Poker is not a sport, if you consider a "sport" to require a component of physical competition requiring the use of some or all of your body to participate in the event and promote your chances of winning the competition.
Poker is an "intellectual" competition, as is chess, which requires that one uses one brain, intelligence, common sense, people skills and intellect in promoting your chances of winning the competition.
<< <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>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 think you meant to say I couldn't care less. Saying I could care less implies that you actually do care somewhat and are capable of caring less.
One last point if I may before I guess the thread runs out of gas. I believe Lee hit on a nice tournament win recently - I think he and others mentioned it, but I didn't see the thread or the amount, and I sincerely congratulate him on the win.
Lee mentioned that the lottery illustration of mine had no relevance, but I believe it does have relevance. As I illustrated in the Audie Murphy example, luck is a mysterious thing and can perhaps last longer than maybe I or anyone else believes should be possible.
For example, say someone is entering a lot of poker tournaments, there is always that time in the tournaments, that big key all-in bet which often is basically a coin flip, that needs to be won to keep advancing and eventually place high or win. Just for example sake, let's say when entering 100 tournaments, there are say 500 key big bets...again just for illustration purposes to make a point. Well two poker players in theory could have basically identical skill, but the perceived better player who is placing high or winning a few tournaments, has a hot variance for an extended period and wins say 350 out of the 500 coin flips and wins millions.....whereby the other player who is a perceived bad poker player because he only wins 150 out of the 500 coin flips and gets eliminated early from the tournaments and wins nothing.
But random luck such as this in almost all walks of life just seems to even out in the long-run no matter what it is, not just poker. The guy who has been lucky winning 350 out of 500 "races", those coin flips over a longer extended period of time do tend to even out. Suddenly he goes perceivably cold and can't place high in tournaments any longer, even though he may be playing the cards exactly as he was before.
Playing in enough tournaments with those 2K, 5K, 10K and larger buy-ins...and with tournament cuts of around 3% to 10%, hopefully it's plain to see why the fact is that most of the so-called "pros" seen on TV are broke. If it wasn't for various types of sponsors fronting the buy-ins, a good number of these "familiar faces" on TV would instead of playing in the tournament, would likely be watching the tournament on a 13" screen TV in a cheap apartment somewhere.
This is exactly why also that just a one year audited tax return wouldn't be good enough to prove winning at online poker is possible. It would have to be done over a number of years, perhaps 3 to 5 years to allow for those possible and probable hot variances. Many players who win a tournament (hit the lottery) start believing that they are now poker playing genuises, but as sure as gravity that "good luck" wears off and the luck evens out and usually then they suffer a cold streak beyond their own belief. Then they start blaming their play or other reasons for their losing, when it was simply a matter of what was stated in this post - they had a nice lucky variance for awhile, and now it's evening out.
However the rakes, tournament cuts, entry fees and other gambling house cuts don't even out - that accumulates to the point of eventually sooner or later crushing a bankroll. The gambling house whether it is brick & mortar or a gambling website, is the only eventual winner....the gambling house eventually winds up with all the player's money...just a question of when.
That's why I believe it is good advice if ever hitting on a nice poker tournament win, to quit gambling permanently and enjoy the money IE: Take the money and run! Unfortunately too many if not virtually all tournament winners will keep gambling until they go broke and feel the painful sting of gambling addiction. Of course there is always the hope that in the next tournament they could win money again and then again be "on top of the world" - which is one reason why gambling addiction is such a tough addiction - arguably the toughest.
Wow, you're like the Gambler's Anonymous version of an online Jehovah's Witness, preaching the ills of everything gambling and how you've come to see the light and how everybody should follow you. I didn't realize this whole time that your purpose for posting this stuff was to carry on your personal crusade to get people to stop playing online poker or gamble in general. If I knew you were going to be this churchy, I would never have gotten involved in this discussion, which as it turns out is really your sermon. Most here would say a sportstalk forum is not appropriate for this type of preaching.
I have nothing but admiration for people who have used GA, AA, NA or the church to improve their lives. Just don't bring it to other people who obviously don't want it in their face, and don't disguise your rhetoric as fact or data-based when it is anything but.
Edit- I'm done posting on this thread because stevek is obviously right about everything and we should all do what he says.
<< <i>Wow, you're like the Gambler's Anonymous version of an online Jehovah's Witness, preaching the ills of everything gambling and how you've come to see the light and how everybody should follow you. I didn't realize this whole time that your purpose for posting this stuff was to carry on your personal crusade to get people to stop playing online poker or gamble in general. If I knew you were going to be this churchy, I would never have gotten involved in this discussion, which as it turns out is really your sermon. Most here would say a sportstalk forum is not appropriate for this type of preaching.
I have nothing but admiration for people who have used GA, AA, NA or the church to improve their lives. Just don't bring it to other people who obviously don't want it in their face, and don't disguise your rhetoric as fact or data-based when it is anything but.
Edit- I'm done posting on this thread because stevek is obviously right about everything and we should all do what he says. >>
Basically everything I've stated is based on fact and observation. Of course I'm correct about these points, but either you are involved in an affiliate commission program and don't want your customers to learn the whole truth about online poker, and/or you are just an addicted gambler who was fortunate enough to score on a recent poker tournament and then felt like you were a poker gambling genius blessed with endless good luck.
Based on your comment "The game is very rarely fun for me any more" I have a feeling that you have lost back a significant portion of that tournament money - the luck is evening out as it usually does.
A warning has been provided about what will happen if continuing to play online poker...not a question of if it will happen, but when it will happen. It's up to the reader to heed the advice or not. It is hoped everyone follows the good advice but I do understand how tough is this addiction.
Along with the baseball cards you sold on ebay from your "mailman" on which you posted a number of threads in the Sports Cards forum, I noticed you had a number of vintage boxing magazines on ebay as well. Perhaps it was all from your mailman. Nice stuff by the way.
I remember selling off some of my baseball card collection to cover gambling losses. Those bookies need to be paid or else, right? And I certainly didn't want to not have money to be able to bet and possibly hit on a nice trifecta at Belmont Park - then I could simply buy back similar cards if I wanted to, and even buy more cards as well, right? All part of the thinking in gambling addiction.
Fortunately as an ex-gambler, my baseball card collection has been growing nicely now because my hard-earned money isn't foolishly being lost to gambling houses. To me that's what this thread is about...saving our money or spending it wisely on a great hobby such as baseball card collecting, or throwing it away foolishly on gambling - the choice is ours...which is why I believe this discussion is very appropriate for this forum. Unless PSA owns casinos, I'm sure they would rather see people collect baseball cards, than collect gambling debts.
Many years ago I used to drink...heavily. The drinking and my behavior caused the loss of my family, job, and home.
Through the help of some good people I was able to stop the drinking and carry on with life. It has been a very very long time. Long enough that my life is once again normal and there are only a handful of people in my life now who knew me then. Thankfully they do not remind me too often of those days.
As I sought help and accepted the advice of those wishing to see me recover, I discovered something. At the time I was hanging out only with people in my situation and I noticed that we all carried a burden...the fact that we could not drink. At that point in my life this was a good idea. I was not able to do anything else to test myself. However, over time it became apparent that I was limiting myself, that I truly wanted to be just someone who did not drink but carried on a normal life. In time I slowly surrounded myself with regular people, some who drink, some who do not. But, my life is no longer predicated on my problem. The issue does not dominate my actions. Most people today know me as someone who has a Diet Pepsi at parties, a regular guy who just chooses not to drink. They do not know the whole story. In this way I feel that I have been successful in my desire to let go of the burden that I see others carry.
Why do I mention this? It's that old "wear it on your sleeve" thing. I do not hold grudges against people who can drink. I enjoy being with them. If a friend mentions a family member who has a problem I offer advice, usually without divulging my own story. I think the same goes for gambling. Some can...some cannot. Some should not....but still do. The problem is mine, not yours and most do not have one.
It's not my place to tell you that you have a problem or judge your behavior, nor is it proper to view all similar behavior as wrong.
<< <i>Many years ago I used to drink...heavily. The drinking and my behavior caused the loss of my family, job, and home.
Through the help of some good people I was able to stop the drinking and carry on with life. It has been a very very long time. Long enough that my life is once again normal and there are only a handful of people in my life now who knew me then. Thankfully they do not remind me too often of those days.
As I sought help and accepted the advice of those wishing to see me recover, I discovered something. At the time I was hanging out only with people in my situation and I noticed that we all carried a burden...the fact that we could not drink. At that point in my life this was a good idea. I was not able to do anything else to test myself. However, over time it became apparent that I was limiting myself, that I truly wanted to be just someone who did not drink but carried on a normal life. In time I slowly surrounded myself with regular people, some who drink, some who do not. But, my life is no longer predicated on my problem. The issue does not dominate my actions. Most people today know me as someone who has a Diet Pepsi at parties, a regular guy who just chooses not to drink. They do not know the whole story. In this way I feel that I have been successful in my desire to let go of the burden that I see others carry.
Why do I mention this? It's that old "wear it on your sleeve" thing. I do not hold grudges against people who can drink. I enjoy being with them. If a friend mentions a family member who has a problem I offer advice, usually without divulging my own story. I think the same goes for gambling. Some can...some cannot. Some should not....but still do. The problem is mine, not yours and most do not have one.
It's not my place to tell you that you have a problem or judge your behavior, nor is it proper to view all similar behavior as wrong.
Bottoms up, Keith >>
Good comments Keith, and I don't disagree with anything you stated. Glad to hear that your recovery is going well.
Although addictive type behaviors can be similar regardless of the addiction, I believe that addiction to gambling has its own unique characteristics which in my opinion, shouldn't be compared to other addictions. For example, nobody ever thought they were going to possibly get financially rich from drinking the next shot of whiskey, or smoking the next cigarette...but the enticement and lure of the "next bet" or the "next poker tournament" with the financial possibilities of becoming rich, in my view makes gambling addiction perhaps the toughest addiction of all.
You're of course right in your comment "...judge your behavior..." and I try not to do that as far as gambling addiction is concerned but perhaps sometimes I cross the line. Perhaps that's a character flaw that I need to work on. However, is it wrong for Mothers Against Drunk Driving to warn about the dangers of drinking alcohol and driving? Is it wrong for health organizations to warn about the dangers of cigarette smoking?... and there is a warning label on every pack of cigarettes. Well, I don't believe it's wrong to do that in regards to issuing similar warnings about gambling, especially in this day & age of rampant expansion of gambling and gambling advertising.
I believe that there needs to be increased awareness regarding the dangers involved with gambling. Considering that this is sports talk, and sports betting is popular out there among sports fans, I strongly feel that an occasional warning about gambling problems is a good idea here when the thread is relevant.
Also I believe that gambling businesses should be analyzed as a separate entity, and not compared to other businesses such as the alcohol or tobacco industry. While certainly cirrhosis of the liver from alcohol, and lung cancer from cigarettes, are awful consequences of those two industries, there is something insidius to me about an industry that grows and prospers by how many lives they financially harm and destroy.
I know I said I was done with this thread, and I am with regard to responding to stevek's preaching.
Keith- what you wrote is basically what I was saying, except you were more eloquent and are speaking from experience. stevek's input in this thread would be akin to you jumping in a "What's your favorite beer" thread and trying to get everyone to stop drinking because of what it can do to your life if it gets out of hand. Most people who have overcome some type of addiction, like yourself, keep it to themselves because they know others don't really want to hear about it. As someone who enjoys both drinking and gambling, I'd like to thank you for not being that guy. There are some people who make a big change in their life (kill an addiction, find god, watch The Secret....) that feel like everyone in the world should make the same change, and they incessantly barrage family, friends, acquaintances and strangers with their message. These people, for obvious reasons, are not well liked (kind of like stevek on this message board, and probably in person as well), except by people who share their exact views.
You're probably a fun guy to have at parties because of the way you carry yourself, even though you're not getting drunk and acting the fool like everybody else. I suspect stevek is not. He probably takes every opportunity he can to get up on his soapbox and tell people what they should and shouldn't do.
<< <i>I know I said I was done with this thread, and I am with regard to responding to stevek's preaching.
Keith- what you wrote is basically what I was saying, except you were more eloquent and are speaking from experience. stevek's input in this thread would be akin to you jumping in a "What's your favorite beer" thread and trying to get everyone to stop drinking because of what it can do to your life if it gets out of hand. Most people who have overcome some type of addiction, like yourself, keep it to themselves because they know others don't really want to hear about it. As someone who enjoys both drinking and gambling, I'd like to thank you for not being that guy. There are some people who make a big change in their life (kill an addiction, find god, watch The Secret....) that feel like everyone in the world should make the same change, and they incessantly barrage family, friends, acquaintances and strangers with their message. These people, for obvious reasons, are not well liked (kind of like stevek on this message board, and probably in person as well), except by people who share their exact views.
You're probably a fun guy to have at parties because of the way you carry yourself, even though you're not getting drunk and acting the fool like everybody else. I suspect stevek is not. He probably takes every opportunity he can to get up on his soapbox and tell people what they should and shouldn't do. >>
Lee - I hope your judgment at the poker table is better than your judgment of me. The only thing I preach at parties is that nobody should be a Dallas Cowboys fan. Dallas Cowboys fans are sinners and they need to repent. LOL
oh - and strippers, drugs, whores, fast cars, rock and roll and the discovery channel. >>
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>The Discovery Channel? After all that, what the heck else do you need to discover? LOL >>
If you aren't learning something new every day, you ain't living life.
: insert mellow, confucius-like emoticon here :
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>The Discovery Channel? After all that, what the heck else do you need to discover? LOL >>
If you aren't learning something new every day, you ain't living life.
: insert mellow, confucius-like emoticon here : >>
I agree with ya. And it is hoped that some will have "discovered" a different point of view about online poker, other than the usual "read some poker books and make money at online poker" point of view often found on poker forums loaded with affiliate banners and links to gambling websites.
With that being said, I bid farewell and adieu to this thread.
<< <i>For example, say someone is entering a lot of poker tournaments, there is always that time in the tournaments, that big key all-in bet which often is basically a coin flip, that needs to be won to keep advancing and eventually place high or win. Just for example sake, let's say when entering 100 tournaments, there are say 500 key big bets...again just for illustration purposes to make a point. Well two poker players in theory could have basically identical skill, but the perceived better player who is placing high or winning a few tournaments, has a hot variance for an extended period and wins say 350 out of the 500 coin flips and wins millions.....whereby the other player who is a perceived bad poker player because he only wins 150 out of the 500 coin flips and gets eliminated early from the tournaments and wins nothing. >>
Do you know what the odds are of flipping a coin 500 times and seeing at least 70% heads or tails?
This is slightly OT, but does anyone here live in the UK? I've been writing a series of monthly poker articles for a British publication called 'Flush', and I was curious if anyone here has seen the magazine in English news stands.
Sorry but this argument is ridiculous in that you can't prove or disprove here that pros make money online or that they laff at it. Sunday an internet youngster beat Helmuth in the heads up tourney. According to NBC he has made millions and challenge Helmuth to several 100K games so at least he has the cash to do that. Other young players have written books about their internet winnings and how they still play online. We can either choose to believe or disbelieve them but I can't understand their reasoning for lying about it. Both the Mizeracki brothers play online as well as the youngster's book who I read, name escapes me for the moment.
I play recreationally at a new casino 40 miles away which uses electronics instead of live dealers. Went for the first time yesterday thinking it was going to be a waste. Actually it turned out to be quite fun as the group of guys were not a bunch of knowitall youngsters. We had a nice time and I won 5 hands in two hours and left with $208 in winnings. I can prove it by a receipt. Is it a sport, probably not but who cares. It was fun and relaxing.
Along with the baseball cards you sold on ebay from your "mailman" on which you posted a number of threads in the Sports Cards forum, I noticed you had a number of vintage boxing magazines on ebay as well. Perhaps it was all from your mailman.
Nope, the Boxing magazines were from my elderly 92 yr old cousin's estate and were given to me by his half brother.
I see both Lee and SteveK's points. Back in 1996 I lost a Girlfriend and went bankrupt on $45K ( credit card debt in which 75% was cash advances) The thing that hurt me was the Pro-Football action- that is a game that cant be beat over an extended period of time (IMO) With Poker I believe you can control your own destiny if you are disciplined enough, which if Lee says he is succesful with the poker then I believe he is enough to know when to hold em and when to fold em- the thing with Poker ( Hold-em ) is if your truly disciplined to get involved in a few hands and take down a few "big pots' and walk away I think you can make money this way.
As far as what SteveK is saying I think he is generalising all gamblers as "degenerate" ones which is not true, I know I used to be one. I went 8 years without touching the NFL and now I will take a game here and there but will NEVER be married to it like I used to be, Poker is fun when I win but SU-K's when I lose and I dont play with money I have in the bank only what I set aside for games. I am a "reformed" addict- I have my credit back up into the low 800's and have a CD which I have been adding to for the past 8 years and now have it up to almost what I went bankrupt on. Gambling can be PURE EVIL if you let it get ahold of your life in a "degenerate" way- but not all people fall into this category.
<< <i>I see both Lee and SteveK's points. Back in 1996 I lost a Girlfriend and went bankrupt on $45K ( credit card debt in which 75% was cash advances) The thing that hurt me was the Pro-Football action- that is a game that cant be beat over an extended period of time (IMO) With Poker I believe you can control your own destiny if you are disciplined enough, which if Lee says he is succesful with the poker then I believe he is enough to know when to hold em and when to fold em- the thing with Poker ( Hold-em ) is if your truly disciplined to get involved in a few hands and take down a few "big pots' and walk away I think you can make money this way.
As far as what SteveK is saying I think he is generalising all gamblers as "degenerate" ones which is not true, I know I used to be one. I went 8 years without touching the NFL and now I will take a game here and there but will NEVER be married to it like I used to be, Poker is fun when I win but SU-K's when I lose and I dont play with money I have in the bank only what I set aside for games. I am a "reformed" addict- I have my credit back up into the low 800's and have a CD which I have been adding to for the past 8 years and now have it up to almost what I went bankrupt on. Gambling can be PURE EVIL if you let it get ahold of your life in a "degenerate" way- but not all people fall into this category. >>
Everytime I try to get out, they pull me back in. (LOL)
Perkdog - I understand your points but I have never stated that all gamblers are "degenerates" and it would be silly to say that. Many addicted gamblers are decent people but they have a bad problem with gambling addiction in which negative ramifications will occur - just a question of when and how bad.
Frankly, considering your past problem with gambling, you're skating on thin ice...I'm gonna keep this short and just say that I've known a number of addicted gamblers who busted out, stayed clean for awhile, then later tried "controlling" their gambling or trying to be a so-called "responsible gambler" - some did that even for years, but then in the right set of circumstances, perhaps before they fully comprehended what was going on, they wound up losing a substantial amount of money again...and busted out again.
Believe me...it doesn't give me pleasure to "debate" and "argue" with good guys such as Lee and Winpitcher and others such as Boopotts who I've gone at it about this subject before in a long thread a few years ago, but I've grown to respect Boopotts immensely despite our differing viewpoints about online poker.
Just to add one additional point...I'm still 100% convinced and certain that raked online poker is a sucker's game. Frankly, I don't think it's even a close call here and not even remotely close...there's enough luck in poker as it is, but without the tells and player tendencies of face-to-face poker, online poker realistically and simply has way too much luck involved to overcome the long term effects of even a small rake.
If ever online poker gets legalized in the US and it gets offered rake free which I believe certain corporations will offer this, IE: for example say MGM will offer rake free but have an ad for their latest movie in the center of the table - I don't think players will mind that. Yahoo I believe will offer rake free but have ads off to the right and left of the poker table.
If rake free occurs with corporations that can be trusted with an honest RNG (I don't trust the RNG from the current popular foreign poker websites as far as I can throw them)...there is just enough skill to online poker that some players will be able to beat that game. Basically now, even with better skill than your opponents, it is impossible to overcome the accumulative effects of the rake. However, with no rake, and an honest RNG, even with no player tells, there are mathematical considerations which can of course be utilized so that the more skilled players in this regard would make money in the long-run even in ring games.
If this rake free situation occurs, I would then no longer state that it is impossible to beat online poker because then it would not be true. I also believe that honest rake free websites could easily detect bot betting, and cheating rings, and quickly bar them - I don't think that will be a problem.
If anyone is naive enough to believe the crap posted by foreign poker websites that they truly care about eliminating bots and cheating rings, then there is some swampland in Georgia for sale you might also want to buy. Bots and cheating rings no doubt account for a good portion of their profits by raking them as well. It's not rocket science to figure that almost every college fraternity, college dorm, neighborhood players, etc., etc., have thought of the idea of multiple players with multiple computers even in different cities - this is all so easy to do and there is no doubt in my mind it probably constitutes the majority of players on a poker website, along with the bots. You could have a sophisticated cheating ring with 50 or more players, alternating between tables at a popular website, mixing it up enough so that the average individual player there won't complain about it because they don't notice it.
I remember one time watching someone play at a popular poker website, and at least at that time it was posted at the table which countries the players were from..at this one table of six there were 3 players from Sweden (LOL) - I mean what would be the odds of that randomly? (LOL) - obviously they were colluding and it was microlimits so the player thought he'd have fun and play against them anyway and it was interesting to note how it was obvious that they were playing only against him...and not against each other.
Cheating is obviously rampant at these foreign poker websites...but legalizing online poker in the US would most likely put most of these current foreign poker websites out of business. There are probably a number of affiliate commission members here, and whoever is or isn't I really couldn't care less, but it's interesting that most affiliate commission members out there are adamant about legalizing online poker in the US. I don't think they fully realize yet that if that happens, their affiliate commission days will basically be over. If rake free isn't offered, and offered by all the major US websites, I'll be very, VERY surprised..and of course if there's no rake, then there's no rake commissions.
<< <i>Steve, you an Xfiles buff? Do you believe the government has micro cameras in all Bic pens? >>
I don't mind the humorous "comments" or even the not so humorous comments - doesn't bother me in the least - I like to have fun and "fool around" with Sports Talk here - smack a bit and be smacked back...my way of letting off a little steam from the pressures of life. But I don't fool around with discussions about recovery and how the gambling industry exploits their customers.
So there's no "conspiracy theories" with me - just the facts based on correct information, observation, and my knowledge about gambling which is extensive and believe me...I wish it wasn't. I wish I would have never ever gambled a penny but I am who I am and it is what it is, so I make the best of it. Admittedly I do enjoy helping others with this addiction, and warning folks about the realities and consequences of gambling.
Well, I'll try to sneak out of this thread again (LOL). I only came back because I like Perkdog and wanted to stick a bug in his ear to be careful with what he's doing. Gambling has a way of catching up to you and biting you on the arse, sometimes when you least expect it. I know a guy who "controlled" his gambling for years and never was in debt. Then he was having marital troubles, his wife left him, and one weekend around that time he lost over $30,000 gambling. It started with a combination of a gambling cold streak just with his usual few $50 and $100 sports bets and escalated with gambling sessions at the casino and race track trying to get back his losses by doubling up, tripling up and much more - all sort of a "perfect storm" of personal problems and bad luck at gambling.....and years later he is still repaying that debt.
If anyone wants to gamble then that's their choice and I've never called for a nanny state - that being said I hope the above example of quickly losing $30,000 over a weekend is remembered and heeded for something which could possibly happen to any gambler, and worse. Unfortunately, sometimes after money losing events such as this, gamblers do bad things to themselves - gambling addiction has the highest suicide rate and attempted suicide rate of any other addiction.
it's funny you mention having 3 people from sweden at the same table...im sure that happens more than you think and most of the time it's probably a simple coincidence. I have played in sit & go's on Pokerstars, 6 person and 9 person tables with folks from the next town over...one night i played with 2 people from RI and 2 from Mass, of course i recognized the towns and though it was "odd" but no one favored one another, no one got ganged up on. In say the last 100 tables I've sat at maybe 10% of the time there is another player from Massachusetts there....
<< <i>Steve, you an Xfiles buff? Do you believe the government has micro cameras in all Bic pens? >>
I don't mind the humorous "comments" or even the not so humorous comments - doesn't bother me in the least - I like to have fun and "fool around" with Sports Talk here - smack a bit and be smacked back...my way of letting off a little steam from the pressures of life. But I don't fool around with discussions about recovery and how the gambling industry exploits their customers.
So there's no "conspiracy theories" with me - just the facts based on correct information, observation, and my knowledge about gambling which is extensive and believe me...I wish it wasn't. I wish I would have never ever gambled a penny but I am who I am and it is what it is, so I make the best of it. Admittedly I do enjoy helping others with this addiction, and warning folks about the realities and consequences of gambling.
Well, I'll try to sneak out of this thread again (LOL). I only came back because I like Perkdog and wanted to stick a bug in his ear to be careful with what he's doing. Gambling has a way of catching up to you and biting you on the arse, sometimes when you least expect it. I know a guy who "controlled" his gambling for years and never was in debt. Then he was having marital troubles, his wife left him, and one weekend around that time he lost over $30,000 gambling. It started with a combination of a gambling cold streak just with his usual few $50 and $100 sports bets and escalated with gambling sessions at the casino and race track trying to get back his losses by doubling up, tripling up and much more - all sort of a "perfect storm" of personal problems and bad luck at gambling.....and years later he is still repaying that debt.
If anyone wants to gamble then that's their choice and I've never called for a nanny state - that being said I hope the above example of quickly losing $30,000 over a weekend is remembered and heeded for something which could possibly happen to any gambler, and worse. Unfortunately, sometimes after money losing events such as this, gamblers do bad things to themselves - gambling addiction has the highest suicide rate and attempted suicide rate of any other addiction.
Steve >>
My X-files comments are directed at your statements about rampant cheating -
Bots and cheating rings no doubt account for a good portion of their profits by raking them as well.
It's not rocket science to figure that almost every college fraternity, college dorm, neighborhood players, etc., etc., have thought of the idea of multiple players with multiple computers even in different cities - this is all so easy to do and there is no doubt in my mind it probably constitutes the majority of players on a poker website, along with the bots.
I Remember one time watching someone play at a popular poker website, and at least at that time it was posted at the table which countries the players were from..at this one table of six there were 3 players from Sweden (LOL)
Cheating is obviously rampant at these foreign poker websites...
While I know that there is some cheating going on through these sites, I'm CERTAIN it isn't being done by the majority of players and bots. Hysterical accusations wont help your arguement about online poker. You ask for proof about a winning online poker player. Please supply proof that cheating is even done in considerable proportions, let alone a major factor.
<< <i>it's funny you mention having 3 people from sweden at the same table...im sure that happens more than you think and most of the time it's probably a simple coincidence. I have played in sit & go's on Pokerstars, 6 person and 9 person tables with folks from the next town over...one night i played with 2 people from RI and 2 from Mass, of course i recognized the towns and though it was "odd" but no one favored one another, no one got ganged up on. In say the last 100 tables I've sat at maybe 10% of the time there is another player from Massachusetts there.... >>
I should have mentioned further that at that table with the 3 players from Sweden, most of the time it was 4 handed as the other two spots most likely as they entered the table would see the obvious colluders, and would almost immediately drop out. So it was this player versus the 3 Swedes most of the time and he played on the table for about an hour - tried his best but lost a few dollars to the Swedes.
Scarne wrote in his books on poker, his books guys such as Doyle learned from, that (paraphrase) "If three chumps were sitting at a poker table with the three best poker players in the world, but the chumps knew each other's hole cards, the three chumps would win money from the three best players"
Well, maybe those were coincidences you mentioned and maybe they weren't, but again...it's not hard whatsoever with computer technology being what it is today, for players to collude with players from other states...and it would be quite naive to believe that this doesn't occur on a regular basis at all the poker websites. Remember that "chump" example from above if ever thinking that you're a better player than the cheaters and you'll beat them anyway - the facts are that you won't beat them even if you are a better player.
I didn't go back and reread it, but I think Lee or someone else mentioned that he liked playing heads up, and of course this is one way to avoid collusion and it's easier to figure out if it's a bot because you're focusing on one player. And it's not always easy to figure out a bot because a player could be sitting there live using the bot, and also chatting with their opponent. But the problem is that the rake accumulative effects with heads up play devastates a bankroll quicker because of the increased amount of hands played versus a table with more players. Bots usually aren't used at heads up because they are much more effective when playing multiple hands at one table and knowing each other's hole cards, and the bot users understand the devastating rake effects of playing heads up. So the catch-22 is that yes chances are better of getting a clean game with heads up...but the rake more rapidly annihilates a bankroll.
<< <i>Steve, you an Xfiles buff? Do you believe the government has micro cameras in all Bic pens? >>
I don't mind the humorous "comments" or even the not so humorous comments - doesn't bother me in the least - I like to have fun and "fool around" with Sports Talk here - smack a bit and be smacked back...my way of letting off a little steam from the pressures of life. But I don't fool around with discussions about recovery and how the gambling industry exploits their customers.
So there's no "conspiracy theories" with me - just the facts based on correct information, observation, and my knowledge about gambling which is extensive and believe me...I wish it wasn't. I wish I would have never ever gambled a penny but I am who I am and it is what it is, so I make the best of it. Admittedly I do enjoy helping others with this addiction, and warning folks about the realities and consequences of gambling.
Well, I'll try to sneak out of this thread again (LOL). I only came back because I like Perkdog and wanted to stick a bug in his ear to be careful with what he's doing. Gambling has a way of catching up to you and biting you on the arse, sometimes when you least expect it. I know a guy who "controlled" his gambling for years and never was in debt. Then he was having marital troubles, his wife left him, and one weekend around that time he lost over $30,000 gambling. It started with a combination of a gambling cold streak just with his usual few $50 and $100 sports bets and escalated with gambling sessions at the casino and race track trying to get back his losses by doubling up, tripling up and much more - all sort of a "perfect storm" of personal problems and bad luck at gambling.....and years later he is still repaying that debt.
If anyone wants to gamble then that's their choice and I've never called for a nanny state - that being said I hope the above example of quickly losing $30,000 over a weekend is remembered and heeded for something which could possibly happen to any gambler, and worse. Unfortunately, sometimes after money losing events such as this, gamblers do bad things to themselves - gambling addiction has the highest suicide rate and attempted suicide rate of any other addiction.
Steve >>
My X-files comments are directed at your statements about rampant cheating -
Bots and cheating rings no doubt account for a good portion of their profits by raking them as well.
It's not rocket science to figure that almost every college fraternity, college dorm, neighborhood players, etc., etc., have thought of the idea of multiple players with multiple computers even in different cities - this is all so easy to do and there is no doubt in my mind it probably constitutes the majority of players on a poker website, along with the bots.
I Remember one time watching someone play at a popular poker website, and at least at that time it was posted at the table which countries the players were from..at this one table of six there were 3 players from Sweden (LOL)
Cheating is obviously rampant at these foreign poker websites...
While I know that there is some cheating going on through these sites, I'm CERTAIN it isn't being done by the majority of players and bots. Hysterical accusations wont help your arguement about online poker. You ask for proof about a winning online poker player. Please supply proof that cheating is even done in considerable proportions, let alone a major factor. >>
Cheating is definitely a major factor - that's not even debatable. I believe it's the majority, my viewpoint, that over 50% of the players at the poker websites are involved in cheating rings of some sort with multiple players colluding in some manner. You could be at a six player table with three cheats from one ring and two cheats from another ring - they may alternate between tables so that you see a variety of players at your table throughout the session but it's all from the various cheating rings at the website. There could be fifty, more or less players involved in a ring, not on any one night, but on different nights, and they play at different times and different tables.
One definition of a "fish" would be to not easily see how all this is not only possible, but is one reason why individual, honest online poker players often get quickly crushed playing online poker. But the affiliate commission hucksters tell them to keep trying and learning and one day you'll get better. See the above post to finally understand why you could become the best poker player in the world, and not beat the cheats rampant at online poker websites.
But you go right ahead and believe whatever you wanna believe and I'm sure for now that you will. Just don't say that you weren't warned.
<< <i>I believe it's the majority, my viewpoint, that over 50% of the players at the poker websites are involved in cheating rings of some sort with multiple players colluding in some manner. >>
Unfortunately, I think that's about right.
As I stated somewhere in this thread earlier, I personally knew people that cheated via IM/phone.
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 believe it's the majority, my viewpoint, that over 50% of the players at the poker websites are involved in cheating rings of some sort with multiple players colluding in some manner. >>
Unfortunately, I think that's about right.
As I stated somewhere in this thread earlier, I personally knew people that cheated via IM/phone. >>
It's just too easy to do when there is determination to do it, which is why I have never ruled out the possibility that a highly clever and sophisticated cheating ring could possibly beat the rake at online poker, but again I'm not totally sure. This I do know for sure, that every bot offered for sale to the public has been proven to be a money loser in the long-run...of course the bot makers keep coming up with new versions, under new names, and people keep buying them, hoping to strike gold but the only thing they've struck so far is fool's gold.
Frankly, I think Lee has the right idea if you're gonna play online poker anyway despite the insurmountable obstacles...try to get lucky in a big tournament and hope for a super hot variance...and it needs to be super hot because the cheaters are rampant at the big tournaments as well with chip dumping, etc.
Saying over half of online poker players are cheats is similar to a self fulfilling prophecy. The more people think that, the less honest people will play, so in turn the percentage of cheats will rise without the actual number of cheats growing.
Most people who study the issue agree that a bot could be built that could beat anyone in the world heads up, but that it's almost inconceivable that a bot could be built that could beat competent players in a multi-player ring game. I won't get into the details here, except to say that this has to do with game-theoretical considerations (like bet sizing, the randomization of wagers, etc.) that are more easily applied to heads-up play.
Most people who share hole card information gain virtually no edge by doing so, since they don't know how to use the information. The advantages gained by collaborative play aren't insignificant, but they don't come from the sharing of hole card info.
Chip dumping does not work in the favor of the dumper (or the dumpee), since the marginal value of a tournament chip decreases as the size of one's stack increases. This is stricly solve-by-inspection stuff. If you don't believe me, then please, PLEASE accept the following proposition:
Ten of us will sit down in a Sit and Go. After the tournament begins eight of you will all dump your chips on a player of your choice (not me). This will leave me heads-up against one of you, and my opponent will have a chip stack 9x the size of mine. The tournament will pay three places. Any takers?
I believe it's the majority, my viewpoint, that over 50% of the players at the poker websites are involved in cheating rings of some sort with multiple players colluding in some manner
Unfortunately, I think that's about right.
As I stated somewhere in this thread earlier, I personally knew people that cheated via IM/phone. >>
It's just too easy to do when there is determination to do it, which is why I have never ruled out the possibility that a highly clever and sophisticated cheating ring could possibly beat the rake at online poker, but again I'm not totally sure. This I do know for sure, that every bot offered for sale to the public has been proven to be a money loser in the long-run...of course the bot makers keep coming up with new versions, under new names, and people keep buying them, hoping to strike gold but the only thing they've struck so far is fool's gold.
Frankly, I think Lee has the right idea if you're gonna play online poker anyway despite the insurmountable obstacles...try to get lucky in a big tournament and hope for a super hot variance...and it needs to be super hot because the cheaters are rampant at the big tournaments as well with chip dumping, etc.
///////////////////////////////////
Actually, if you're going to play online poker and you're proficient playing heads-up then the best move is to sign up for an online propping program. You'll get 100%+ of your rake back, plus whatever you win. The only problem with these programs is that you're usually stuck playing low stakes ($2-$4 and lower), since most sites that have propping programs are small sites that don't have a lot of traffic. But if you're happy making $500-$800 a week playing $2-4$ and $1-$2, and are willing to play full time, this is the way to go. Steve
Most people who study the issue agree that a bot could be built that could beat anyone in the world heads up, but that it's almost inconceivable that a bot could be built that could beat competent players in a multi-player ring game. I won't get into the details here, except to say that this has to do with game-theoretical considerations (like bet sizing, the randomization of wagers, etc.) that are more easily applied to heads-up play.
Most people who share hole card information gain virtually no edge by doing so, since they don't know how to use the information. The advantages gained by collaborative play aren't insignificant, but they don't come from the sharing of hole card info.
Chip dumping does not work in the favor of the dumper (or the dumpee), since the marginal value of a tournament chip decreases as the size of one's stack increases. This is stricly solve-by-inspection stuff. If you don't believe me, then please, PLEASE accept the following proposition:
Ten of us will sit down in a Sit and Go. After the tournament begins eight of you will all dump your chips on a player of your choice (not me). This will leave me heads-up against one of you, and my opponent will have a chip stack 9x the size of mine. The tournament will pay three places. Any takers? >>
<<< Most people who study the issue agree that a bot could be built that could beat anyone in the world heads up, but that it's almost inconceivable that a bot could be built that could beat competent players in a multi-player ring game. I won't get into the details here, except to say that this has to do with game-theoretical considerations (like bet sizing, the randomization of wagers, etc.) that are more easily applied to heads-up play. >>>
Bots are more effective in fixed limit games than no limit games where bluffing is more prevalent and effective...bots sometimes have trouble correctly analyzing all-in type bets.
<<< Most people who share hole card information gain virtually no edge by doing so, since they don't know how to use the information. The advantages gained by collaborative play aren't insignificant, but they don't come from the sharing of hole card info. >>>
I think 99.99% of knowledgeable poker players, perhaps even a higher percentage, would totally disagree with you on this. Of course the cards still have to be played, but as Scarne stated, (paraphrase) even three colluding chumps would beat the other three best players...I've never known of anyone disagreeing with Scarne on this point...until now.
<<< Chip dumping does not work in the favor of the dumper (or the dumpee), since the marginal value of a tournament chip decreases as the size of one's stack increases. This is stricly solve-by-inspection stuff. If you don't believe me, then please, PLEASE accept the following proposition: >>>
I'll partially agree but in a differing manner - For example: Would the ability to pay $20,000 and buy $20,000 worth of chips be any perceptible advantage at the start of the WSOP? Probably not, if not definitely not. However even in a cheating ring, there are better poker players than others, and they usually know who they are. At key points in a tournament, there is no doubt it would be advantageous for a weaker player to dump his chips to the better player...and this of course happens when they feel they can get away with it. Which is why every major poker tournament has rules against chip dumping.
<<< Ten of us will sit down in a Sit and Go. After the tournament begins eight of you will all dump your chips on a player of your choice (not me). This will leave me heads-up against one of you, and my opponent will have a chip stack 9x the size of mine. The tournament will pay three places. Any takers? >>>
I think you're right here. But if it's a winner take all, in my opinion with players of basically equal skill, that player with the 9x stack would win more than 9 out of 10 times, because even heads up in this situation, not every hand is an automatic all-in...the big stack can still push around the small stack in a number of ways.
I think it's fairly easy to see that if two colluding players are alive late in a tight tourney maybe one being say 10th and the other say 15th with say 25 players still in it, and the one player at 10th is a better player than the other, say better experienced in late tourney play...rather than possibly splitting two lesser prizes, it's smarter to chip dump to the better player and go for the one higher prize which even when split can sometimes be much better than the two lesser prizes - it would depend on how the tournament prize money is structured.
Good food for thought Boo - I always enjoy your comments.
I will admit it, me and my buddy used Nextel Direct connect a number of times while playing at the same table online- sometimes it worked other times it didnt. Im not proud or ashamed of it, and will agree that I bet it is done more times than not. I have NEVER cheated in a live game nor would I ever, no matter what.
<< <i>I will admit it, me and my buddy used Nextel Direct connect a number of times while playing at the same table online- sometimes it worked other times it didnt. Im not proud or ashamed of it, and will agree that I bet it is done more times than not. I have NEVER cheated in a live game nor would I ever, no matter what. >>
It's interesting isn't it that cheating in a face-to-face live game is totally unacceptable, whereby cheating online is like almost "acceptable" in a way among those trying to make money at the game.
Perhaps the thought of getting your brains beat in if found cheating face-to-face is a good deterent and I'm not kidding. All that can really happen online if caught cheating is you get your account closed and your money taken away by the website.
Im not really concerned with getting beat up, its the hit my reputation would take that would bother me most. I play with a group of "associates" and at a club I belong to and believe me if you EVER cheated you would have a fight on your hands no doubt but worse than that you would never be allowed to play in a game in the area, outside of a casino-
<< <i>Cheating is definitely a major factor - that's not even debatable. I believe it's the majority, my viewpoint, that over 50% of the players at the poker websites are involved in cheating rings of some sort with multiple players colluding in some manner. You could be at a six player table with three cheats from one ring and two cheats from another ring - they may alternate between tables so that you see a variety of players at your table throughout the session but it's all from the various cheating rings at the website. There could be fifty, more or less players involved in a ring, not on any one night, but on different nights, and they play at different times and different tables. >>
Cheating is a major factor, eh? Not debatable? Please show me documentation to prove the numbers, not mere speculation. Man, almost every time I'm online someone catches a bad beat from a loose player and immediately calls them a bot too. I guess it's possible there's a bot on that site, but probably not in the $1 tourney we're playing in when the accusation occurs. Everybody thinks they got cheated everytime something happens that they didn't think should have. Sometimes they probably did, but... yawn.
<< <i>One definition of a "fish" would be to not easily see how all this is not only possible, but is one reason why individual, honest online poker players often get quickly crushed playing online poker. But the affiliate commission hucksters tell them to keep trying and learning and one day you'll get better. See the above post to finally understand why you could become the best poker player in the world, and not beat the cheats rampant at online poker websites. >>
The difference is... I know it's POSSIBLE, but just don't believe it's rampant. I actually have seen players I suspect of this and I leave a note on both players saying that if I see them at another table with the same players, don't sit down. Of course it's being done, but I don't see it as being as common as you think it is. You say you know it is, so I'd just like some proof. Real documentaion. Not speculation, rumors, or "my friend played with 3 Swedes" kind of stuff.
<< <i>But you go right ahead and believe whatever you wanna believe and I'm sure for now that you will. Just don't say that you weren't warned.
Steve >>
Show me some documentation to believe otherwise. And in the end, even if there's 99.9999% cheaters and I am the sole honest player who continues to win, I'll keep playing. But anyways... documentation please.
<< <i>Im not really concerned with getting beat up, its the hit my reputation would take that would bother me most. I play with a group of "associates" and at a club I belong to and believe me if you EVER cheated you would have a fight on your hands no doubt but worse than that you would never be allowed to play in a game in the area, outside of a casino- >>
The advice I always give...never and I do mean NEVER play face-to-face poker with people you don't know. For example hearing of a game in a barber shop from somebody you meet for the first time and he invites you to the game - that would be an extremely bad idea to go to that game because the odds are almost certain you'll be cheated, maybe not on the first night but on future nights. I'll stop here with that for now, but you're right about not wanting to cheat among people you know, "associates" and such - that is totally understandable.
I've actually never witnessed a fight among card players but I witnessed some very heated arguments, VERY heated and I sometimes thought they were gonna turn into a fight but fortunately cooler heads prevailed...and this wasn't even about cheating...it was usually about not receiving credit or nobody willing to lend someone money after they already lost a lot of money. Sometimes somebody doesn't quite understand why after they've lost say $500, why somebody doesn't lend him back some of their winnings so he can keep playing, and he gets PO'd over it.
<< <i>Cheating is definitely a major factor - that's not even debatable. I believe it's the majority, my viewpoint, that over 50% of the players at the poker websites are involved in cheating rings of some sort with multiple players colluding in some manner. You could be at a six player table with three cheats from one ring and two cheats from another ring - they may alternate between tables so that you see a variety of players at your table throughout the session but it's all from the various cheating rings at the website. There could be fifty, more or less players involved in a ring, not on any one night, but on different nights, and they play at different times and different tables. >>
Cheating is a major factor, eh? Not debatable? Please show me documentation to prove the numbers, not mere speculation. Man, almost every time I'm online someone catches a bad beat from a loose player and immediately calls them a bot too. I guess it's possible there's a bot on that site, but probably not in the $1 tourney we're playing in when the accusation occurs. Everybody thinks they got cheated everytime something happens that they didn't think should have. Sometimes they probably did, but... yawn.
<< <i>One definition of a "fish" would be to not easily see how all this is not only possible, but is one reason why individual, honest online poker players often get quickly crushed playing online poker. But the affiliate commission hucksters tell them to keep trying and learning and one day you'll get better. See the above post to finally understand why you could become the best poker player in the world, and not beat the cheats rampant at online poker websites. >>
The difference is... I know it's POSSIBLE, but just don't believe it's rampant. I actually have seen players I suspect of this and I leave a note on both players saying that if I see them at another table with the same players, don't sit down. Of course it's being done, but I don't see it as being as common as you think it is. You say you know it is, so I'd just like some proof. Real documentaion. Not speculation, rumors, or "my friend played with 3 Swedes" kind of stuff.
<< <i>But you go right ahead and believe whatever you wanna believe and I'm sure for now that you will. Just don't say that you weren't warned.
Steve >>
Show me some documentation to believe otherwise. And in the end, even if there's 99.9999% cheaters and I am the sole honest player who continues to win, I'll keep playing. But anyways... documentation please. >>
Here's my documentation:
"But you go right ahead and believe whatever you wanna believe and I'm sure for now that you will. Just don't say that you weren't warned."
I'll get this certified by a Notary Public first thing in the morning.
Im not really concerned with getting beat up, its the hit my reputation would take that would bother me most. I play with a group of "associates" and at a club I belong to and believe me if you EVER cheated you would have a fight on your hands no doubt but worse than that you would never be allowed to play in a game in the area, outside of a casino
The advice I always give...never and I do mean NEVER play face-to-face poker with people you don't know. For example hearing of a game in a barber shop from somebody you meet for the first time and he invites you to the game - that would be an extremely bad idea to go to that game because the odds are almost certain you'll be cheated, maybe not on the first night but on future nights. I'll stop here with that for now, but you're right about not wanting to cheat among people you know, "associates" and such - that is totally understandable.
I've actually never witnessed a fight among card players but I witnessed some very heated arguments, VERY heated and I sometimes thought they were gonna turn into a fight but fortunately cooler heads prevailed...and this wasn't even about cheating...it was usually about not receiving credit or nobody willing to lend someone money after they already lost a lot of money. Sometimes somebody doesn't quite understand why after they've lost say $500, why somebody doesn't lend him back some of their winnings so he can keep playing, and he gets PO'd over it.
///////////////////////
I've seen two fights-- and both of them erupted in an Omaha 8 game. Which will come as exactly no surprise to anyone who's spent significant amounts of time with O8 players in a casino.
Personally I have been in a few serious arguments that would have come to blows had the other person taken me up on my "lets step outside" offer- everytime I was drunk and it was over a bad beat coupled with the guy who "slow rolled" his winning hand- nothing annoys me more! I have actually never accused anyone of cheating, as a matter of fact I havnt been involved in any game ( as an adult 25+) where a fight broke out because of someone cheating. Rarely do I ever play in a game outside of a casino where I dont know at least someone in the game, maybe at the dog track but thats about it.
<< <i>Personally I have been in a few serious arguments that would have come to blows had the other person taken me up on my "lets step outside" offer- everytime I was drunk and it was over a bad beat coupled with the guy who "slow rolled" his winning hand- nothing annoys me more! I have actually never accused anyone of cheating, as a matter of fact I havnt been involved in any game ( as an adult 25+) where a fight broke out because of someone cheating. Rarely do I ever play in a game outside of a casino where I dont know at least someone in the game, maybe at the dog track but thats about it. >>
Oh yea...I of course meant players you don't know in a private game in someone's home or in a private club of some sort. A situation in a casino, or racetrack poker, or a card parlor like in California are different. The dealers there aren't going to cheat, although there have been rare exceptions...and as far as fights, there are security guards there who aren't going to let things get out of hand.
There are simply so many ingenius ways to cheat at poker - there have been a number of books written on the subject including cheating at online poker.
Comments
Poker is an "intellectual" competition, as is chess, which requires that one uses one brain, intelligence, common sense, people skills and intellect in promoting your chances of winning the competition.
<< <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>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 think you meant to say I couldn't care less. Saying I could care less implies that you actually do care somewhat and are capable of caring less.
Lee mentioned that the lottery illustration of mine had no relevance, but I believe it does have relevance. As I illustrated in the Audie Murphy example, luck is a mysterious thing and can perhaps last longer than maybe I or anyone else believes should be possible.
For example, say someone is entering a lot of poker tournaments, there is always that time in the tournaments, that big key all-in bet which often is basically a coin flip, that needs to be won to keep advancing and eventually place high or win. Just for example sake, let's say when entering 100 tournaments, there are say 500 key big bets...again just for illustration purposes to make a point. Well two poker players in theory could have basically identical skill, but the perceived better player who is placing high or winning a few tournaments, has a hot variance for an extended period and wins say 350 out of the 500 coin flips and wins millions.....whereby the other player who is a perceived bad poker player because he only wins 150 out of the 500 coin flips and gets eliminated early from the tournaments and wins nothing.
But random luck such as this in almost all walks of life just seems to even out in the long-run no matter what it is, not just poker. The guy who has been lucky winning 350 out of 500 "races", those coin flips over a longer extended period of time do tend to even out. Suddenly he goes perceivably cold and can't place high in tournaments any longer, even though he may be playing the cards exactly as he was before.
Playing in enough tournaments with those 2K, 5K, 10K and larger buy-ins...and with tournament cuts of around 3% to 10%, hopefully it's plain to see why the fact is that most of the so-called "pros" seen on TV are broke. If it wasn't for various types of sponsors fronting the buy-ins, a good number of these "familiar faces" on TV would instead of playing in the tournament, would likely be watching the tournament on a 13" screen TV in a cheap apartment somewhere.
This is exactly why also that just a one year audited tax return wouldn't be good enough to prove winning at online poker is possible. It would have to be done over a number of years, perhaps 3 to 5 years to allow for those possible and probable hot variances. Many players who win a tournament (hit the lottery) start believing that they are now poker playing genuises, but as sure as gravity that "good luck" wears off and the luck evens out and usually then they suffer a cold streak beyond their own belief. Then they start blaming their play or other reasons for their losing, when it was simply a matter of what was stated in this post - they had a nice lucky variance for awhile, and now it's evening out.
However the rakes, tournament cuts, entry fees and other gambling house cuts don't even out - that accumulates to the point of eventually sooner or later crushing a bankroll. The gambling house whether it is brick & mortar or a gambling website, is the only eventual winner....the gambling house eventually winds up with all the player's money...just a question of when.
That's why I believe it is good advice if ever hitting on a nice poker tournament win, to quit gambling permanently and enjoy the money IE: Take the money and run! Unfortunately too many if not virtually all tournament winners will keep gambling until they go broke and feel the painful sting of gambling addiction. Of course there is always the hope that in the next tournament they could win money again and then again be "on top of the world" - which is one reason why gambling addiction is such a tough addiction - arguably the toughest.
Steve
I have nothing but admiration for people who have used GA, AA, NA or the church to improve their lives. Just don't bring it to other people who obviously don't want it in their face, and don't disguise your rhetoric as fact or data-based when it is anything but.
Edit- I'm done posting on this thread because stevek is obviously right about everything and we should all do what he says.
<< <i>Wow, you're like the Gambler's Anonymous version of an online Jehovah's Witness, preaching the ills of everything gambling and how you've come to see the light and how everybody should follow you. I didn't realize this whole time that your purpose for posting this stuff was to carry on your personal crusade to get people to stop playing online poker or gamble in general. If I knew you were going to be this churchy, I would never have gotten involved in this discussion, which as it turns out is really your sermon. Most here would say a sportstalk forum is not appropriate for this type of preaching.
I have nothing but admiration for people who have used GA, AA, NA or the church to improve their lives. Just don't bring it to other people who obviously don't want it in their face, and don't disguise your rhetoric as fact or data-based when it is anything but.
Edit- I'm done posting on this thread because stevek is obviously right about everything and we should all do what he says. >>
Basically everything I've stated is based on fact and observation. Of course I'm correct about these points, but either you are involved in an affiliate commission program and don't want your customers to learn the whole truth about online poker, and/or you are just an addicted gambler who was fortunate enough to score on a recent poker tournament and then felt like you were a poker gambling genius blessed with endless good luck.
Based on your comment "The game is very rarely fun for me any more" I have a feeling that you have lost back a significant portion of that tournament money - the luck is evening out as it usually does.
A warning has been provided about what will happen if continuing to play online poker...not a question of if it will happen, but when it will happen. It's up to the reader to heed the advice or not. It is hoped everyone follows the good advice but I do understand how tough is this addiction.
Best regards,
Steve
Edit- I'm done posting on this thread because stevek is obviously right about everything and we should all do what he says. >>
You finally found that out?
Steve
<< <i>It is a sport only when I win.
Steve >>
Along with the baseball cards you sold on ebay from your "mailman" on which you posted a number of threads in the Sports Cards forum, I noticed you had a number of vintage boxing magazines on ebay as well. Perhaps it was all from your mailman. Nice stuff by the way.
I remember selling off some of my baseball card collection to cover gambling losses. Those bookies need to be paid or else, right? And I certainly didn't want to not have money to be able to bet and possibly hit on a nice trifecta at Belmont Park - then I could simply buy back similar cards if I wanted to, and even buy more cards as well, right? All part of the thinking in gambling addiction.
Fortunately as an ex-gambler, my baseball card collection has been growing nicely now because my hard-earned money isn't foolishly being lost to gambling houses. To me that's what this thread is about...saving our money or spending it wisely on a great hobby such as baseball card collecting, or throwing it away foolishly on gambling - the choice is ours...which is why I believe this discussion is very appropriate for this forum. Unless PSA owns casinos, I'm sure they would rather see people collect baseball cards, than collect gambling debts.
Best regards,
Steve
Through the help of some good people I was able to stop the drinking and carry on with life. It has been a very very long time. Long enough that my life is once again normal and there are only a handful of people in my life now who knew me then. Thankfully they do not remind me too often of those days.
As I sought help and accepted the advice of those wishing to see me recover, I discovered something. At the time I was hanging out only with people in my situation and I noticed that we all carried a burden...the fact that we could not drink. At that point in my life this was a good idea. I was not able to do anything else to test myself. However, over time it became apparent that I was limiting myself, that I truly wanted to be just someone who did not drink but carried on a normal life. In time I slowly surrounded myself with regular people, some who drink, some who do not. But, my life is no longer predicated on my problem. The issue does not dominate my actions. Most people today know me as someone who has a Diet Pepsi at parties, a regular guy who just chooses not to drink. They do not know the whole story. In this way I feel that I have been successful in my desire to let go of the burden that I see others carry.
Why do I mention this? It's that old "wear it on your sleeve" thing. I do not hold grudges against people who can drink. I enjoy being with them. If a friend mentions a family member who has a problem I offer advice, usually without divulging my own story. I think the same goes for gambling. Some can...some cannot. Some should not....but still do. The problem is mine, not yours and most do not have one.
It's not my place to tell you that you have a problem or judge your behavior, nor is it proper to view all similar behavior as wrong.
Bottoms up,
Keith
<< <i>Many years ago I used to drink...heavily. The drinking and my behavior caused the loss of my family, job, and home.
Through the help of some good people I was able to stop the drinking and carry on with life. It has been a very very long time. Long enough that my life is once again normal and there are only a handful of people in my life now who knew me then. Thankfully they do not remind me too often of those days.
As I sought help and accepted the advice of those wishing to see me recover, I discovered something. At the time I was hanging out only with people in my situation and I noticed that we all carried a burden...the fact that we could not drink. At that point in my life this was a good idea. I was not able to do anything else to test myself. However, over time it became apparent that I was limiting myself, that I truly wanted to be just someone who did not drink but carried on a normal life. In time I slowly surrounded myself with regular people, some who drink, some who do not. But, my life is no longer predicated on my problem. The issue does not dominate my actions. Most people today know me as someone who has a Diet Pepsi at parties, a regular guy who just chooses not to drink. They do not know the whole story. In this way I feel that I have been successful in my desire to let go of the burden that I see others carry.
Why do I mention this? It's that old "wear it on your sleeve" thing. I do not hold grudges against people who can drink. I enjoy being with them. If a friend mentions a family member who has a problem I offer advice, usually without divulging my own story. I think the same goes for gambling. Some can...some cannot. Some should not....but still do. The problem is mine, not yours and most do not have one.
It's not my place to tell you that you have a problem or judge your behavior, nor is it proper to view all similar behavior as wrong.
Bottoms up,
Keith >>
Good comments Keith, and I don't disagree with anything you stated. Glad to hear that your recovery is going well.
Although addictive type behaviors can be similar regardless of the addiction, I believe that addiction to gambling has its own unique characteristics which in my opinion, shouldn't be compared to other addictions. For example, nobody ever thought they were going to possibly get financially rich from drinking the next shot of whiskey, or smoking the next cigarette...but the enticement and lure of the "next bet" or the "next poker tournament" with the financial possibilities of becoming rich, in my view makes gambling addiction perhaps the toughest addiction of all.
You're of course right in your comment "...judge your behavior..." and I try not to do that as far as gambling addiction is concerned but perhaps sometimes I cross the line. Perhaps that's a character flaw that I need to work on. However, is it wrong for Mothers Against Drunk Driving to warn about the dangers of drinking alcohol and driving? Is it wrong for health organizations to warn about the dangers of cigarette smoking?... and there is a warning label on every pack of cigarettes. Well, I don't believe it's wrong to do that in regards to issuing similar warnings about gambling, especially in this day & age of rampant expansion of gambling and gambling advertising.
I believe that there needs to be increased awareness regarding the dangers involved with gambling. Considering that this is sports talk, and sports betting is popular out there among sports fans, I strongly feel that an occasional warning about gambling problems is a good idea here when the thread is relevant.
Also I believe that gambling businesses should be analyzed as a separate entity, and not compared to other businesses such as the alcohol or tobacco industry. While certainly cirrhosis of the liver from alcohol, and lung cancer from cigarettes, are awful consequences of those two industries, there is something insidius to me about an industry that grows and prospers by how many lives they financially harm and destroy.
Best regards,
Steve
Keith- what you wrote is basically what I was saying, except you were more eloquent and are speaking from experience. stevek's input in this thread would be akin to you jumping in a "What's your favorite beer" thread and trying to get everyone to stop drinking because of what it can do to your life if it gets out of hand. Most people who have overcome some type of addiction, like yourself, keep it to themselves because they know others don't really want to hear about it. As someone who enjoys both drinking and gambling, I'd like to thank you for not being that guy. There are some people who make a big change in their life (kill an addiction, find god, watch The Secret....) that feel like everyone in the world should make the same change, and they incessantly barrage family, friends, acquaintances and strangers with their message. These people, for obvious reasons, are not well liked (kind of like stevek on this message board, and probably in person as well), except by people who share their exact views.
You're probably a fun guy to have at parties because of the way you carry yourself, even though you're not getting drunk and acting the fool like everybody else. I suspect stevek is not. He probably takes every opportunity he can to get up on his soapbox and tell people what they should and shouldn't do.
<< <i>I know I said I was done with this thread, and I am with regard to responding to stevek's preaching.
Keith- what you wrote is basically what I was saying, except you were more eloquent and are speaking from experience. stevek's input in this thread would be akin to you jumping in a "What's your favorite beer" thread and trying to get everyone to stop drinking because of what it can do to your life if it gets out of hand. Most people who have overcome some type of addiction, like yourself, keep it to themselves because they know others don't really want to hear about it. As someone who enjoys both drinking and gambling, I'd like to thank you for not being that guy. There are some people who make a big change in their life (kill an addiction, find god, watch The Secret....) that feel like everyone in the world should make the same change, and they incessantly barrage family, friends, acquaintances and strangers with their message. These people, for obvious reasons, are not well liked (kind of like stevek on this message board, and probably in person as well), except by people who share their exact views.
You're probably a fun guy to have at parties because of the way you carry yourself, even though you're not getting drunk and acting the fool like everybody else. I suspect stevek is not. He probably takes every opportunity he can to get up on his soapbox and tell people what they should and shouldn't do. >>
Lee - I hope your judgment at the poker table is better than your judgment of me. The only thing I preach at parties is that nobody should be a Dallas Cowboys fan. Dallas Cowboys fans are sinners and they need to repent. LOL
Steve
Fantasy Sports on the other hand, are considered games of skill-which is more like a sport than gambling.....
oh - and strippers, drugs, whores, fast cars, rock and roll and the discovery channel.
<< <i>+1 for drinking AND gambling.
oh - and strippers, drugs, whores, fast cars, rock and roll and the discovery channel. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>+1 for drinking AND gambling.
oh - and strippers, drugs, whores, fast cars, rock and roll and the discovery channel. >>
The Discovery Channel? After all that, what the heck else do you need to discover? LOL
<< <i>The Discovery Channel? After all that, what the heck else do you need to discover? LOL >>
If you aren't learning something new every day, you ain't living life.
: insert mellow, confucius-like emoticon here :
<< <i>
<< <i>The Discovery Channel? After all that, what the heck else do you need to discover? LOL >>
If you aren't learning something new every day, you ain't living life.
: insert mellow, confucius-like emoticon here : >>
I agree with ya. And it is hoped that some will have "discovered" a different point of view about online poker, other than the usual "read some poker books and make money at online poker" point of view often found on poker forums loaded with affiliate banners and links to gambling websites.
With that being said, I bid farewell and adieu to this thread.
Best regards,
Steve
<< <i>If you aren't learning something new every day, you ain't living life.
: insert mellow, confucius-like emoticon here : >>
<< <i>For example, say someone is entering a lot of poker tournaments, there is always that time in the tournaments, that big key all-in bet which often is basically a coin flip, that needs to be won to keep advancing and eventually place high or win. Just for example sake, let's say when entering 100 tournaments, there are say 500 key big bets...again just for illustration purposes to make a point. Well two poker players in theory could have basically identical skill, but the perceived better player who is placing high or winning a few tournaments, has a hot variance for an extended period and wins say 350 out of the 500 coin flips and wins millions.....whereby the other player who is a perceived bad poker player because he only wins 150 out of the 500 coin flips and gets eliminated early from the tournaments and wins nothing.
>>
Do you know what the odds are of flipping a coin 500 times and seeing at least 70% heads or tails?
<< <i>+1 for drinking AND gambling.
oh - and strippers, whores. >>
This is more my speed
I play recreationally at a new casino 40 miles away which uses electronics instead of live dealers. Went for the first time yesterday thinking it was going to be a waste. Actually it turned out to be quite fun as the group of guys were not a bunch of knowitall youngsters. We had a nice time and I won 5 hands in two hours and left with $208 in winnings. I can prove it by a receipt. Is it a sport, probably not but who cares. It was fun and relaxing.
Nope, the Boxing magazines were from my elderly 92 yr old cousin's estate and were given to me by his half brother.
We split the proceeds.
The 'mailman' was just the cards.
Steve
As far as what SteveK is saying I think he is generalising all gamblers as "degenerate" ones which is not true, I know I used to be one. I went 8 years without touching the NFL and now I will take a game here and there but will NEVER be married to it like I used to be, Poker is fun when I win but SU-K's when I lose and I dont play with money I have in the bank only what I set aside for games. I am a "reformed" addict- I have my credit back up into the low 800's and have a CD which I have been adding to for the past 8 years and now have it up to almost what I went bankrupt on. Gambling can be PURE EVIL if you let it get ahold of your life in a "degenerate" way- but not all people fall into this category.
<< <i>I see both Lee and SteveK's points. Back in 1996 I lost a Girlfriend and went bankrupt on $45K ( credit card debt in which 75% was cash advances) The thing that hurt me was the Pro-Football action- that is a game that cant be beat over an extended period of time (IMO) With Poker I believe you can control your own destiny if you are disciplined enough, which if Lee says he is succesful with the poker then I believe he is enough to know when to hold em and when to fold em- the thing with Poker ( Hold-em ) is if your truly disciplined to get involved in a few hands and take down a few "big pots' and walk away I think you can make money this way.
As far as what SteveK is saying I think he is generalising all gamblers as "degenerate" ones which is not true, I know I used to be one. I went 8 years without touching the NFL and now I will take a game here and there but will NEVER be married to it like I used to be, Poker is fun when I win but SU-K's when I lose and I dont play with money I have in the bank only what I set aside for games. I am a "reformed" addict- I have my credit back up into the low 800's and have a CD which I have been adding to for the past 8 years and now have it up to almost what I went bankrupt on. Gambling can be PURE EVIL if you let it get ahold of your life in a "degenerate" way- but not all people fall into this category. >>
Everytime I try to get out, they pull me back in. (LOL)
Perkdog - I understand your points but I have never stated that all gamblers are "degenerates" and it would be silly to say that. Many addicted gamblers are decent people but they have a bad problem with gambling addiction in which negative ramifications will occur - just a question of when and how bad.
Frankly, considering your past problem with gambling, you're skating on thin ice...I'm gonna keep this short and just say that I've known a number of addicted gamblers who busted out, stayed clean for awhile, then later tried "controlling" their gambling or trying to be a so-called "responsible gambler" - some did that even for years, but then in the right set of circumstances, perhaps before they fully comprehended what was going on, they wound up losing a substantial amount of money again...and busted out again.
Believe me...it doesn't give me pleasure to "debate" and "argue" with good guys such as Lee and Winpitcher and others such as Boopotts who I've gone at it about this subject before in a long thread a few years ago, but I've grown to respect Boopotts immensely despite our differing viewpoints about online poker.
Just to add one additional point...I'm still 100% convinced and certain that raked online poker is a sucker's game. Frankly, I don't think it's even a close call here and not even remotely close...there's enough luck in poker as it is, but without the tells and player tendencies of face-to-face poker, online poker realistically and simply has way too much luck involved to overcome the long term effects of even a small rake.
If ever online poker gets legalized in the US and it gets offered rake free which I believe certain corporations will offer this, IE: for example say MGM will offer rake free but have an ad for their latest movie in the center of the table - I don't think players will mind that. Yahoo I believe will offer rake free but have ads off to the right and left of the poker table.
If rake free occurs with corporations that can be trusted with an honest RNG (I don't trust the RNG from the current popular foreign poker websites as far as I can throw them)...there is just enough skill to online poker that some players will be able to beat that game. Basically now, even with better skill than your opponents, it is impossible to overcome the accumulative effects of the rake. However, with no rake, and an honest RNG, even with no player tells, there are mathematical considerations which can of course be utilized so that the more skilled players in this regard would make money in the long-run even in ring games.
If this rake free situation occurs, I would then no longer state that it is impossible to beat online poker because then it would not be true. I also believe that honest rake free websites could easily detect bot betting, and cheating rings, and quickly bar them - I don't think that will be a problem.
If anyone is naive enough to believe the crap posted by foreign poker websites that they truly care about eliminating bots and cheating rings, then there is some swampland in Georgia for sale you might also want to buy. Bots and cheating rings no doubt account for a good portion of their profits by raking them as well. It's not rocket science to figure that almost every college fraternity, college dorm, neighborhood players, etc., etc., have thought of the idea of multiple players with multiple computers even in different cities - this is all so easy to do and there is no doubt in my mind it probably constitutes the majority of players on a poker website, along with the bots. You could have a sophisticated cheating ring with 50 or more players, alternating between tables at a popular website, mixing it up enough so that the average individual player there won't complain about it because they don't notice it.
I remember one time watching someone play at a popular poker website, and at least at that time it was posted at the table which countries the players were from..at this one table of six there were 3 players from Sweden (LOL) - I mean what would be the odds of that randomly? (LOL) - obviously they were colluding and it was microlimits so the player thought he'd have fun and play against them anyway and it was interesting to note how it was obvious that they were playing only against him...and not against each other.
Cheating is obviously rampant at these foreign poker websites...but legalizing online poker in the US would most likely put most of these current foreign poker websites out of business. There are probably a number of affiliate commission members here, and whoever is or isn't I really couldn't care less, but it's interesting that most affiliate commission members out there are adamant about legalizing online poker in the US. I don't think they fully realize yet that if that happens, their affiliate commission days will basically be over. If rake free isn't offered, and offered by all the major US websites, I'll be very, VERY surprised..and of course if there's no rake, then there's no rake commissions.
Steve
<< <i>Steve, you an Xfiles buff? Do you believe the government has micro cameras in all Bic pens?
I don't mind the humorous "comments" or even the not so humorous comments - doesn't bother me in the least - I like to have fun and "fool around" with Sports Talk here - smack a bit and be smacked back...my way of letting off a little steam from the pressures of life. But I don't fool around with discussions about recovery and how the gambling industry exploits their customers.
So there's no "conspiracy theories" with me - just the facts based on correct information, observation, and my knowledge about gambling which is extensive and believe me...I wish it wasn't. I wish I would have never ever gambled a penny but I am who I am and it is what it is, so I make the best of it. Admittedly I do enjoy helping others with this addiction, and warning folks about the realities and consequences of gambling.
Well, I'll try to sneak out of this thread again (LOL). I only came back because I like Perkdog and wanted to stick a bug in his ear to be careful with what he's doing. Gambling has a way of catching up to you and biting you on the arse, sometimes when you least expect it. I know a guy who "controlled" his gambling for years and never was in debt. Then he was having marital troubles, his wife left him, and one weekend around that time he lost over $30,000 gambling. It started with a combination of a gambling cold streak just with his usual few $50 and $100 sports bets and escalated with gambling sessions at the casino and race track trying to get back his losses by doubling up, tripling up and much more - all sort of a "perfect storm" of personal problems and bad luck at gambling.....and years later he is still repaying that debt.
If anyone wants to gamble then that's their choice and I've never called for a nanny state - that being said I hope the above example of quickly losing $30,000 over a weekend is remembered and heeded for something which could possibly happen to any gambler, and worse. Unfortunately, sometimes after money losing events such as this, gamblers do bad things to themselves - gambling addiction has the highest suicide rate and attempted suicide rate of any other addiction.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>Steve, you an Xfiles buff? Do you believe the government has micro cameras in all Bic pens?
I don't mind the humorous "comments" or even the not so humorous comments - doesn't bother me in the least - I like to have fun and "fool around" with Sports Talk here - smack a bit and be smacked back...my way of letting off a little steam from the pressures of life. But I don't fool around with discussions about recovery and how the gambling industry exploits their customers.
So there's no "conspiracy theories" with me - just the facts based on correct information, observation, and my knowledge about gambling which is extensive and believe me...I wish it wasn't. I wish I would have never ever gambled a penny but I am who I am and it is what it is, so I make the best of it. Admittedly I do enjoy helping others with this addiction, and warning folks about the realities and consequences of gambling.
Well, I'll try to sneak out of this thread again (LOL). I only came back because I like Perkdog and wanted to stick a bug in his ear to be careful with what he's doing. Gambling has a way of catching up to you and biting you on the arse, sometimes when you least expect it. I know a guy who "controlled" his gambling for years and never was in debt. Then he was having marital troubles, his wife left him, and one weekend around that time he lost over $30,000 gambling. It started with a combination of a gambling cold streak just with his usual few $50 and $100 sports bets and escalated with gambling sessions at the casino and race track trying to get back his losses by doubling up, tripling up and much more - all sort of a "perfect storm" of personal problems and bad luck at gambling.....and years later he is still repaying that debt.
If anyone wants to gamble then that's their choice and I've never called for a nanny state - that being said I hope the above example of quickly losing $30,000 over a weekend is remembered and heeded for something which could possibly happen to any gambler, and worse. Unfortunately, sometimes after money losing events such as this, gamblers do bad things to themselves - gambling addiction has the highest suicide rate and attempted suicide rate of any other addiction.
Steve >>
My X-files comments are directed at your statements about rampant cheating -
Bots and cheating rings no doubt account for a good portion of their profits by raking them as well.
It's not rocket science to figure that almost every college fraternity, college dorm, neighborhood players, etc., etc., have thought of the idea of multiple players with multiple computers even in different cities - this is all so easy to do and there is no doubt in my mind it probably constitutes the majority of players on a poker website, along with the bots.
I Remember one time watching someone play at a popular poker website, and at least at that time it was posted at the table which countries the players were from..at this one table of six there were 3 players from Sweden (LOL)
Cheating is obviously rampant at these foreign poker websites...
While I know that there is some cheating going on through these sites, I'm CERTAIN it isn't being done by the majority of players and bots. Hysterical accusations wont help your arguement about online poker. You ask for proof about a winning online poker player. Please supply proof that cheating is even done in considerable proportions, let alone a major factor.
<< <i>it's funny you mention having 3 people from sweden at the same table...im sure that happens more than you think and most of the time it's probably a simple coincidence. I have played in sit & go's on Pokerstars, 6 person and 9 person tables with folks from the next town over...one night i played with 2 people from RI and 2 from Mass, of course i recognized the towns and though it was "odd" but no one favored one another, no one got ganged up on. In say the last 100 tables I've sat at maybe 10% of the time there is another player from Massachusetts there.... >>
I should have mentioned further that at that table with the 3 players from Sweden, most of the time it was 4 handed as the other two spots most likely as they entered the table would see the obvious colluders, and would almost immediately drop out. So it was this player versus the 3 Swedes most of the time and he played on the table for about an hour - tried his best but lost a few dollars to the Swedes.
Scarne wrote in his books on poker, his books guys such as Doyle learned from, that (paraphrase) "If three chumps were sitting at a poker table with the three best poker players in the world, but the chumps knew each other's hole cards, the three chumps would win money from the three best players"
Well, maybe those were coincidences you mentioned and maybe they weren't, but again...it's not hard whatsoever with computer technology being what it is today, for players to collude with players from other states...and it would be quite naive to believe that this doesn't occur on a regular basis at all the poker websites. Remember that "chump" example from above if ever thinking that you're a better player than the cheaters and you'll beat them anyway - the facts are that you won't beat them even if you are a better player.
I didn't go back and reread it, but I think Lee or someone else mentioned that he liked playing heads up, and of course this is one way to avoid collusion and it's easier to figure out if it's a bot because you're focusing on one player. And it's not always easy to figure out a bot because a player could be sitting there live using the bot, and also chatting with their opponent. But the problem is that the rake accumulative effects with heads up play devastates a bankroll quicker because of the increased amount of hands played versus a table with more players. Bots usually aren't used at heads up because they are much more effective when playing multiple hands at one table and knowing each other's hole cards, and the bot users understand the devastating rake effects of playing heads up. So the catch-22 is that yes chances are better of getting a clean game with heads up...but the rake more rapidly annihilates a bankroll.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Steve, you an Xfiles buff? Do you believe the government has micro cameras in all Bic pens?
I don't mind the humorous "comments" or even the not so humorous comments - doesn't bother me in the least - I like to have fun and "fool around" with Sports Talk here - smack a bit and be smacked back...my way of letting off a little steam from the pressures of life. But I don't fool around with discussions about recovery and how the gambling industry exploits their customers.
So there's no "conspiracy theories" with me - just the facts based on correct information, observation, and my knowledge about gambling which is extensive and believe me...I wish it wasn't. I wish I would have never ever gambled a penny but I am who I am and it is what it is, so I make the best of it. Admittedly I do enjoy helping others with this addiction, and warning folks about the realities and consequences of gambling.
Well, I'll try to sneak out of this thread again (LOL). I only came back because I like Perkdog and wanted to stick a bug in his ear to be careful with what he's doing. Gambling has a way of catching up to you and biting you on the arse, sometimes when you least expect it. I know a guy who "controlled" his gambling for years and never was in debt. Then he was having marital troubles, his wife left him, and one weekend around that time he lost over $30,000 gambling. It started with a combination of a gambling cold streak just with his usual few $50 and $100 sports bets and escalated with gambling sessions at the casino and race track trying to get back his losses by doubling up, tripling up and much more - all sort of a "perfect storm" of personal problems and bad luck at gambling.....and years later he is still repaying that debt.
If anyone wants to gamble then that's their choice and I've never called for a nanny state - that being said I hope the above example of quickly losing $30,000 over a weekend is remembered and heeded for something which could possibly happen to any gambler, and worse. Unfortunately, sometimes after money losing events such as this, gamblers do bad things to themselves - gambling addiction has the highest suicide rate and attempted suicide rate of any other addiction.
Steve >>
My X-files comments are directed at your statements about rampant cheating -
Bots and cheating rings no doubt account for a good portion of their profits by raking them as well.
It's not rocket science to figure that almost every college fraternity, college dorm, neighborhood players, etc., etc., have thought of the idea of multiple players with multiple computers even in different cities - this is all so easy to do and there is no doubt in my mind it probably constitutes the majority of players on a poker website, along with the bots.
I Remember one time watching someone play at a popular poker website, and at least at that time it was posted at the table which countries the players were from..at this one table of six there were 3 players from Sweden (LOL)
Cheating is obviously rampant at these foreign poker websites...
While I know that there is some cheating going on through these sites, I'm CERTAIN it isn't being done by the majority of players and bots. Hysterical accusations wont help your arguement about online poker. You ask for proof about a winning online poker player. Please supply proof that cheating is even done in considerable proportions, let alone a major factor. >>
Cheating is definitely a major factor - that's not even debatable. I believe it's the majority, my viewpoint, that over 50% of the players at the poker websites are involved in cheating rings of some sort with multiple players colluding in some manner. You could be at a six player table with three cheats from one ring and two cheats from another ring - they may alternate between tables so that you see a variety of players at your table throughout the session but it's all from the various cheating rings at the website. There could be fifty, more or less players involved in a ring, not on any one night, but on different nights, and they play at different times and different tables.
One definition of a "fish" would be to not easily see how all this is not only possible, but is one reason why individual, honest online poker players often get quickly crushed playing online poker. But the affiliate commission hucksters tell them to keep trying and learning and one day you'll get better. See the above post to finally understand why you could become the best poker player in the world, and not beat the cheats rampant at online poker websites.
But you go right ahead and believe whatever you wanna believe and I'm sure for now that you will. Just don't say that you weren't warned.
Steve
<< <i>I believe it's the majority, my viewpoint, that over 50% of the players at the poker websites are involved in cheating rings of some sort with multiple players colluding in some manner. >>
Unfortunately, I think that's about right.
As I stated somewhere in this thread earlier, I personally knew people that cheated via IM/phone.
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe it's the majority, my viewpoint, that over 50% of the players at the poker websites are involved in cheating rings of some sort with multiple players colluding in some manner. >>
Unfortunately, I think that's about right.
As I stated somewhere in this thread earlier, I personally knew people that cheated via IM/phone. >>
It's just too easy to do when there is determination to do it, which is why I have never ruled out the possibility that a highly clever and sophisticated cheating ring could possibly beat the rake at online poker, but again I'm not totally sure. This I do know for sure, that every bot offered for sale to the public has been proven to be a money loser in the long-run...of course the bot makers keep coming up with new versions, under new names, and people keep buying them, hoping to strike gold but the only thing they've struck so far is fool's gold.
Frankly, I think Lee has the right idea if you're gonna play online poker anyway despite the insurmountable obstacles...try to get lucky in a big tournament and hope for a super hot variance...and it needs to be super hot because the cheaters are rampant at the big tournaments as well with chip dumping, etc.
Steve
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
A couple things to add:
Most people who study the issue agree that a bot could be built that could beat anyone in the world heads up, but that it's almost inconceivable that a bot could be built that could beat competent players in a multi-player ring game. I won't get into the details here, except to say that this has to do with game-theoretical considerations (like bet sizing, the randomization of wagers, etc.) that are more easily applied to heads-up play.
Most people who share hole card information gain virtually no edge by doing so, since they don't know how to use the information. The advantages gained by collaborative play aren't insignificant, but they don't come from the sharing of hole card info.
Chip dumping does not work in the favor of the dumper (or the dumpee), since the marginal value of a tournament chip decreases as the size of one's stack increases. This is stricly solve-by-inspection stuff. If you don't believe me, then please, PLEASE accept the following proposition:
Ten of us will sit down in a Sit and Go. After the tournament begins eight of you will all dump your chips on a player of your choice (not me). This will leave me heads-up against one of you, and my opponent will have a chip stack 9x the size of mine. The tournament will pay three places. Any takers?
Unfortunately, I think that's about right.
As I stated somewhere in this thread earlier, I personally knew people that cheated via IM/phone. >>
It's just too easy to do when there is determination to do it, which is why I have never ruled out the possibility that a highly clever and sophisticated cheating ring could possibly beat the rake at online poker, but again I'm not totally sure. This I do know for sure, that every bot offered for sale to the public has been proven to be a money loser in the long-run...of course the bot makers keep coming up with new versions, under new names, and people keep buying them, hoping to strike gold but the only thing they've struck so far is fool's gold.
Frankly, I think Lee has the right idea if you're gonna play online poker anyway despite the insurmountable obstacles...try to get lucky in a big tournament and hope for a super hot variance...and it needs to be super hot because the cheaters are rampant at the big tournaments as well with chip dumping, etc.
///////////////////////////////////
Actually, if you're going to play online poker and you're proficient playing heads-up then the best move is to sign up for an online propping program. You'll get 100%+ of your rake back, plus whatever you win. The only problem with these programs is that you're usually stuck playing low stakes ($2-$4 and lower), since most sites that have propping programs are small sites that don't have a lot of traffic. But if you're happy making $500-$800 a week playing $2-4$ and $1-$2, and are willing to play full time, this is the way to go.
Steve
<< <i>A couple things to add:
Most people who study the issue agree that a bot could be built that could beat anyone in the world heads up, but that it's almost inconceivable that a bot could be built that could beat competent players in a multi-player ring game. I won't get into the details here, except to say that this has to do with game-theoretical considerations (like bet sizing, the randomization of wagers, etc.) that are more easily applied to heads-up play.
Most people who share hole card information gain virtually no edge by doing so, since they don't know how to use the information. The advantages gained by collaborative play aren't insignificant, but they don't come from the sharing of hole card info.
Chip dumping does not work in the favor of the dumper (or the dumpee), since the marginal value of a tournament chip decreases as the size of one's stack increases. This is stricly solve-by-inspection stuff. If you don't believe me, then please, PLEASE accept the following proposition:
Ten of us will sit down in a Sit and Go. After the tournament begins eight of you will all dump your chips on a player of your choice (not me). This will leave me heads-up against one of you, and my opponent will have a chip stack 9x the size of mine. The tournament will pay three places. Any takers? >>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
<<< Most people who study the issue agree that a bot could be built that could beat anyone in the world heads up, but that it's almost inconceivable that a bot could be built that could beat competent players in a multi-player ring game. I won't get into the details here, except to say that this has to do with game-theoretical considerations (like bet sizing, the randomization of wagers, etc.) that are more easily applied to heads-up play. >>>
Bots are more effective in fixed limit games than no limit games where bluffing is more prevalent and effective...bots sometimes have trouble correctly analyzing all-in type bets.
<<< Most people who share hole card information gain virtually no edge by doing so, since they don't know how to use the information. The advantages gained by collaborative play aren't insignificant, but they don't come from the sharing of hole card info. >>>
I think 99.99% of knowledgeable poker players, perhaps even a higher percentage, would totally disagree with you on this. Of course the cards still have to be played, but as Scarne stated, (paraphrase) even three colluding chumps would beat the other three best players...I've never known of anyone disagreeing with Scarne on this point...until now.
<<< Chip dumping does not work in the favor of the dumper (or the dumpee), since the marginal value of a tournament chip decreases as the size of one's stack increases. This is stricly solve-by-inspection stuff. If you don't believe me, then please, PLEASE accept the following proposition: >>>
I'll partially agree but in a differing manner - For example: Would the ability to pay $20,000 and buy $20,000 worth of chips be any perceptible advantage at the start of the WSOP? Probably not, if not definitely not. However even in a cheating ring, there are better poker players than others, and they usually know who they are. At key points in a tournament, there is no doubt it would be advantageous for a weaker player to dump his chips to the better player...and this of course happens when they feel they can get away with it. Which is why every major poker tournament has rules against chip dumping.
<<< Ten of us will sit down in a Sit and Go. After the tournament begins eight of you will all dump your chips on a player of your choice (not me). This will leave me heads-up against one of you, and my opponent will have a chip stack 9x the size of mine. The tournament will pay three places. Any takers? >>>
I think you're right here. But if it's a winner take all, in my opinion with players of basically equal skill, that player with the 9x stack would win more than 9 out of 10 times, because even heads up in this situation, not every hand is an automatic all-in...the big stack can still push around the small stack in a number of ways.
I think it's fairly easy to see that if two colluding players are alive late in a tight tourney maybe one being say 10th and the other say 15th with say 25 players still in it, and the one player at 10th is a better player than the other, say better experienced in late tourney play...rather than possibly splitting two lesser prizes, it's smarter to chip dump to the better player and go for the one higher prize which even when split can sometimes be much better than the two lesser prizes - it would depend on how the tournament prize money is structured.
Good food for thought Boo - I always enjoy your comments.
Steve
<< <i>I will admit it, me and my buddy used Nextel Direct connect a number of times while playing at the same table online- sometimes it worked other times it didnt. Im not proud or ashamed of it, and will agree that I bet it is done more times than not. I have NEVER cheated in a live game nor would I ever, no matter what. >>
It's interesting isn't it that cheating in a face-to-face live game is totally unacceptable, whereby cheating online is like almost "acceptable" in a way among those trying to make money at the game.
Perhaps the thought of getting your brains beat in if found cheating face-to-face is a good deterent and I'm not kidding. All that can really happen online if caught cheating is you get your account closed and your money taken away by the website.
Steve
<< <i>Cheating is definitely a major factor - that's not even debatable. I believe it's the majority, my viewpoint, that over 50% of the players at the poker websites are involved in cheating rings of some sort with multiple players colluding in some manner. You could be at a six player table with three cheats from one ring and two cheats from another ring - they may alternate between tables so that you see a variety of players at your table throughout the session but it's all from the various cheating rings at the website. There could be fifty, more or less players involved in a ring, not on any one night, but on different nights, and they play at different times and different tables. >>
Cheating is a major factor, eh? Not debatable? Please show me documentation to prove the numbers, not mere speculation. Man, almost every time I'm online someone catches a bad beat from a loose player and immediately calls them a bot too. I guess it's possible there's a bot on that site, but probably not in the $1 tourney we're playing in when the accusation occurs.
<< <i>One definition of a "fish" would be to not easily see how all this is not only possible, but is one reason why individual, honest online poker players often get quickly crushed playing online poker. But the affiliate commission hucksters tell them to keep trying and learning and one day you'll get better. See the above post to finally understand why you could become the best poker player in the world, and not beat the cheats rampant at online poker websites. >>
The difference is... I know it's POSSIBLE, but just don't believe it's rampant. I actually have seen players I suspect of this and I leave a note on both players saying that if I see them at another table with the same players, don't sit down. Of course it's being done, but I don't see it as being as common as you think it is. You say you know it is, so I'd just like some proof. Real documentaion. Not speculation, rumors, or "my friend played with 3 Swedes" kind of stuff.
<< <i>But you go right ahead and believe whatever you wanna believe and I'm sure for now that you will. Just don't say that you weren't warned.
Steve >>
Show me some documentation to believe otherwise. And in the end, even if there's 99.9999% cheaters and I am the sole honest player who continues to win, I'll keep playing. But anyways... documentation please.
<< <i>Im not really concerned with getting beat up, its the hit my reputation would take that would bother me most. I play with a group of "associates" and at a club I belong to and believe me if you EVER cheated you would have a fight on your hands no doubt but worse than that you would never be allowed to play in a game in the area, outside of a casino- >>
The advice I always give...never and I do mean NEVER play face-to-face poker with people you don't know. For example hearing of a game in a barber shop from somebody you meet for the first time and he invites you to the game - that would be an extremely bad idea to go to that game because the odds are almost certain you'll be cheated, maybe not on the first night but on future nights. I'll stop here with that for now, but you're right about not wanting to cheat among people you know, "associates" and such - that is totally understandable.
I've actually never witnessed a fight among card players but I witnessed some very heated arguments, VERY heated and I sometimes thought they were gonna turn into a fight but fortunately cooler heads prevailed...and this wasn't even about cheating...it was usually about not receiving credit or nobody willing to lend someone money after they already lost a lot of money. Sometimes somebody doesn't quite understand why after they've lost say $500, why somebody doesn't lend him back some of their winnings so he can keep playing, and he gets PO'd over it.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>Cheating is definitely a major factor - that's not even debatable. I believe it's the majority, my viewpoint, that over 50% of the players at the poker websites are involved in cheating rings of some sort with multiple players colluding in some manner. You could be at a six player table with three cheats from one ring and two cheats from another ring - they may alternate between tables so that you see a variety of players at your table throughout the session but it's all from the various cheating rings at the website. There could be fifty, more or less players involved in a ring, not on any one night, but on different nights, and they play at different times and different tables. >>
Cheating is a major factor, eh? Not debatable? Please show me documentation to prove the numbers, not mere speculation. Man, almost every time I'm online someone catches a bad beat from a loose player and immediately calls them a bot too. I guess it's possible there's a bot on that site, but probably not in the $1 tourney we're playing in when the accusation occurs.
<< <i>One definition of a "fish" would be to not easily see how all this is not only possible, but is one reason why individual, honest online poker players often get quickly crushed playing online poker. But the affiliate commission hucksters tell them to keep trying and learning and one day you'll get better. See the above post to finally understand why you could become the best poker player in the world, and not beat the cheats rampant at online poker websites. >>
The difference is... I know it's POSSIBLE, but just don't believe it's rampant. I actually have seen players I suspect of this and I leave a note on both players saying that if I see them at another table with the same players, don't sit down. Of course it's being done, but I don't see it as being as common as you think it is. You say you know it is, so I'd just like some proof. Real documentaion. Not speculation, rumors, or "my friend played with 3 Swedes" kind of stuff.
<< <i>But you go right ahead and believe whatever you wanna believe and I'm sure for now that you will. Just don't say that you weren't warned.
Steve >>
Show me some documentation to believe otherwise. And in the end, even if there's 99.9999% cheaters and I am the sole honest player who continues to win, I'll keep playing. But anyways... documentation please. >>
Here's my documentation:
"But you go right ahead and believe whatever you wanna believe and I'm sure for now that you will. Just don't say that you weren't warned."
I'll get this certified by a Notary Public first thing in the morning.
The advice I always give...never and I do mean NEVER play face-to-face poker with people you don't know. For example hearing of a game in a barber shop from somebody you meet for the first time and he invites you to the game - that would be an extremely bad idea to go to that game because the odds are almost certain you'll be cheated, maybe not on the first night but on future nights. I'll stop here with that for now, but you're right about not wanting to cheat among people you know, "associates" and such - that is totally understandable.
I've actually never witnessed a fight among card players but I witnessed some very heated arguments, VERY heated and I sometimes thought they were gonna turn into a fight but fortunately cooler heads prevailed...and this wasn't even about cheating...it was usually about not receiving credit or nobody willing to lend someone money after they already lost a lot of money. Sometimes somebody doesn't quite understand why after they've lost say $500, why somebody doesn't lend him back some of their winnings so he can keep playing, and he gets PO'd over it.
///////////////////////
I've seen two fights-- and both of them erupted in an Omaha 8 game. Which will come as exactly no surprise to anyone who's spent significant amounts of time with O8 players in a casino.
<< <i>Personally I have been in a few serious arguments that would have come to blows had the other person taken me up on my "lets step outside" offer- everytime I was drunk and it was over a bad beat coupled with the guy who "slow rolled" his winning hand- nothing annoys me more! I have actually never accused anyone of cheating, as a matter of fact I havnt been involved in any game ( as an adult 25+) where a fight broke out because of someone cheating. Rarely do I ever play in a game outside of a casino where I dont know at least someone in the game, maybe at the dog track but thats about it. >>
Oh yea...I of course meant players you don't know in a private game in someone's home or in a private club of some sort. A situation in a casino, or racetrack poker, or a card parlor like in California are different. The dealers there aren't going to cheat, although there have been rare exceptions...and as far as fights, there are security guards there who aren't going to let things get out of hand.
There are simply so many ingenius ways to cheat at poker - there have been a number of books written on the subject including cheating at online poker.
Steve