World Series of Poker
BigRedMachine
Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Anyone following the 2007 Main Event????
Nice to see some guys I've heard of hanging in there.
Kenny Tran, Lee Watkinson, and former champ Scotty Nguyen are still alive with only 20 players left out of 6000+ entries.
Perhaps not a true "sport", but entertaining nonetheless.
P.S. Banning online poker is still the most communist thing I've ever heard of.
Nice to see some guys I've heard of hanging in there.
Kenny Tran, Lee Watkinson, and former champ Scotty Nguyen are still alive with only 20 players left out of 6000+ entries.
Perhaps not a true "sport", but entertaining nonetheless.
P.S. Banning online poker is still the most communist thing I've ever heard of.
0
Comments
Danny
The above three are still alive.
Not as exciting as Lee kicking a$$ in a Wednesday night Pokerstars event when I'm vying for a prize trying to guess when he'll finish, but still exciting.
shawn
<< <i>Have not really seen much of it this year, but do like to watch it. What happened to Mike Mattisau and Phil Halmuth (sp??), can't stand those two. What about Daniel Nagrue (again not sure on spelling), he his one of my favorites. >>
The poker tournament entry fees, cuts, and travel expenses grind 'em all out of their bankrolls in the long-run and the real pros already know that. I did a study and concluded that Hellmuth overall has lost approximately 1/2 million dollars playing tournaments over the years and he of course is considered one of the best.
As far as Negreanu - yes he is still up money overall playing in poker tournaments but let's see where he stands five or ten years from now...but I already "know" that overall he'll have lost money from playing in too many poker tournaments. Matusow? - LOL - a very good poker player but an obvious compulsive gambler who enjoyed a lucky variance for awhile but is now reported to be broke, as will happen with all compulsive gamblers.
And note that just because Hellmuth has lost approximately 1/2 million dollars in poker tournaments, doesn't mean this venture hasn't been extremely profitable for him. However the profits haven't come from playing tournament poker - the profits come from his books, endorsements, and affiliate commission programs.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 16, 2007, 8:29 AM EDT
LAS VEGAS -- Scotty Nguyen, "The Prince of Poker," ended his remarkable run through the World Series of Poker's main event with class early Monday, busting out two places short of the final table and ending hopes for a repeat winner for the first time in a decade.
Nguyen, the 1998 main event champion and the fan favorite as play wound down to a final table, had as many as 15.5 million in chips but lost three huge pots in a disappointing collapse.
"When you're playing good, you get too coky and too confident and you give players no credit," he said after busting out in 11th with a $476,926 payday. "That's what happened. That's taking nothing away from all these players. They're great players. That's the reason they're here."
Later, he took the microphone and thanked the crowd for cheering him on.
"The most important thing is I want to say thank you to the fans," he said. "Without you guys, we cannot have Scotty Nguyen."
One woman yelled out, "We love you, Scotty!"
The last person to repeat at the main event was the late Stu Ungar, who won $1 million for top prize in 1997 after his back-to-back wins in 1980 and 1981.
At the start of his downfall, Nguyen, 44, reraised Toronto poker pro Tuan Lam, 40, from the big blind with a three and four of diamonds to Lam's pocket 10s.
Nguyen paired his four on the flop but was unable to push Lam off the pot when two kings, a jack, a five and a four were exposed as the shared community cards. When it was over, Lam called Nguyen's huge 3.5 million bet on the river, winning a pot worth 11.5 million.
"Starting from that hand, everything goes downhill," Nguyen said.
Just a few hands later, Nguyen held an ace and queen with a flop of queen, six and five, and pushed all-in but met Philip Hilm's pocket fives, for three of a kind, allowing him to double through.
Nguyen met his end when a flush draw didn't come through and Hilm, a 31-year-old Dane making a living playing poker online in England, made two pair with kings and queens.
Play wound down early Monday to the nine players needed for the final table when Steven Garfinkle, a 37-year-old history professor from Bellingham, Wash., pushed all-in with a short stack and an ace and three and was called by 62-year-old South African retiree Raymond Rahme, who held pocket queens.
The queens held up, putting Rahme in fourth with 16.0 million.
"I'd seen very few cards in the last hour and the time was coming where I needed to either pick up chips or go home," Garfinkle said. He busted out in 10th for $476,926.
With the final table set, Hilm held the lead with 23.1 million in chips followed by Lam with 20.3 million and British poker player Jon Kalmar, 34, with 20.2 million.
Kalmar said he was "nearly broke" before the $10,000 buy-in main event began to play down July 6, but plunked down $500 in a satellite tournament to win a seat.
"Otherwise, I was thinking of taking a very long break from the game," the former Internet technology manager said. "I was thinking of going back to work for a bit, (but) maybe not for a while yet."
Others remaining in the hunt for the top prize of $8.25 million were Lee Childs, a 35-year-old software engineer from Reston, Va., with 13.3 million; and Lee Watkinson, 40-year-old pro from Cheney, Wash., in sixth with 12.1 million.
Internet player Hevad Khan, 22, of Poughkeepsie, N.Y., was seventh with 9.2 million; Temecula, Calif.-based psychologist Jerry Yang, 39, was eighth with 8.5 million; and Russian poker pro Alex Kravchenko had 6.6 million.
The nine players were all that was left from a field of 6,358 who paid $10,000 in cash or qualified through satellite tournaments and played down in stages two weeks ago.
Those who busted out early on Sunday still went home with a small fortune.
John Armbrust, a 26-year-old high school teacher from Los Angeles, left in 18th place with $381,302.
Ron Kluber, a 46-year-old intelligence analyst for U.S. Forces in Seoul, South Korea, came in 29th. Kluber said his $285,678 prize would help put two teenage daughters through college.
"It's perfect timing," he said.
Jason Koshi, a 33-year-old certified public accountant, said his identical payday was "a big score" compared to his salary and what he made playing $10-$20 no-limit games in Los Angeles.
"This is more than I make in a year, definitely," he said.
The remaining players are to sit to play until there is a winner starting at noon (Pacific time) on Tuesday. Unlike previous years, when getting to the final table meant becoming an instant millionaire, ninth place this year will pay $525,934 and the millionaire's club does not begin until fifth place, with $1.26 million.
The U.S. crackdown on online gambling, which is believed to have shrunk the field from last year's record 8,773, and the flatter payout structure were seen as contributing to the more modest payouts.
Last year's champion, Jamie Gold, won $12 million for first, but had to share an undisclosed amount with an acquaintance after a brief court battle.
collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.
looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started
<< <i>
<< <i>Have not really seen much of it this year, but do like to watch it. What happened to Mike Mattisau and Phil Halmuth (sp??), can't stand those two. What about Daniel Nagrue (again not sure on spelling), he his one of my favorites. >>
The poker tournament entry fees, cuts, and travel expenses grind 'em all out of their bankrolls in the long-run and the real pros already know that. I did a study and concluded that Hellmuth overall has lost approximately 1/2 million dollars playing tournaments over the years and he of course is considered one of the best.
As far as Negreanu - yes he is still up money overall playing in poker tournaments but let's see where he stands five or ten years from now...but I already "know" that overall he'll have lost money from playing in too many poker tournaments. Matusow? - LOL - a very good poker player but an obvious compulsive gambler who enjoyed a lucky variance for awhile but is now reported to be broke, as will happen with all compulsive gamblers.
And note that just because Hellmuth has lost approximately 1/2 million dollars in poker tournaments, doesn't mean this venture hasn't been extremely profitable for him. However the profits haven't come from playing tournament poker - the profits come from his books, endorsements, and affiliate commission programs. >>
Thanks for the info, but I meant how have they done in the WSOP this year.
twice now a days. A few years ago poker had some big names, but now with so many playing, you need much more luck on your side, even if you
have amazing skill.
Kevin
In the end, you can get your money all-in with the best hand (by far) and have made the greatest of plays to trap the other guy into calling, but you're often playing with people who don't understand the game or their odds as well and they get a 2% suck out on the turn and river and your play was for not. Luck is certainly a big factor.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Have not really seen much of it this year, but do like to watch it. What happened to Mike Mattisau and Phil Halmuth (sp??), can't stand those two. What about Daniel Nagrue (again not sure on spelling), he his one of my favorites. >>
The poker tournament entry fees, cuts, and travel expenses grind 'em all out of their bankrolls in the long-run and the real pros already know that. I did a study and concluded that Hellmuth overall has lost approximately 1/2 million dollars playing tournaments over the years and he of course is considered one of the best.
As far as Negreanu - yes he is still up money overall playing in poker tournaments but let's see where he stands five or ten years from now...but I already "know" that overall he'll have lost money from playing in too many poker tournaments. Matusow? - LOL - a very good poker player but an obvious compulsive gambler who enjoyed a lucky variance for awhile but is now reported to be broke, as will happen with all compulsive gamblers.
And note that just because Hellmuth has lost approximately 1/2 million dollars in poker tournaments, doesn't mean this venture hasn't been extremely profitable for him. However the profits haven't come from playing tournament poker - the profits come from his books, endorsements, and affiliate commission programs. >>
Thanks for the info, but I meant how have they done in the WSOP this year. >>
I didn't look but cardplayer.com might have this info.
<< <i>Sure, "professional" is a word used too often in poker as I eluded to. My point is simply that with the internet and online poker popularity, as well as home games and side tourneys galore, many "amateurs" play more often during a week than the so-called professionals do. Now you don't just have to see hands to be good, but it's a great tool to help understanding the game better which increases your chances of being more successful.
In the end, you can get your money all-in with the best hand (by far) and have made the greatest of plays to trap the other guy into calling, but you're often playing with people who don't understand the game or their odds as well and they get a 2% suck out on the turn and river and your play was for not. Luck is certainly a big factor. >>
Good points and you are 100% correct. I play alot of highstakes Texas Hold'em poker with some "associates" and it is a great game where everyone knows what they are doing very few turn and river suckouts, I have always said the most dangerous player is the guy who does not know the game very well.
Legal Landscape of Online Gaming Has Not Changed
Analysis From CardPlayer's Legal Counsel
Misleading news stories abound both online and in print regarding the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The completely incorrect interpretation states that the new bill essentially outlaws most forms of Internet gambling. The new bill absolutely does no such thing.
I have been analyzing legal issues for 25 years. I have gone to court thousands of times interpreting statutes and I have taught new lawyers the correct method by which a statute should be analyzed. For over 15 years I was part of a legal hotline where California attorneys would call me with a legal question. As this is my field of expertise, I am flabbergasted at the misinformation being perpetuated regarding the new bill.
The New Bill Does Not Make Online Poker Illegal
The new bill attempts to make it more difficult to get money into a site by forbidding US financial Institutions from funding the type of online gambling that the law has previously made illegal. The new bill does not make online gaming illegal where it was not illegal before. Let me say that again. The new bill does not make online gaming illegal. The bill merely speaks to the mechanism by which an online account is funded. I am going to spend some time in this article explaining the accuracy of my reasoning.
Link to entire article
<< <i>Personally Im glad online poker was banned, I was getting hooked on that crap a few years back. >>
I prolly lost over 5K doing Party, Bodog and and a few other sights, the "bad beats" in those games were absolutely ridiculas, not to mention there are a ton of people using nextel direct connect partnering up in games. At times I did win but the patience you need to have to be succesfull in online poker was too much for me, not to mention it was so hard to get a real feel for the game pushing computer keys is a lot different than putting up green and having chips in front of you, at least it was for me anyways. I couldnt care less if it gets legalized in the states or not I will not ever get involved again. I used to get a kick out of the 100-200 game and watch people with over 100k in play at the same time at several different tables.
<< <i>I did a study and concluded that Hellmuth overall has lost approximately 1/2 million dollars playing tournaments over the years and he of course is considered one of the best. >>
I find this hard to believe. According to this site, Hellmuth has won over $7 Million in tournament winnings. To say that he has spent $7.5 Million in Buy In fees seems a little high. Even if he entered a TON of WSOP events this year, he's looking at maybe $100,000 in Buy Ins. The previous years were much less events so much less Buy Ins. At most, he's probably spent about $1 Million in WSOP Buy Ins. Most other events over the years have lower Buy Ins than the WSOP.
Maybe your right, I just can't believe he's spent 7.5 Mil in Buy Ins.
<< <i>Online poker has not been banned. Financial institutions are not allowed to transfer funds to off-shore gambling sites. There are still plenty of online sites that allow for US players to gamble.
Legal Landscape of Online Gaming Has Not Changed
Analysis From CardPlayer's Legal Counsel
Misleading news stories abound both online and in print regarding the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. The completely incorrect interpretation states that the new bill essentially outlaws most forms of Internet gambling. The new bill absolutely does no such thing.
I have been analyzing legal issues for 25 years. I have gone to court thousands of times interpreting statutes and I have taught new lawyers the correct method by which a statute should be analyzed. For over 15 years I was part of a legal hotline where California attorneys would call me with a legal question. As this is my field of expertise, I am flabbergasted at the misinformation being perpetuated regarding the new bill.
The New Bill Does Not Make Online Poker Illegal
The new bill attempts to make it more difficult to get money into a site by forbidding US financial Institutions from funding the type of online gambling that the law has previously made illegal. The new bill does not make online gaming illegal where it was not illegal before. Let me say that again. The new bill does not make online gaming illegal. The bill merely speaks to the mechanism by which an online account is funded. I am going to spend some time in this article explaining the accuracy of my reasoning.
Link to entire article >>
Yea, and what do you expect CardPlayer to say? Heh? LOL
Shulman has gotten so rich from his affiliate commission programs, off the backs of online poker player suckers who thought they could beat the rake, that it's not even funny.
The fact is that playing online poker is illegal in the United States. How can this be proven? Easily. To my knowledge and if you find one example then I will amend my statement, there has never been a lawsuit brought forth by any gambling website for online poker related debts. Threatened lawsuits from collection agencies? Yes. Actual lawsuits? No. Why? Because the gambling websites know that they cannot successfully sue in court for money owed on an illegal activity. The gambling websites know that playing online poker in the United States is an illegal activity.
Law enforcement has stated that they are not going to go around prosecuting online poker players. But law enforcement has prosecuted those who own the gambling websites. Could law enforcement one day begin prosecuting those who live in the United States involved in gambling website affiliate commission programs? Don't be surprised if it happens and anyone involved in this don't say you weren't warned about the possibility.
<< <i>
<< <i>Personally Im glad online poker was banned, I was getting hooked on that crap a few years back. >>
I prolly lost over 5K doing Party, Bodog and and a few other sights, the "bad beats" in those games were absolutely ridiculas, not to mention there are a ton of people using nextel direct connect partnering up in games. At times I did win but the patience you need to have to be succesfull in online poker was too much for me, not to mention it was so hard to get a real feel for the game pushing computer keys is a lot different than putting up green and having chips in front of you, at least it was for me anyways. I couldnt care less if it gets legalized in the states or not I will not ever get involved again. I used to get a kick out of the 100-200 game and watch people with over 100k in play at the same time at several different tables. >>
John Scarne is a guy who guys such as Doyle learned from. In Scarne's book on poker, (paraphrase) he states that at a six man poker table, if three chumps are teaming together and know each other's hole cards, they will beat the other three individual players at the table even if those players are the best in the world.
<< <i>Yea, and what do you expect CardPlayer to say? Heh? LOL
Shulman has gotten so rich from his affiliate commission programs, off the backs of online poker player suckers who thought they could beat the rake, that it's not even funny. >>
First, what Steve either doesn't know or fails to mention is that many of the "sponsored" players don't even pay for buy-ins to most of their tournaments. They wear the apparel of said sponsors, and do some appearances for their sponsors. In return, most of these sponsors pay for their buy-ins into the tournaments they play. I read an article about a year ago where one of the players (I believe it was the Grinder) who made an appearance on "High Stakes Poker" on GSN said the $300K he played with during the show was fronted by one of his sponsors (Poker Stars is his main sponsor, so I'm guessing it was them). He said the majority of the players there got at least the $100K buy-in from a sponsor to play there, if they had one.
<< <i>The fact is that playing online poker is illegal in the United States. How can this be proven? Easily. To my knowledge and if you find one example then I will amend my statement, there has never been a lawsuit brought forth by any gambling website for online poker related debts. Threatened lawsuits from collection agencies? Yes. Actual lawsuits? No. Why? Because the gambling websites know that they cannot successfully sue in court for money owed on an illegal activity. The gambling websites know that playing online poker in the United States is an illegal activity.
Law enforcement has stated that they are not going to go around prosecuting online poker players. But law enforcement has prosecuted those who own the gambling websites. Could law enforcement one day begin prosecuting those who live in the United States involved in gambling website affiliate commission programs? Don't be surprised if it happens and anyone involved in this don't say you weren't warned about the possibility. >>
Online "poker" sites do not let players bet without verified funds. I cannot speak for sports betting, but poker sites force you to transfer funds to your account before playing for money. Thus, you cannot place bets that exceed your deposit. So in essence, you cannot accrue debt "over" your deposit. Another words, you can only bet what you put into the site. So I cannot lose more than I actually have on any site. The money I put into a site has to be verified by their bank, and then goes into their bank account. The money is no longer mine. Why would a online poker site ever have to sue?
Further, there's a huge debate as to whether the law that was passed in regards to online gambling officially outlaws online gambling. The government says that it does, but the courts have ruled in multiple instances that online gambling for U.S. players was not officially banned by the bill. It's said that because the government knows it can't make it illegal internationally while still allowing gambling within its borders (WTO ruling), they tried to simply outlaw the things they can which assist people to gamble online. So they passed a law "that makes it a crime for a bank or financial institution to transfer money to an online gambling site". But many of the online sites have averted this by simply having a separate, independent bank take in and pay out funds. I believe Absolute has 3 or 4, with one being Wells Fargo.
Here's an article that mentions a few of the lawsuits, rulings and debates over the law/s.
Is Online Poker Legal?
Online Poker and United States Law
by Steve Badger
link
The direct answer to the title question is: I don't know. I'm not an attorney, a Justice Department official, nor a Supreme Court Justice. Nothing here should be seen as legal advice. What is here is a collection of court rulings and the best information on this subject that I have been able to find. Use it as you will. (Scroll down for information on the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.)
Many recent events have brought attention to the legal standing of online wagering in general. The first thing to understand is the skill game of poker is not the same as sports betting nor even "random chance" casino games like craps and roulette. It may be treated the same eventually, but it may not. Legal precedent for a lot of this simply does not exist. As of this writing, no person has been charged, let alone brought to trial, let alone convicted, let alone sentenced for playing online poker. But this does not guarantee one or more of these things will not happen in the future.
According to Professor I. Nelson Rose, one of the world's leading gambling law authorities: "no United States federal statute or regulation explicitly prohibits Internet gambling, either domestically or abroad." Still, the US government has taken the position that certain things are illegal, and more importantly, certain things are worthy of prosecution. The Wire Act is the statute most often cited as making on-line gambling a federal offense. The operative subsection reads: "Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
Rose goes on: "The first element of the Wire Act, says that the statute applies only to an individual involved in the 'business of betting or wagering' (not to a common player)."
The question of whether Internet sportsbetting is covered by the Wire Act seems to have been answered by the US Supreme Court's refusal to review the conviction of Jay Cohen. Whether online casinos and online poker cardrooms are covered under the aimed-at-sportsbetting Wire Act is a different question. In February 2001, Judge Stanwood Duval of the US District Court in New Orleans ruled that it did not: "'in plain language' [the Wire Act] does not prohibit Internet gambling 'on a game of chance.'" (Text of Judge Duval's ruling, plus a news story, and Nelson Rose's view.)
On November 21, 2002, the US Fifth Circuit Federal Appeals Court upheld Duval's ruling, stating: "The district court concluded that the Wire Act concerns gambling on sporting events or contests... We agree with the district court's statutory interpretation, its reading of the relevant case law, its summary of the relevant legislative history, and its conclusion." (Text of Appeals Court ruling)
The Appeals Court further states: "Because we find neither the Wire Act nor the mail and wire fraud statutes may serve as predicates here, we need not consider the other federal statutes identified by the Plaintiffs... As the district court correctly explained, these sections may not serve as predicates here because the Defendants did not violate any applicable federal or state law."
The Appeals Court specifically cites Duval's statement: "[A] plain reading of the statutory language [of the Wire Act] clearly requires that the object of the gambling be a sporting event or contest." This is very explicit language. You would have to jump through a lot of mental hoops to consider the playing of online poker to be "a sporting event".
So, while the US Justice Department recently stated that the Wire Act covers casino games in addition to sports wagering, the Federal Appeals Court has directly ruled that that interpretation is not correct. This is not a small disagreement. It is a direct contradiction that could well spur the creation of new, 21st Century Federal legislation that actually deals with these issues. The UIGEA aims to inhibit the ability of citizens to gamble online. It however does not criminalize actual gambling online. But other bills may be introduced in the future with that goal.
Gambling regulation traditionally has been the responsibility of individual states. For instance, New York State Attorney General (now Governor) Eliot Spitzer reached a settlement with Citibank and PayPal regarding their involvement with online gaming. Some individual states have laws prohibiting any form of gambling, a different issue from whether it is legal on a Federal level.
A key distinction exists on a Federal level between bettors and those operators whose business is to benefit from the actual making of wagers: "engaged in the business of betting or wagering... which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers..." As long as players stay in the "players" category and not in the in-the-business-of-wagering owners/bookies/runners/agents categories, a significant difference in status exists.
There are many ways to read the Wire Act, but only under the broadest interpretation could playing online poker be deemed illegal in terms of the Wire Act. In my opinion (which isn't worth a hill of beans... only the US Supreme Court's view will matter unless new legislation passes) playing online poker is not illegal for US citizens, in regards to Federal Law -- unless it is a crime in an individual state, in which case the Federal Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 may apply. The Act makes it a federal crime for five or more persons to engage in a gambling business illegal under state law. Gambling online is definitely illegal in some states, but the Crime Control Act of 1970 does not apply to players. In addition, since the Crime Control Act does not refer to foreign commerce, it is hard to see how a case could be made that it applies to Internet gaming across multiple international borders.
In November 2004, the Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda won a World Trade Organization ruling that United States legislation criminalizing online betting violates global laws. In April 2005, the WTO Appellate Body affirmed the principal conclusions involved. (The resources link below will take you to a page with links to the WTO ruling, news stories about it, and further resources on online poker / online gambling and US law.)
Finally, in September 2006, the Congress passed legislation that makes it a crime for a bank or financial institution to transfer money to an online gambling site. The bill that was passed did not include language about the Wire Act that was in previous versions. The bill does not appear to address playing online in any way.
So, as long as online poker players do not participate in owning a share of the house rake; as long as players only wager against each other; as long as players participate in the skill game of poker and do not bet sports; as long as players obey state laws... draw your own conclusions.
But a quick response to "Thus, you cannot place bets that exceed your deposit"
The key word is "you" - Yes, evidently you have not been extended credit but I personally know others who have been extended credit in some way, shape or form. It is well known that b&m casinos will extend credit. So why wouldn't internet gambling websites extend credit depending on the situation and the gambler?...and of course they do extend credit.
Besides, almost every online poker player knows that there are opportunities to cancel money sent to a poker site, after that money has been gambled. This technically if the bet was legal, might be a bad debt. For example, if anyone sends money through a credit card to a legal horse race betting site in the US, and say loses the money, then contacts the credit card company and says they were defrauded and the credit card company refunds the money to the gambler, I guarantee you that gambler will likely be sued in court by the racetrack if the money is significant enough. If anyone does this to a gambling website, I have known of no instance whereby a gambler was sued. The only recourse a gambling website would have is to bar this gambler from further gambling at their website.
<< <i>The key word is "you" - Yes, evidently you have not been extended credit but I personally know others who have been extended credit in some way, shape or form. It is well known that b&m casinos will extend credit. So why wouldn't internet gambling websites extend credit depending on the situation and the gambler?...and of course they do extend credit.
Besides, almost every online poker player knows that there are opportunities to cancel money sent to a poker site, after that money has been gambled. This technically if the bet was legal, might be a bad debt. For example, if anyone sends money through a credit card to a legal horse race betting site in the US, and say loses the money, then contacts the credit card company and says they were defrauded and the credit card company refunds the money to the gambler, I guarantee you that gambler will likely be sued in court by the racetrack if the money is significant enough. If anyone does this to a gambling website, I have known of no instance whereby a gambler was sued. The only recourse a gambling website would have is to bar this gambler from further gambling at their website. >>
I've never heard of an instance where credit has been extended online. Not saying it's false, just saying I've never heard of it. Even if they did and online gambling was allowed in all shapes and forms, most international online casinos wouldn't attempt to sue unless the sum was substantial simply because it's not worth it to them financially to pursue it. This happens in all sorts of businesses, not only online casinos. The sum would have to be great and I assume that even if they were to extend credit, they would only extend such credit to reputable persons who could not afford to have their names mentioned with such actions as defaulting on a loan. Sure, b&m casinos do extend credit, but usually they only do that for certain players (they've done it for me after I filled out a form showing financial information) and of course, these casinos are legal here and they have legal recourse if the borrower defaults. I've never been allowed to use a credit card to access funds online or in an actual casino. I've always had to use EFT. There was a time when I know some credit cards (CCcheck) used to allow you to use them to access funds, but court cases deterred many from allowing this anymore because people sued saying they shouldn't have been extended credit for "this reason or that".
As far as canceling money sent after you bet the sum on a site, I'm not sure how one can say they were defrauded, unless they wanted to say someone else used their card. But then they would be lying and committing fraud themselves, so good luck to them on getting past the investigations. It will be hard to explain why someone would steal money from you and add it to your gambling account. When you send a money order, you have to wait for the MO to clear before funds are added to your account.
I just don't see the opportunities to steal from these sites. Not saying it's impossible or never been done, simply that I don't see these opportunities. Sure, you can lie but I'm not considering fraud to be a legitimate option. Other than that, as I've mentioned, most funds have to actually clear before they are credited to your account. Now I'm unaware of the abundance of people that are being extended credit, but people can get out of just about an debt where credit has been extended if the lender gave them more than their means would allow. If anyone is stupid enough to extend credit to someone without some form of protection, they deserve to get ripped off.
<< <i>
<< <i>The key word is "you" - Yes, evidently you have not been extended credit but I personally know others who have been extended credit in some way, shape or form. It is well known that b&m casinos will extend credit. So why wouldn't internet gambling websites extend credit depending on the situation and the gambler?...and of course they do extend credit.
Besides, almost every online poker player knows that there are opportunities to cancel money sent to a poker site, after that money has been gambled. This technically if the bet was legal, might be a bad debt. For example, if anyone sends money through a credit card to a legal horse race betting site in the US, and say loses the money, then contacts the credit card company and says they were defrauded and the credit card company refunds the money to the gambler, I guarantee you that gambler will likely be sued in court by the racetrack if the money is significant enough. If anyone does this to a gambling website, I have known of no instance whereby a gambler was sued. The only recourse a gambling website would have is to bar this gambler from further gambling at their website. >>
I've never heard of an instance where credit has been extended online. Not saying it's false, just saying I've never heard of it. Even if they did and online gambling was allowed in all shapes and forms, most international online casinos wouldn't attempt to sue unless the sum was substantial simply because it's not worth it to them financially to pursue it. This happens in all sorts of businesses, not only online casinos. The sum would have to be great and I assume that even if they were to extend credit, they would only extend such credit to reputable persons who could not afford to have their names mentioned with such actions as defaulting on a loan. Sure, b&m casinos do extend credit, but usually they only do that for certain players (they've done it for me after I filled out a form showing financial information) and of course, these casinos are legal here and they have legal recourse if the borrower defaults. I've never been allowed to use a credit card to access funds online or in an actual casino. I've always had to use EFT. There was a time when I know some credit cards (CCcheck) used to allow you to use them to access funds, but court cases deterred many from allowing this anymore because people sued saying they shouldn't have been extended credit for "this reason or that".
As far as canceling money sent after you bet the sum on a site, I'm not sure how one can say they were defrauded, unless they wanted to say someone else used their card. But then they would be lying and committing fraud themselves, so good luck to them on getting past the investigations. It will be hard to explain why someone would steal money from you and add it to your gambling account. When you send a money order, you have to wait for the MO to clear before funds are added to your account.
I just don't see the opportunities to steal from these sites. Not saying it's impossible or never been done, simply that I don't see these opportunities. Sure, you can lie but I'm not considering fraud to be a legitimate option. Other than that, as I've mentioned, most funds have to actually clear before they are credited to your account. Now I'm unaware of the abundance of people that are being extended credit, but people can get out of just about an debt where credit has been extended if the lender gave them more than their means would allow. If anyone is stupid enough to extend credit to someone without some form of protection, they deserve to get ripped off. >>
Your points are valid and you have a good understanding of this. But here is an obvious situation for an online casino to extend credit. Say a gambler has lost $10,000 at the site...then why not say extend say $2,500 in credit to this gambler. This is a no brainer credit situation. You need to understand that there basically is no risk involved for a gambling website to extend credit - the chances are virtually 100% the gambler is going to lose the money back to them. If the gambler loses the money back, but stiffs them for the payment, the site is technically out nothing. They didn't produce any product and had cost involved, they didn't perform any labor and had cost involved...it was all just a few digital clicks. So if the gambler pays them the $2,500 then the site is up $2,500...if the gambler stiffs them, the site in reality loses nothing. One thing for sure, believe me, these gambling websites have this all figured out quite well. No gambler is going to get the best of a gambling website - ain't gonna happen - ever!
It appears that you are not an addicted gambler. You need to understand that say for example it's a choice between an addicted gambler stiffing the website or paying the rent not to get evicted and become homeless...then the gambler is gonna stiff the website. Honesty for an addicted gambler goes right out the window when there is desperation.
<< <i>Your points are valid and you have a good understanding of this. But here is an obvious situation for an online casino to extend credit. Say a gambler has lost $10,000 at the site...then why not say extend say $2,500 in credit to this gambler. This is a no brainer credit situation. You need to understand that there basically is no risk involved for a gambling website to extend credit - the chances are virtually 100% the gambler is going to lose the money back to them. If the gambler loses the money back, but stiffs them for the payment, the site is technically out nothing. They didn't produce any product and had cost involved, they didn't perform any labor and had cost involved...it was all just a few digital clicks. So if the gambler pays them the $2,500 then the site is up $2,500...if the gambler stiffs them, the site in reality loses nothing. One thing for sure, believe me, these gambling websites have this all figured out quite well. No gambler is going to get the best of a gambling website - ain't gonna happen - ever!
It appears that you are not an addicted gambler. You need to understand that say for example it's a choice between an addicted gambler stiffing the website or paying the rent not to get evicted and become homeless...then the gambler is gonna stiff the website. Honesty for an addicted gambler goes right out the window when there is desperation. >>
Sure, the online sites give out free money just to get people to visit their site because they know the vast majority will end up giving it back and the rest wont generally win enough to hurt them. The kicker (which they count on) is that many will continue to invest in the site, so it works out great for them. As for the scenario you mentioned, I concede the possibilities because it's common in b&m casinos. But typically if someone were to blow 10K gambling, they're probably good for the 2.5K if credit were given. Again, I certainly see where some may want to give credit because if a guy loses 10K, he's probably going to keep on losing. It's an investment for them to assume such a scenario. Again, he can just bail and not pay the extra if he's dishonest, but I assume that's not a very common practice as a whole and as we know, a casino losing $2500 isn't that much. Legal fees in a situation such as this can far outweigh the value of trying to recover their loses. The casino deciding not to go after a guy like this doesn't mean they can't. Businesses often waive their right to challenge a debt if there's a possibility they will have to pay larger legal fees and may not recover their loss. There's so many instances I have heard where a person gets a legal decision in their favor in court simply because their argument is the casino shouldn't have had credit extended to them because their losses were exceeding their means. Hell, this even happens to credit cards all the time.
Addicted? No... I do it frequently enough but have no problems not doing it. For me, it's ONLY entertainment. I'm fairly successful at it though from a pay out standpoint. I'm not suggesting I make enough to support my wife and I. That's what her job is for - lol. If you compare my modest investment though versus my return, I do alright though. I can say that I have made approximately 3-4 thousand on average for the last 3 years or so since I began to play the game more regularly. I don't typically invest a lot in the games that I play, which have the opportunity to win much larger amounts (percentage-wise). I always play tourneys, as cash tables don't have the same kind of strategy I excel at and usually cost more to sit at than I care to invest. Further, most of the online tourneys I play have a small buy-in (usually $20 max but will play as little as .60) and the last one I played in paid me $460 for second place ($20 buy-in). I sometimes play in a city near us (Grand Rapids, MI). Out of 11 tournaments I've played in there with a $60 buy-in and an average field of 55 players, I've won once, came in second once (to my wife), came in third twice and 5th once. I paid a total of $660 in buy-ins, and won approximately $2200. The pay out kind of sucks in them because a portion has to go towards some form of charity here, but they still pay like 80% out and some of the remaining 20% goes towards a banquet and the end of the season for those who finish in the top 40 player standings.
My wife makes quite a bit of money, especially for the area we live in. She wouldn't care if I spent the whole day losing money while she's at work. Problem is, my family was quite poor when we were young and I value money the same now as I did then. I hate buying new stuff. I will use 10 tools in place of one if it means not having to buy the one tool. I still wear clothes that I owned in high school, and I graduated 15 years ago. So believe me when I say, if I was consistently losing money playing poker... I wouldn't play anymore. I honestly don't care about winning the money as much as I enjoy just playing. But I would care more about losing money than playing if that were the case.
In fact, I'm usually just doodling on the .60-$2 sit-&-go's online these days. I still don't feel online hands are legit, as I've seen some of the silliest things on there more frequently than they ever should occur. But it's all for fun while I'm drinkin' a beer and working on the laundry or something like the Mr. Mom I am
You're my new hero. Really.
I agree Scotty going out in 11th kind of sucks. Him going on to the final table would have made for some entertaining television in a couple of months.
The arguement of whether the game can be beaten seems to go on around here every few weeks. I still believe it can, but in Steve's defense, certainly can't offer up any "proof".
Enjoy the final table fellows.
shawn
<< <i>DirtMonkey........
You're my new hero. Really. >>
LOL, because my wife works and lets me stay at home? In my defense, I worked one of the worst jobs imaginable while she went through pharmacy school. The only hairs remaining on my head is the ones I didn't pull out while working for them... honestly.
LINK