake...particularly after doing the math and realizing how devastating the rake is to a bankroll in the long-run...and it's not even close. In my view it's not even debatable anymore, it's so crystal clear, that an honest individual poker player has no chance beating online poker in the long-run.
Would it be possible for a highly skilled colluding cheating ring to be good enough to beat the rake? I have never ruled out that possibility - but I honestly don't know because a cheating ring that is winning money of course isn't going to disclose publically what they are doing. I have even chatted with a number of gamblers and ex-gamblers who basically quit playing online poker after they tried putting together a "cheating ring" colluding with other players, and they still couldn't beat the game...they still couldn't overcome the effects of the rake which grinds out a bankroll. I told them that perhaps and maybe they were competing against cheating rings bigger and smarter than they were.
I could address the numbers you provided in detail, and make a valid counterpoint to everything you stated, but frankly I've already done this numerous times, not only at the link I provided but in other forums as well
Which thread? The link you provided has a list of all your posts in that forum and I'm not going to read every one. Turn on your pm's and I can shoot you over some scans of past tax returns I happen to have handy.
Frankly, your stories about the forum owner and the lady winning the lottery have no relevance. They are isolated incidents which prove nothing. Maybe the forum owner wasn't as good as he thought he was. You also seem to answer every question I've asked with "I've already explained this before and I don't feel like doing it again." Show me where you've explained how a skilled player in a heads up or shorthanded 25/50 NL game cannot beat the $3 rake against worse opponents. Show me where you explained at what point you think the rake would not hinder a skilled player from being profitable? Let's go to extremes and say I'm playing 200/400 NL online and I'm heads up against a worse opponent- surely the $3 taken out of each $1500 pot is not going to matter, correct? So where is the line drawn in terms of when the rake becomes insignificant?
+++++Edit to add that I agree with you about how the online poker sites advertise and the dangerous nature of glamourizing poker. I hate seeing news stories about high school or college kids getting hooked and maxing out their or their parents' credit cards. I also hate the glamourizing of tournaments and how "anybody could become a millionaire". I feel some guilt about what I do for a living because I know a lot of the money I've made has been from people who are either very young or have a gambling problem. I've actually been working on some business ventures that will hopefully allow me to back away from poker and play as a hobby like I once did. The game is very rarely fun for me any more.
<< <i>I could address the numbers you provided in detail, and make a valid counterpoint to everything you stated, but frankly I've already done this numerous times, not only at the link I provided but in other forums as well
Which thread? The link you provided has a list of all your posts in that forum and I'm not going to read every one. Turn on your pm's and I can shoot you over some scans of past tax returns I happen to have handy.
Frankly, your stories about the forum owner and the lady winning the lottery have no relevance. They are isolated incidents which prove nothing. Maybe the forum owner wasn't as good as he thought he was. You also seem to answer every question I've asked with "I've already explained this before and I don't feel like doing it again." Show me where you've explained how a skilled player in a heads up or shorthanded 25/50 NL game cannot beat the $3 rake against worse opponents. Show me where you explained at what point you think the rake would not hinder a skilled player from being profitable? Let's go to extremes and say I'm playing 200/400 NL online and I'm heads up against a worse opponent- surely the $3 taken out of each $1500 pot is not going to matter, correct? So where is the line drawn in terms of when the rake becomes insignificant?
+++++Edit to add that I agree with you about how the online poker sites advertise and the dangerous nature of glamourizing poker. I hate seeing news stories about high school or college kids getting hooked and maxing out their or their parents' credit cards. I also hate the glamourizing of tournaments and how "anybody could become a millionaire". I feel some guilt about what I do for a living because I know a lot of the money I've made has been from people who are either very young or have a gambling problem. I've actually been working on some business ventures that will hopefully allow me to back away from poker and play as a hobby like I once did. The game is very rarely fun for me any more. >>
Lee - I find the below "news story" published on PRWEB quite despicable. This below article is an example of what bugs the chit out of me - exploitation at its finest.
Neverwinpoker.com Exclusive: How College Kids Are Making $100,000 Per Year Playing Online Poker
It's no secret that online poker exploded over the past few years - the secret is that thousands of college aged students are making six figures from it.
(PRWEB) March 6, 2005 -- It's no secret that online poker exploded over the past few years - the secret is that thousands of college aged students are making six figures from it.
Today thousands of college aged kids are doing the impossible, wagering the unthinkable, and living the dream. Students are skipping class to play $15/$30 texas hold'em, making over $200 per hour, and are finding less and less of a reason to go to class.
How are they doing it? By doing their homework. The new breed of poker player mostly plays on the internet, is 18 – 25 years old, and is most likely a male. Young players have the past 50 years of poker theory wrapped up in a dozen or so books, and tons of software to help model what a winning strategy is. These players are using community poker sites like www.neverwinpoker.com to communicate and discuss strategy. Most importantly, the modern poker player is taking advantage of the online poker room.
Astute players are making over $10,000 per year off sign up bonuses alone. For instance, if you open an account at Partypoker (www.partypoker.com/defaul...m=2012193) and enter the bonus code FREEPP you will receive up to $100 free on your first deposit. There are over 1,000 online poker rooms, and while players tend to stick to one room, most will give their action to another site for a week or two with the added equity of the bonus. Partypoker, for instance, runs deposit bonuses almost every month which will total thousands for each player in 2005.
Now for the part that will make you sick: New players are building their bankrolls from almost nothing. Affiliate programs such as the one run by Bryan Micon (bryanATpartypokerhelpDOTcom) allow anyone with poker friends to sign them up for their Partypoker account, and earn a percentage of the rake they generate. This part alone can account for tens of thousands of dollars per year for the young internet player.
Of course you must be good enough to beat the game. Winning just one big bet per hour at $15/$30 can make you well over $50,000 per year. Total all of those income sources up, and you have a six-figure 19 year old.
Yep, no argument from me. I'd rather they run the stories about people who have lost their life savings or college tuition playing online. It took me three years of losing before I began to consistently turn a profit, but luckily that losing happened at low stakes due to me not making that much money waiting tables and bartending. Any time one of my friends asks me if he could/should play poker for a living, I tell them be prepared to be broke for at least 3 years and even then you might not succeed.
As for the other stuff I mentioned in my last post?
<<< Which thread? The link you provided has a list of all your posts in that forum and I'm not going to read every one. Turn on your pm's and I can shoot you over some scans of past tax returns I happen to have handy. >>>
Lee - We're probably not going to get anywhere with this. I like you and respect you, but quite frankly, gamblers are notorious liars - yes...every one of them and especially poker players. Even poker playing "friends" lie amongst each other when playing poker - call it bluffing or whatever and of course that is socially acceptable in poker. But usually for gamblers the lying occurs in manifestations such as overly exaggerating and bragging if a win occurs, and either understating or not mentioning at all when a loss occurs.
I thought this was clear but I'll mention it one more time...tax returns are useless for proof of winning money from gambling unless audited by a reputable accounting firm, and then the paperwork documentation from the audit still needs to be displayed. For example someone could have accumulated money from selling items for years at say flea markets...and they didn't report the income. Well the IRS of course frowns on not reporting income, and tax assessments, interest and penalties would occur if the IRS knew about it. The "problem" for this flea market seller is that when accumulating a large sum of money, he can't spend it on a large purchase without paying taxes on it because the IRS would easily catch this and a probable audit would take place. So let's say he accumulated $100,000 in cash, hadn't paid taxes, but wanted to buy say a nice boat and not have the IRS on his back...he simply files a tax return as $100,000 in "gambling winnings", pays the taxes, and then he can spend the remaining money with no problem. There can be numerous examples of how this is done with stating "gambling winnings" on tax returns. So perhaps it is clear from a reasonable point of view that a tax return in itself is not good enough to properly prove winning at online poker or other gambling winnings.
If this flea market operator then joined a gambling website affiliate program, and claimed to others that he made $100,000 at online poker last year, and that he could give newbies good advice to help them win if they signup on his affiliate link, and he shows the tax return as proof of his winning prowess...well that "proof" would be a lie wouldn't it? To properly prove online poker winnings, money transfers back and forth from poker websites would have to be documented as well as bank statements showing the deposits and withdrawals matching up.
Again...nobody has stepped forth and done this. I do not rule out the possibility that some who "might" be winning at online poker have not stepped forth because they are involved in a cheating ring, and do not want to show public documentation because the audit would reveal payments to the other players involved in the cheating ring. Again the possibility of cheating rings beating online poker is just a possibility - there is no proof that I've seen that beating online poker is possible even through a cheating ring.
<<< I can shoot you over some scans of past tax returns I happen to have handy. >>>
I'm not going to do this privately - I know you're likely not going to do it publically, but I have challenged before a number of poker players who have bodaciously bragged about all the money they win at online poker, and they even publically mention the amounts they win, for them to simply get their dicumentation audited and then publically post it. Not a single one of them stepped forth and provided this simple and easy proof.
The facts are already crystal clear to me, and I do mean as crystal clear as possible - "Nobody beats the rake" - "Nobody" meaning an honest individual online poker player, playing by the rules, trying to beat and win money from their opponents through better skill.
i have 2 herniated discs thanks to a drunk driver. i cannot sit at a poker table for 8 hours, even with taking breaks. however i train a minimum of 4 days per week in martial arts, that includes serious fighting at least 4+ times per week since the most advanced black belts often have to fight twice per night. so in my circumstance, poker is more physical than martial arts. so yes to me it is definately a sport.
I suspect it's so "crystal clear" to you because you've tried and failed, and afterall, if somebody who knows the game of poker as well as you couldn't beat it, than it obviously can't be beat. Enjoy your closeminded way of thinking and unrealistically high opinion of yourself. I offered to show you my tax returns, other than that there's really not much I can or want to do. I'm certainly not digging through all of my bank records and online transaction receipts to try and prove something to somebody who has no intention of ever believing me. Call me a liar, call me a flea market vendor, call me a drug dealer; I could care less. To simply dismiss something as impossible because you've seen no proof of it is a horribly closeminded way to go through life.
<< <i>I suspect it's so "crystal clear" to you because you've tried and failed, and afterall, if somebody who knows the game of poker as well as you couldn't beat it, than it obviously can't be beat. Enjoy your closeminded way of thinking and unrealistically high opinion of yourself. I offered to show you my tax returns, other than that there's really not much I can or want to do. I'm certainly not digging through all of my bank records and online transaction receipts to try and prove something to somebody who has no intention of ever believing me. Call me a liar, call me a flea market vendor, call me a drug dealer; I could care less. To simply dismiss something as impossible because you've seen no proof of it is a horribly closeminded way to go through life. >>
Lee - I believe I clearly stated that playing poker was profitable for me. And I'd be most happy to believe anyone who provides the simple proof requested.
Frankly, if in fact anyone was making money at online poker, I could still make the points I want to make against it anyway. Let's say it was documented that 1% of the players were making money at online poker...I would still say to all players that to drop out of school, to cut class, to goof off at work playing online poker when work should be done, to spend time away from the family ignoring a spouse and children and instead playing online poker, to spend countless hours learning a game whereby the odds are clearly against winning...I could still make a great case against online poker. Admittedly, the case is better when the facts are as I stated.
I'm not closeminded Lee - I simply ask for the documentation and nobody provides it. I mean many millions of online poker players and many thousands of affiliate commission members out there, and yet nobody has posted this documentation anywhere? Come on now...I would have to believe if I was truly a winning online poker player, and I wanted to entice players to signup and play on my affiliate commission links so that I could earn as much commission money as possible, that I would want my poker playing history to be as transparent as possible...so it would be as believable as possible. I would want to show my audited tax returns and the documented paperwork - I shouldn't have to be asked for it...I would want to "proudly" display the evidence of my online poker playing skills and success.
Yet, no proper documentation anywhere. This isn't closeminded to state that "Nobody beats the rake" - it's based on scientific observation that there is no empirical evidence presented by anyone that properly provides proof of winning. So until this is done, considering all the above facts in this thread, is it wrong to believe at this point that beating online poker as I stated is impossible? I don't think so and there is no doubt in my mind that any scientist who studied the facts on this matter would draw the same conclusion as me.
If anyone ever presents the proper proof, then I'll simply stand corrected - it wouldn't bother me one single bit to do so because as mentioned...I could still make the points I want to make anyway, that online poker is a highly addictive activity and a bad money loser for most people, and is best to be avoided.
Comments
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players....
What is interesting though about your comment is that it is possible to do this although I don't know the procedure. But sophistcated computer hacks can "hijack" a computer that isn't properly protected with firewalls and install a program that would enable them to see on their screen everything you see on your screen - which of course would include your hole cards.
<< <i>
<< <i>Steve,
What would you accept as proper documentation, auditing, and time frame for disproving your theory?
Joe >>
Anyone posting in a public forum claiming to be winning money playing online poker should know that taxes have to be paid on that money. Since these posters have publicly stated that they are winning money, therefore opening themselves up to scrutiny, then it should not be any problem for them to provide the following information. Simply post proof of this winning money in that same public forum. Post it there or on a blog where everyone can see it including IRS agents who may decide to review the accuracy of the information to make sure the poster is not a tax cheat. Post copies of the most recent federal income tax returns. Post copies of estimated tax payment forms and canceled checks made out to the IRS. Post copies of credit card transactions and statements from the gambling websites regarding deposits and withdrawals. Before posting though, take all of this paperwork to a reputable accounting firm and have it audited. The CPA will match-up credit card transactions with bank account statements and other documents necessary for a proper audit. Also post a signed letter from this accounting firm certifying the accuracy of the paperwork. Since the poster presumably has already properly filed this paperwork and paid taxes to the IRS, all this information should be complete and readily available to be handed over to the accounting firm for the audit. The audit would probably cost a few thousand dollars, but since a number of these posters claim to be making seemingly unlimited amounts of money playing online poker, this expense should be peanuts to them. It has never been witnessed anyone claiming to be winning money playing online poker stepping forward with this very simple task of properly proving it. Unless information such as this is posted, then any claims about winning money playing online poker is only a rumor.
No one has stepped forth with proof about winning because winning money in the long-run playing poker against a house cut is impossible. Do some players win money in the short-run? Yes, that is possible and it does happen. Some fortunate players can win a poker tournament or two and start believing that they are some kind of superior poker player who could make a fortune playing online poker. However the fact is that unless these fortunate winners immediately quit playing after winning a tournament or two, then they eventually will gamble back all of the money won and lose more. Unfortunately, most if not all poker players do not quit playing after winning a tournament because of a fantasy dream belief that they can constantly win more.
There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for any player to overcome even the tiniest of house cuts in the long-run. Poker books and articles spin the effects of the house cut with various misinformation and fuzzy math to fool people into believing that online poker can be beat. You must understand that even the tiniest of house cuts add up with each hand played to the point where everyone playing online poker will sooner or later lose their bankroll. A smaller house cut would allow players to be able to keep their bankrolls longer, but eventually all bankrolls will be lost. To some players these house cuts may seem tiny like a teaspoon of water. But those teaspoons of water accumulate to the point where a bankroll is washed away in a raging flood of many thousands of teaspoons of water.
Winning in the long-run playing online poker was already impossible and now it is even more impossible because of poker bots. Poker bots are now rampant at online poker tables. When poker bots collude at the same table and know each other's hole cards, then the individual human players do not stand any chance of winning against them, even if there was not any house cut. Now with these poker bots, the sucker’s game of online poker has become even more of a sucker’s game. Note though that there has never been any documented proof that poker bots can win money. All poker bots offered for sale to the public have turned out to be money losers. The bankrolls of these poker bots get ground out by the house cut in the exact same manner as human players. So basically the debate is over regarding the possibility of an individual being able to win money at online poker. >>
That's pretty much the reply I expected. Why on earth would someone spend thousands of dollars to satisfy the arbitrary criteria of some random person on the Internet?
Joe
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players....
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker
<< <i>
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players....
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Steve,
What would you accept as proper documentation, auditing, and time frame for disproving your theory?
Joe >>
Anyone posting in a public forum claiming to be winning money playing online poker should know that taxes have to be paid on that money. Since these posters have publicly stated that they are winning money, therefore opening themselves up to scrutiny, then it should not be any problem for them to provide the following information. Simply post proof of this winning money in that same public forum. Post it there or on a blog where everyone can see it including IRS agents who may decide to review the accuracy of the information to make sure the poster is not a tax cheat. Post copies of the most recent federal income tax returns. Post copies of estimated tax payment forms and canceled checks made out to the IRS. Post copies of credit card transactions and statements from the gambling websites regarding deposits and withdrawals. Before posting though, take all of this paperwork to a reputable accounting firm and have it audited. The CPA will match-up credit card transactions with bank account statements and other documents necessary for a proper audit. Also post a signed letter from this accounting firm certifying the accuracy of the paperwork. Since the poster presumably has already properly filed this paperwork and paid taxes to the IRS, all this information should be complete and readily available to be handed over to the accounting firm for the audit. The audit would probably cost a few thousand dollars, but since a number of these posters claim to be making seemingly unlimited amounts of money playing online poker, this expense should be peanuts to them. It has never been witnessed anyone claiming to be winning money playing online poker stepping forward with this very simple task of properly proving it. Unless information such as this is posted, then any claims about winning money playing online poker is only a rumor.
No one has stepped forth with proof about winning because winning money in the long-run playing poker against a house cut is impossible. Do some players win money in the short-run? Yes, that is possible and it does happen. Some fortunate players can win a poker tournament or two and start believing that they are some kind of superior poker player who could make a fortune playing online poker. However the fact is that unless these fortunate winners immediately quit playing after winning a tournament or two, then they eventually will gamble back all of the money won and lose more. Unfortunately, most if not all poker players do not quit playing after winning a tournament because of a fantasy dream belief that they can constantly win more.
There is simply way too much luck involved with poker for any player to overcome even the tiniest of house cuts in the long-run. Poker books and articles spin the effects of the house cut with various misinformation and fuzzy math to fool people into believing that online poker can be beat. You must understand that even the tiniest of house cuts add up with each hand played to the point where everyone playing online poker will sooner or later lose their bankroll. A smaller house cut would allow players to be able to keep their bankrolls longer, but eventually all bankrolls will be lost. To some players these house cuts may seem tiny like a teaspoon of water. But those teaspoons of water accumulate to the point where a bankroll is washed away in a raging flood of many thousands of teaspoons of water.
Winning in the long-run playing online poker was already impossible and now it is even more impossible because of poker bots. Poker bots are now rampant at online poker tables. When poker bots collude at the same table and know each other's hole cards, then the individual human players do not stand any chance of winning against them, even if there was not any house cut. Now with these poker bots, the sucker’s game of online poker has become even more of a sucker’s game. Note though that there has never been any documented proof that poker bots can win money. All poker bots offered for sale to the public have turned out to be money losers. The bankrolls of these poker bots get ground out by the house cut in the exact same manner as human players. So basically the debate is over regarding the possibility of an individual being able to win money at online poker. >>
That's pretty much the reply I expected. Why on earth would someone spend thousands of dollars to satisfy the arbitrary criteria of some random person on the Internet?
Joe >>
You make a valid point. But it's not up to me to "prove it" - it's up to the person making the claim to prove it...after all they made the claim not me. If there is a more effective way of proving it then let us know.
And just displaying poker stats isn't even close to good enough to proving anything because anyone could have multiple poker stats and only show the winning ones.
My "criteria" actually agrees with your point. Why should anyone believe the arbitrary statements of anyone else on the internet regarding claims about winning money in the long-run playing online poker?
From the tone of your post I think you may know that there is a big industry out there that for their huge financial gain wants to perpetuate the myth of gamblers winning at online poker. Say someone was earning $300 per month, or $3,000 per month or $30,000 per month or more from affiliate commission programs - they would have enormous financial incentive to want to perpetuate that myth...and that's exactly what they do. And of course those making lusty amounts of money through these commission programs are going to state how much they "win" playing online poker, and/or invent countless numbers of alt-ID's on other forums such as poker forums claiming the same. This is their way of promoting their money fleecing activity.
The others claiming to win money at online poker are gambling addicts who by nature tend to tell tall tales about their gambling wins. They might win $1K on Friday and lose $2K on Saturday but just mention to people the $1K win - this isn't knocking any individual - this is a common occurance which even non-addicted gamblers do. Gamblers love to stretch the truth or alter the truth to suit their egos.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players....
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
Are you serious?
Think about it... 8 handed table and you are, essentially, sitting at 4 of the seats. Of the x number of hole cards, you know HALF of them.
You have a huge advantage over the marks.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players....
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
John Scarne (RIP), perhaps the world's foremost expert on gambling and poker, who guys such as Doyle learned from, stated (paraphrase) "If six poker players were sitting at the table, three chumps and the other three were the world's top poker players, if the three chumps knew each other's hole cards, the chumps would consistently beat the three top players."
-
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players....
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
John Scarne (RIP), perhaps the world's foremost expert on gambling and poker, who guys such as Doyle learned from, stated (paraphrase) "If six poker players were sitting at the table, three chumps and the other three were the world's top poker players, if the three chumps knew each other's hole cards, the chumps would consistently beat the three top players."
- >>
Yes because they could squeeze, meaning Friend 1 could bet, friend 2 calls, Pro 1 reraises, friend 1 re-reraises and friend 2 pushes, this leaves pro thinking his hand is obv beat. Knowing 6 cards out of a 52 card deck will not help you that much. You cheat by betting players out.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players....
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
John Scarne (RIP), perhaps the world's foremost expert on gambling and poker, who guys such as Doyle learned from, stated (paraphrase) "If six poker players were sitting at the table, three chumps and the other three were the world's top poker players, if the three chumps knew each other's hole cards, the chumps would consistently beat the three top players."
- >>
Yes because they could squeeze, meaning Friend 1 could bet, friend 2 calls, Pro 1 reraises, friend 1 re-reraises and friend 2 pushes, this leaves pro thinking his hand is obv beat. Knowing 6 cards out of a 52 card deck will not help you that much. You cheat by betting players out. >>
There's more to it than just that. By knowing if your odds are improving or getting worse, you have a significant advantage over one who doesn't.
Take a statisitics class and it will make more sense.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players....
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker
Yes in this day and age it's quite easy for say three buddies out of state, so that their addresses in no way can be similar, simply have some kind of conferencing system to quickly inform each other of their hole cards. When I address "nobody" winning at online poker, I am presuming as a given - honest individual players. Whether or not colluders can win at online poker I have no idea but I have never discounted that possibility. The colluders will always beat the individual players but can the colluders win money at a large enough rate to overcome the rake? Again...I'm not sure and may not ever know because it is unlikely that a cheating ring is going to expose themselves publicly.
Steve
BTW HU rake is capped at .50
and on ftp the rake on bigger games is capped at .50...
I believe on pokerstars the rake is Capped at 3 dollars...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players....
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
John Scarne (RIP), perhaps the world's foremost expert on gambling and poker, who guys such as Doyle learned from, stated (paraphrase) "If six poker players were sitting at the table, three chumps and the other three were the world's top poker players, if the three chumps knew each other's hole cards, the chumps would consistently beat the three top players."
- >>
Yes because they could squeeze, meaning Friend 1 could bet, friend 2 calls, Pro 1 reraises, friend 1 re-reraises and friend 2 pushes, this leaves pro thinking his hand is obv beat. Knowing 6 cards out of a 52 card deck will not help you that much. You cheat by betting players out. >>
There's more to it than just that. By knowing if your odds are improving or getting worse, you have a significant advantage over one who doesn't.
Take a statisitics class and it will make more sense. >>
I can't say it any better than Stown said it.
Randymoss84 you really need to quit playing poker - take that money you won and run...and run fast. You seem intelligent, but are quite naive about poker and gambling - put the money you luckily won into starting your own business or something like that.
-
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I have a program that lets me see the cards of other players....
Funny you mention that.
I know a couple of people that will sit on the same table and tell each other (via IM or phone) what they have. Normally will sit 2 - 4 on a 6 or 8 handed table, lose a hand here and there to each other (doesn't matter since it's the same bankroll), and the other players have no idea.
The sites try to avoid this by forbidding the same IPs at sit and go tables. However, that doesn't happen if they are playing in a tourney; I've sat at the same table with my roommate numerous times during tournaments. Sure, it's cheating but that's poker
I don't think it really gives you that big of a edge, maybe in terms of squeezing other players but thats about it. >>
John Scarne (RIP), perhaps the world's foremost expert on gambling and poker, who guys such as Doyle learned from, stated (paraphrase) "If six poker players were sitting at the table, three chumps and the other three were the world's top poker players, if the three chumps knew each other's hole cards, the chumps would consistently beat the three top players."
- >>
Yes because they could squeeze, meaning Friend 1 could bet, friend 2 calls, Pro 1 reraises, friend 1 re-reraises and friend 2 pushes, this leaves pro thinking his hand is obv beat. Knowing 6 cards out of a 52 card deck will not help you that much. You cheat by betting players out. >>
There's more to it than just that. By knowing if your odds are improving or getting worse, you have a significant advantage over one who doesn't.
Take a statisitics class and it will make more sense. >>
I can't say it any better than Stown said it.
Randymoss84 you really need to quit playing poker - take that money you won and run...and run fast. You seem intelligent, but are quite naive about poker and gambling - put the money you luckily won into starting your own business or something like that.
- >>
Ill pass thanks, If I need advice I'll ask.
Poked her last night.
She was a real sport about it.
Showed her a one eyed jack wearing a helmet.
She said I was the aces.
<< <i>Has anyone seen 21? It was loosely based on the real life story, but I thought it was an excellent movie. >>
Taking the Woman to see it tonight!
<< <i>* This poll has nothing to do with any particular thread which may, or may not, still be in existence on the Sports Talk Forum >>
Hmmm, I wonder....
This is a great thread.
+1 for the resurrection.
Yes, delusional, or just young & naive, or the usual circumstance of getting addicted to it...to believe that raked online poker can be beat in the long-run.
The great thing about all my comments on this thread, which have also been posted by others a number of times in poker forums, not a single person, yes not one, has stepped forth with audited documented proof of winning money in the long-run at online poker.
Frankly, this discussion bores me now because the facts are so obvious, so crystal clear, about online poker being such a pathetic loser sucker's game that can't possibly be beat. Raked online ring games are pathetic money losers almost beyond belief. However a poker tournament could be won, but even any real poker pro would tell you, that those online tournaments are basically the same thing as buying a lottery ticket...somebody has to win, unless it's a house bot, and that fact unfortunately does make online poker terribly addicting...the hope that the next bet could lead to a hot streak or perhaps a big win...which yes is possible but in the long-run any winning money will be lost back and more.
Those are the facts. Case closed.
-
<< <i>Speaking of delusional, with all that has transpired in the world of online poker over the past few years, with all the rampant cheating, bots, RNG manipulation, and I could go on and on...you'd have to be delusional to believe that money could be made by any individual playing online poker. It was a sucker's game and now its become even a bigger sucker's game.
Yes, delusional, or just young & naive, or the usual circumstance of getting addicted to it...to believe that raked online poker can be beat in the long-run.
The great thing about all my comments on this thread, which have also been posted by others a number of times in poker forums, not a single person, yes not one, has stepped forth with audited documented proof of winning money in the long-run at online poker.
Frankly, this discussion bores me now because the facts are so obvious, so crystal clear, about online poker being such a pathetic loser sucker's game that can't possibly be beat. Raked online ring games are pathetic money losers almost beyond belief. However a poker tournament could be won, but even any real poker pro would tell you, that those online tournaments are basically the same thing as buying a lottery ticket...somebody has to win, unless it's a house bot, and that fact unfortunately does make online poker terribly addicting...the hope that the next bet could lead to a hot streak or perhaps a big win...which yes is possible but in the long-run any winning money will be lost back and more.
Those are the facts. Case closed.
- >>
Nu uh.
I have a friend who knew this guy who sat next to this other guy who said he made millions on on-line poker and now lives in the caribbean making 30%.
<< <i>
<< <i>Speaking of delusional, with all that has transpired in the world of online poker over the past few years, with all the rampant cheating, bots, RNG manipulation, and I could go on and on...you'd have to be delusional to believe that money could be made by any individual playing online poker. It was a sucker's game and now its become even a bigger sucker's game.
Yes, delusional, or just young & naive, or the usual circumstance of getting addicted to it...to believe that raked online poker can be beat in the long-run.
The great thing about all my comments on this thread, which have also been posted by others a number of times in poker forums, not a single person, yes not one, has stepped forth with audited documented proof of winning money in the long-run at online poker.
Frankly, this discussion bores me now because the facts are so obvious, so crystal clear, about online poker being such a pathetic loser sucker's game that can't possibly be beat. Raked online ring games are pathetic money losers almost beyond belief. However a poker tournament could be won, but even any real poker pro would tell you, that those online tournaments are basically the same thing as buying a lottery ticket...somebody has to win, unless it's a house bot, and that fact unfortunately does make online poker terribly addicting...the hope that the next bet could lead to a hot streak or perhaps a big win...which yes is possible but in the long-run any winning money will be lost back and more.
Those are the facts. Case closed.
- >>
Nu uh.
I have a friend who knew this guy who sat next to this other guy who said he made millions on on-line poker and now lives in the caribbean making 30%.
LOL
Hey man - I know you and others here like to gamble and believe it or not I've got no problem with that. I ain't the least bit, not even a smigeon against gamblers. I just can't stand the parasites who profit off the backs of addicted gamblers with their lying BS.
I'll root for anyone here anytime they're entered in a poker tournament or make a sports bet. All I can say is "be careful" - gambling has a way of biting people in the arse often when they least expect it or are unprepared for it. Better in my view to understand exactly what gambling is, and the highly addictive nature of the activity to many people out there.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>Has anyone seen 21? It was loosely based on the real life story, but I thought it was an excellent movie. >>
Taking the Woman to see it tonight! >>
The book was much better
<< <i>poker...???? I dont even know her! >>
Obviously it has. ESPN seems to use it to fill in dead times on their schedule when they don't have any contracts with various other sports
to show a game.
I find it boring and a waste of time and immediately change the channel when it shows up.
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
<< <i>its an activity >>
So is washing dishes and cleaning out a litter box but I hope those are not on ESPN's radar as a new spectator sport.
Liquor in the front
Poker in the rear.
<< <i>
<< <i>its an activity >>
So is washing dishes and cleaning out a litter box but I hope those are not on ESPN's radar as a new spectator sport.
I'd be interested in watching hot cheerleaders wash dishes... Ooooh, the suds
Poker is not a sport. Although ESPNs original programming was to include almost everything competitive. They've had darts, boat racing, boggle tournaments, dog shows, baseball etc... None of those things are sports either, but I guess some like to watch them.
And no, I don't consider it a sport.
Steve
<< <i>stevek- I've made a living playing poker over the last 6 years (as my main source of income) and over 80% of my total income over that time has come from online cash games (not tournaments). And even that number is skewed low due to a recent score in a live tourney, so before that it was closer to 85%. Shorthanded games (2-4 handed) will always be profitable for a good player due to the increased edge a player has over fewer lesser skilled opponents. I don't know, maybe I'm just a lucky addict. As far as documented proof, I'm not sure what I could show you to prove that I'm a winning player over 6 years, other than the fact that I now own a car, a house, paid for my wedding and am about to start having kids, and I was broke (and in serious debt), waiting tables and living at my mom's house as recently as 4 years ago. The only other thing I do currently for income besides play poker is sell cards, and 100% of that goes back into cards.
And no, I don't consider it a sport. >>
Lee - I've already stated what it would take. I'm not going to "accuse" you personally or anybody else personally of anything, but often, quite often, a number of people mark down gambling winnings on their tax returns when in fact the money was made through other activities, often illegal activities, for example from the sale of drugs. This is an old trick, the IRS knows about it, but they don't care - they collect taxes - they don't care where the money comes from as long as taxes are paid on it. Of course nobody is going to write down "drug dealer" on their tax return. Don't huff at me for accusing you of anything - I am not accusing you of anything...Okay!
But this is all why the tax return would have to be audited and documented by a reputable accounting firm, and the documentation reviewable by the public to have credibility. It's really quite obvious and quite simple and quite easy to do this, but yet nobody comes forth.
I even recently had a long discussion about this at http://p098.ezboard.com/General-Discussion/fnomorepokerfrm2?page=1 with an author of a recently published top selling poker book, yet even this guy would not come forth with the proof, using every excuse in the book - basically I called his 2/7 os bluff and he folded.
I post in that forum as Phillysteve because my real name was already in use when I signed up at Ezboard. I don't own the forum but I know who does, and he basically doesn't post any more and doesn't have any interest in discussing poker at this point - he's quit gambling and moved on with his life...doing well.
Anyone can state whatever they want to in an internet forum, and anyone is free to believe whatever they want to believe...but I won't believe any claims of winning in the long-run at online poker until someone comes forth with the proof as requested - a very simple and easy proof. I don't expect that proof to be forthcoming anytime soon because it's so crystal clear that raked online poker can't be beat, and it's not even close.
When the forum owner played poker at WSEX when it was rake free, and he saw the rake amount calculated, he was amazed at how fast the rake accumulates and adds up - it helped him to realize that raked online poker truly is a game for suckers.
The con game from affiliate commission hucksters and poker websites to paraphrase is "All ya gotta be is a percentage amount better than the other players, than the rake percentage, and you can make money playing online poker" - this phrase is one of the slickest phrases ever in the long history of con games perpetrated on naive people, and in this case also addicted gamblers.
What the hucksters don't state when trying to entice and lure their customers into playing and continuing to play online poker is that there is variance in poker which every poker player understands, but the rake accumulates whether you are winning or losing money...there is no variance in the rake...it continues to accumulate to the point where it will eventually wipeout any size bankroll.
Unraked poker is a game of pure skill and most if not all poker players in clubs and homes already know this. Raked poker is a sucker's game and the "real" pros who make their living playing in clubs and homes against other gamblers, also know this as well.
Steve
I do have one question though- it seems like you're trying to bend over backwards to prove to everybody that raked poker can't be beat. Why? I'm an atheist and don't go around trying to prove that god doesn't exist to religious people. It seems like an exercise in frustration and wasting time.
<< <i>Believe what you want. I could care less. Maybe I'm just lucky or maybe I'm lying. Go on believing what you believe because I'm certainly not going to kill myself trying to prove that I'm a profitable poker player online.
I do have one question though- it seems like you're trying to bend over backwards to prove to everybody that raked poker can't be beat. Why? I'm an atheist and don't go around trying to prove that god doesn't exist to religious people. It seems like an exercise in frustration and wasting time. >>
Lee - I hope you are winning money. I've stated many times here and elsewhere that I root for gamblers, never against them.
You say "maybe I'm just lucky?" and I realize you are being facetious towards me, and that's okay. But there's a true story about a lady in the US who hit the lottery for over a million dollars, and incredibly she hit it again about a year later for over a million dollars. Amazing but true. I also heard another person somewhere did the same thing recently, might have been a European lottery.
Sometimes random good luck is hard to fathom but it happens. Why does a guy such as Audie Murphy come out of WW2 unscathed despite so many German bullets shot at him, yet many of his buddies around him were killed. Again...good luck can work in mysterious ways, or maybe it's just random circumstances and occurances.
Look at the top so-called poker "pros" seen on TV. Sure they're good poker players, and anyone who understands poker can see the difference in the class of talent. Perhaps about five or so of them are truly consistent winning pros. The rest of them?...basically they are there in the limelight because of getting a lucky variance at the right time in the right tournament. They'll go broke sooner or later from entering too many raked poker tournaments.
The facts are, as you may know, that most of the so-called pros seen on TV are broke - sponsors provide their buy-in money for the tournaments...this has been publically stated by Barry Greenstein and others the fact that most poker players seen on TV are broke, and some of them are not even considered good poker players.
You ask "why?" - Even when I was a gambler, I disliked con artists and scammers, and I especially loathe them now. Either something bugs someone or it doesn't - to me online poker is a sickening scam, and I absolutely believe online poker will go down in history as one of the worst scams of this early 21st century.
BTW - that lady in the US who hit the lottery twice - she is now dead broke and in debt...in worse shape now than she was before hitting the first lottery. Should be a lesson to all gamblers who get lucky and win big that they should permanently quit gambling and save the winning money. Unfortunately most if not virtually all gamblers don't quit gambling after a big win and they windup squandering the money or losing it back from increased gambling.
Steve
For a lot of people, winning the lottery is the American dream. But for many lottery winners, the reality is more like a nightmare.
"Winning the lottery isn't always what it's cracked up to be," says Evelyn Adams, who won the New Jersey lottery not just once, but twice (1985, 1986), to the tune of $5.4 million. Today the money is all gone and Adams lives in a trailer.
"I won the American dream but I lost it, too. It was a very hard fall. It's called rock bottom," says Adams.
"Everybody wanted my money. Everybody had their hand out. I never learned one simple word in the English language -- 'No.' I wish I had the chance to do it all over again. I'd be much smarter about it now," says Adams, who also lost money at the slot machines in Atlantic City.
"I was a big-time gambler," admits Adams. "I didn't drop a million dollars, but it was a lot of money. I made mistakes, some I regret, some I don't. I'm human. I can't go back now so I just go forward, one step at a time."
Actually, this logic makes me understand how little knowledge you have about the game. Internet sites generally rake in 10% of each pot with a max of $3 or $4 per pot. When you're playing 25/50 NL 4 handed and the rake maxes out at $3 or $4 a hand, it becomes fairly insignificant how much the house takes out because it's usually around 1% of the average pot. So if unraked poker is in fact a skill game (like you said), then by your reasoning a good player playing shorthanded against bad players cannot overcome the house raking $3 out of each pot. I can understand (but don't necessarily agree with) your reasoning when it comes to low stakes, but taking $3 out of each $400 pot really does not determine what is a profitable game and what is not. Assuming there are good players and bad players at each stake level, there has to be a point where skill level will overcome rake because the rake maxes out ($3 or $4 per hand) and the stakes do not. What if they only raked $1 out of each pot? What about 2 cents? How low does the rake need to be to make good players profitable in your eyes?
Poker is a game of skill, like you said. Some people are more skillful than others. These are both facts. If a person's skill over another can overcome the rake, they become profitable. I'm not sure how this is unclear.
<< <i>Unraked poker is a game of pure skill and most if not all poker players in clubs and homes already know this. Raked poker is a sucker's game and the "real" pros who make their living playing in clubs and homes against other gamblers, also know this as well.
Actually, this logic makes me understand how little knowledge you have about the game. Internet sites generally rake in 10% of each pot with a max of $3 or $4 per pot. When you're playing 25/50 NL 4 handed and the rake maxes out at $3 or $4 a hand, it becomes fairly insignificant how much the house takes out because it's usually around 1% of the average pot. So if unraked poker is in fact a skill game (like you said), then by your reasoning a good player playing shorthanded against bad players cannot overcome the house raking $3 out of each pot. I can understand (but don't necessarily agree with) your reasoning when it comes to low stakes, but taking $3 out of each $400 pot really does not determine what is a profitable game and what is not. Assuming there are good players and bad players at each stake level, there has to be a point where skill level will overcome rake because the rake maxes out ($3 or $4 per hand) and the stakes do not. What if they only raked $1 out of each pot? What about 2 cents? How low does the rake need to be to make good players profitable in your eyes?
Poker is a game of skill, like you said. Some people are more skillful than others. These are both facts. If a person's skill over another can overcome the rake, they become profitable. I'm not sure how this is unclear. >>
<<< how little knowledge you have about the game. >>>
LOL - Not the first time I've heard that one. It's interesting that those who disagree with me often make comments such as that, but those who agree with me often say I've got more knowledge about poker than anyone they've ever known.
The facts are that I've played a lot of poker in my life, a lot, and I've actually no doubt made "good money" at it over the years for the low stakes in which I used to play. I was generally better than the other players who I played against and usually won money almost every time I played. However when I decided to quit gambling, I also decided to quit playing poker as well.
I could sit down tonight in an unraked poker game, in the homes or clubs in which I used to play, and win some money, maybe a few hundred dollars for the low stakes I've played in, probably a bit less than that, and if I would receive a bad variance for the night, then I'd likely lose some money...but I just grew tired of gambling in general and simply choose not to play poker as well. To spend all night playing poker, just to win on the average say $100, isn't worth it to me anymore. Especially having to breathe in the second hand cigarette smoke prevalent at most poker games - the health risk isn't worth the money to me.
I could address the numbers you provided in detail, and make a valid counterpoint to everything you stated, but frankly I've already done this numerous times, not only at the link I provided but in other forums as well and sometimes I get to the point where I'm a little burnt out chatting against online poker, but obviously I've got some energy left on the subject as I'm chatting here (LOL) - In reality, I'm not against poker at all, I've never knocked poker games played in homes or clubs even though I caution that gambling addiction can also occur there. What I am against and what does truly bug me is the "exploitation" of people by gambling businesses, and gambling websites are the worst at this exploitation, with poker websites being among them.
I'll wrapup this post with this thought...the forum owner I mentioned has publically stated that he lost around $75,000 playing online poker over about 3 years. I did the rake calculations based on how much he told me he played and bet, and not to my surprise but to his surprise it came out to right around $75,000. So basically he broke even against the other players with the rake crushing his bankroll. We chatted back and forth privately and it was clear that even if he was a certain percentage better than the other players, that no way he still could have overcame this $75,000 nut.
In online poker in which there are no body tells from the players, no voice inflections from the players, and no other physical tells, frankly I know, and the poker pros who I know, who play for a living in private clubs also know that it is a first class joke to believe that the online poker rake can be overcome by an honest poker playing individual, even a small rake...particularly after doing the math and realizing how devastating the rake is to a bankroll in the long-run...and it's not even close. In my view it's not even debatable anymore, it's so crystal clear, that an honest individual poker player has no chance beating online poker in the long-run.
Would it be possible for a highly skilled colluding cheating ring to be good enough to beat the rake? I have never ruled out that possibility - but I honestly don't know because a cheating ring that is winning money of course isn't going to disclose publically what they are doing. I have even chatted with a number of gamblers and ex-gamblers who basically quit playing online poker after they tried putting together a "cheating ring" colluding with other players, and they still couldn't beat the game...they still couldn't overcome the effects of the rake which grinds out a bankroll. I told them that perhaps and maybe they were competing against cheating rings bigger and smarter than they were.
Steve
Which thread? The link you provided has a list of all your posts in that forum and I'm not going to read every one. Turn on your pm's and I can shoot you over some scans of past tax returns I happen to have handy.
Frankly, your stories about the forum owner and the lady winning the lottery have no relevance. They are isolated incidents which prove nothing. Maybe the forum owner wasn't as good as he thought he was. You also seem to answer every question I've asked with "I've already explained this before and I don't feel like doing it again." Show me where you've explained how a skilled player in a heads up or shorthanded 25/50 NL game cannot beat the $3 rake against worse opponents. Show me where you explained at what point you think the rake would not hinder a skilled player from being profitable? Let's go to extremes and say I'm playing 200/400 NL online and I'm heads up against a worse opponent- surely the $3 taken out of each $1500 pot is not going to matter, correct? So where is the line drawn in terms of when the rake becomes insignificant?
+++++Edit to add that I agree with you about how the online poker sites advertise and the dangerous nature of glamourizing poker. I hate seeing news stories about high school or college kids getting hooked and maxing out their or their parents' credit cards. I also hate the glamourizing of tournaments and how "anybody could become a millionaire". I feel some guilt about what I do for a living because I know a lot of the money I've made has been from people who are either very young or have a gambling problem. I've actually been working on some business ventures that will hopefully allow me to back away from poker and play as a hobby like I once did. The game is very rarely fun for me any more.
<< <i>I could address the numbers you provided in detail, and make a valid counterpoint to everything you stated, but frankly I've already done this numerous times, not only at the link I provided but in other forums as well
Which thread? The link you provided has a list of all your posts in that forum and I'm not going to read every one. Turn on your pm's and I can shoot you over some scans of past tax returns I happen to have handy.
Frankly, your stories about the forum owner and the lady winning the lottery have no relevance. They are isolated incidents which prove nothing. Maybe the forum owner wasn't as good as he thought he was. You also seem to answer every question I've asked with "I've already explained this before and I don't feel like doing it again." Show me where you've explained how a skilled player in a heads up or shorthanded 25/50 NL game cannot beat the $3 rake against worse opponents. Show me where you explained at what point you think the rake would not hinder a skilled player from being profitable? Let's go to extremes and say I'm playing 200/400 NL online and I'm heads up against a worse opponent- surely the $3 taken out of each $1500 pot is not going to matter, correct? So where is the line drawn in terms of when the rake becomes insignificant?
+++++Edit to add that I agree with you about how the online poker sites advertise and the dangerous nature of glamourizing poker. I hate seeing news stories about high school or college kids getting hooked and maxing out their or their parents' credit cards. I also hate the glamourizing of tournaments and how "anybody could become a millionaire". I feel some guilt about what I do for a living because I know a lot of the money I've made has been from people who are either very young or have a gambling problem. I've actually been working on some business ventures that will hopefully allow me to back away from poker and play as a hobby like I once did. The game is very rarely fun for me any more. >>
Lee - I find the below "news story" published on PRWEB quite despicable. This below article is an example of what bugs the chit out of me - exploitation at its finest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Neverwinpoker.com Exclusive: How College Kids Are Making $100,000 Per Year Playing Online Poker
It's no secret that online poker exploded over the past few years - the secret is that thousands of college aged students are making six figures from it.
(PRWEB) March 6, 2005 -- It's no secret that online poker exploded over the past few years - the secret is that thousands of college aged students are making six figures from it.
Today thousands of college aged kids are doing the impossible, wagering the unthinkable, and living the dream. Students are skipping class to play $15/$30 texas hold'em, making over $200 per hour, and are finding less and less of a reason to go to class.
How are they doing it? By doing their homework. The new breed of poker player mostly plays on the internet, is 18 – 25 years old, and is most likely a male. Young players have the past 50 years of poker theory wrapped up in a dozen or so books, and tons of software to help model what a winning strategy is. These players are using community poker sites like www.neverwinpoker.com to communicate and discuss strategy. Most importantly, the modern poker player is taking advantage of the online poker room.
Astute players are making over $10,000 per year off sign up bonuses alone. For instance, if you open an account at Partypoker (www.partypoker.com/defaul...m=2012193) and enter the bonus code FREEPP you will receive up to $100 free on your first deposit. There are over 1,000 online poker rooms, and while players tend to stick to one room, most will give their action to another site for a week or two with the added equity of the bonus. Partypoker, for instance, runs deposit bonuses almost every month which will total thousands for each player in 2005.
Now for the part that will make you sick: New players are building their bankrolls from almost nothing. Affiliate programs such as the one run by Bryan Micon (bryanATpartypokerhelpDOTcom) allow anyone with poker friends to sign them up for their Partypoker account, and earn a percentage of the rake they generate. This part alone can account for tens of thousands of dollars per year for the young internet player.
Of course you must be good enough to beat the game. Winning just one big bet per hour at $15/$30 can make you well over $50,000 per year. Total all of those income sources up, and you have a six-figure 19 year old.
-
As for the other stuff I mentioned in my last post?
Lee - We're probably not going to get anywhere with this. I like you and respect you, but quite frankly, gamblers are notorious liars - yes...every one of them and especially poker players. Even poker playing "friends" lie amongst each other when playing poker - call it bluffing or whatever and of course that is socially acceptable in poker. But usually for gamblers the lying occurs in manifestations such as overly exaggerating and bragging if a win occurs, and either understating or not mentioning at all when a loss occurs.
I thought this was clear but I'll mention it one more time...tax returns are useless for proof of winning money from gambling unless audited by a reputable accounting firm, and then the paperwork documentation from the audit still needs to be displayed. For example someone could have accumulated money from selling items for years at say flea markets...and they didn't report the income. Well the IRS of course frowns on not reporting income, and tax assessments, interest and penalties would occur if the IRS knew about it. The "problem" for this flea market seller is that when accumulating a large sum of money, he can't spend it on a large purchase without paying taxes on it because the IRS would easily catch this and a probable audit would take place. So let's say he accumulated $100,000 in cash, hadn't paid taxes, but wanted to buy say a nice boat and not have the IRS on his back...he simply files a tax return as $100,000 in "gambling winnings", pays the taxes, and then he can spend the remaining money with no problem. There can be numerous examples of how this is done with stating "gambling winnings" on tax returns. So perhaps it is clear from a reasonable point of view that a tax return in itself is not good enough to properly prove winning at online poker or other gambling winnings.
If this flea market operator then joined a gambling website affiliate program, and claimed to others that he made $100,000 at online poker last year, and that he could give newbies good advice to help them win if they signup on his affiliate link, and he shows the tax return as proof of his winning prowess...well that "proof" would be a lie wouldn't it? To properly prove online poker winnings, money transfers back and forth from poker websites would have to be documented as well as bank statements showing the deposits and withdrawals matching up.
Again...nobody has stepped forth and done this. I do not rule out the possibility that some who "might" be winning at online poker have not stepped forth because they are involved in a cheating ring, and do not want to show public documentation because the audit would reveal payments to the other players involved in the cheating ring. Again the possibility of cheating rings beating online poker is just a possibility - there is no proof that I've seen that beating online poker is possible even through a cheating ring.
<<< I can shoot you over some scans of past tax returns I happen to have handy. >>>
I'm not going to do this privately - I know you're likely not going to do it publically, but I have challenged before a number of poker players who have bodaciously bragged about all the money they win at online poker, and they even publically mention the amounts they win, for them to simply get their dicumentation audited and then publically post it. Not a single one of them stepped forth and provided this simple and easy proof.
The facts are already crystal clear to me, and I do mean as crystal clear as possible - "Nobody beats the rake" - "Nobody" meaning an honest individual online poker player, playing by the rules, trying to beat and win money from their opponents through better skill.
Steve
i have 2 herniated discs thanks to a drunk driver. i cannot sit at a poker table for 8 hours, even with taking breaks. however i train a minimum of 4 days per week in martial arts, that includes serious fighting at least 4+ times per week since the most advanced black belts often have to fight twice per night. so in my circumstance, poker is more physical than martial arts. so yes to me it is definately a sport.
<< <i>I suspect it's so "crystal clear" to you because you've tried and failed, and afterall, if somebody who knows the game of poker as well as you couldn't beat it, than it obviously can't be beat. Enjoy your closeminded way of thinking and unrealistically high opinion of yourself. I offered to show you my tax returns, other than that there's really not much I can or want to do. I'm certainly not digging through all of my bank records and online transaction receipts to try and prove something to somebody who has no intention of ever believing me. Call me a liar, call me a flea market vendor, call me a drug dealer; I could care less. To simply dismiss something as impossible because you've seen no proof of it is a horribly closeminded way to go through life. >>
Lee - I believe I clearly stated that playing poker was profitable for me. And I'd be most happy to believe anyone who provides the simple proof requested.
Frankly, if in fact anyone was making money at online poker, I could still make the points I want to make against it anyway. Let's say it was documented that 1% of the players were making money at online poker...I would still say to all players that to drop out of school, to cut class, to goof off at work playing online poker when work should be done, to spend time away from the family ignoring a spouse and children and instead playing online poker, to spend countless hours learning a game whereby the odds are clearly against winning...I could still make a great case against online poker. Admittedly, the case is better when the facts are as I stated.
I'm not closeminded Lee - I simply ask for the documentation and nobody provides it. I mean many millions of online poker players and many thousands of affiliate commission members out there, and yet nobody has posted this documentation anywhere? Come on now...I would have to believe if I was truly a winning online poker player, and I wanted to entice players to signup and play on my affiliate commission links so that I could earn as much commission money as possible, that I would want my poker playing history to be as transparent as possible...so it would be as believable as possible. I would want to show my audited tax returns and the documented paperwork - I shouldn't have to be asked for it...I would want to "proudly" display the evidence of my online poker playing skills and success.
Yet, no proper documentation anywhere. This isn't closeminded to state that "Nobody beats the rake" - it's based on scientific observation that there is no empirical evidence presented by anyone that properly provides proof of winning. So until this is done, considering all the above facts in this thread, is it wrong to believe at this point that beating online poker as I stated is impossible? I don't think so and there is no doubt in my mind that any scientist who studied the facts on this matter would draw the same conclusion as me.
If anyone ever presents the proper proof, then I'll simply stand corrected - it wouldn't bother me one single bit to do so because as mentioned...I could still make the points I want to make anyway, that online poker is a highly addictive activity and a bad money loser for most people, and is best to be avoided.
Steve
Steve