If Howard can revert back to his form of the previous two years(mainly '06), then I am with you, but this year he just wasn't good. He turns 29 tomorrow. We'll see.
Utley's walk year has to be approaching. If the Phils think like you and opt for Howard instead of Utley, you may be in for more Steve Jeltz years.
<< <i>To illustrate further...in a powerful lineup such as the Phillies...you think Charlie Manuel is stupid? You think Charlie Manuel would keep a stiff batting 4th in the lineup if he wasn't producing and wasn't a clutch hitter? >>
I don't know if Charlie Manuel is stupid or not, or why it matters. If I had the Phillies roster and was asked to make a lineup, I would bat Howard cleanup more often than not myself. The single only thing he does better than an average player is hit home runs - I'd want him batting with as many people on base as possible so I'd bat him behind my three best hitters. I'll only think Charlie Manuel is an idiot if he moves Utley out of the three spot where the best hitter always bats.
<< <i>You can think and believe whatever you want, but those points are absolutely ridiculous that some sportswriter voting looking over some statistics or anyone else looking at statistics who only sees the Phillies games occasionally, would know more about this than the fans who watch every game. >>
If I read you correctly, we are in general agreement that the people who are at the very bottom of the knowledge ladder of stat geeks, fans and sportswriters are the sportswriters. You can't help but laugh when the argument is made that because the sportswriters voted for so-and-so that means so-and-so deserved the award. Sportswriters neither understand statistics nor watch enough games (other than their own teams) to make reasoned votes. But fans can remember Bobby Richardson hitting better than Tom Tresh or any number of similar things; "fans", or fanatics, see what they want to see more often than they see what is actually happening. Ryan Howard no doubt got some really clutch hits - 90% of them probably in September - and somehow the hundreds of "clutch" strikeouts are forgotten. Fans give credit to the player who does win the game, but the player who could have won the game that was lost is rarely remembered. Except it's there in the statistics for all to see.
<< <i>A famous old saying is there are..."Lies, damned lies, and statistics" and it was written to point out misleading statistics such as these on this topic. >>
Ahhhhh, the last line of defense for the statistically challenged. I'll admit that someone who knows statistics can run roughshod over people who don't know them, but as long as the playing field is level, statistics are truth.
<< <i>PS: No offense - you're a good poster here and I respect your viewpoint, no matter how dumb and how wrong. >>
Likewise, I'm sure. If we all agreed, this would be a very boring place.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>To illustrate further...in a powerful lineup such as the Phillies...you think Charlie Manuel is stupid? You think Charlie Manuel would keep a stiff batting 4th in the lineup if he wasn't producing and wasn't a clutch hitter? >>
I don't know if Charlie Manuel is stupid or not, or why it matters. If I had the Phillies roster and was asked to make a lineup, I would bat Howard cleanup more often than not myself. The single only thing he does better than an average player is hit home runs - I'd want him batting with as many people on base as possible so I'd bat him behind my three best hitters. I'll only think Charlie Manuel is an idiot if he moves Utley out of the three spot where the best hitter always bats.
<< <i>You can think and believe whatever you want, but those points are absolutely ridiculous that some sportswriter voting looking over some statistics or anyone else looking at statistics who only sees the Phillies games occasionally, would know more about this than the fans who watch every game. >>
If I read you correctly, we are in general agreement that the people who are at the very bottom of the knowledge ladder of stat geeks, fans and sportswriters are the sportswriters. You can't help but laugh when the argument is made that because the sportswriters voted for so-and-so that means so-and-so deserved the award. Sportswriters neither understand statistics nor watch enough games (other than their own teams) to make reasoned votes. But fans can remember Bobby Richardson hitting better than Tom Tresh or any number of similar things; "fans", or fanatics, see what they want to see more often than they see what is actually happening. Ryan Howard no doubt got some really clutch hits - 90% of them probably in September - and somehow the hundreds of "clutch" strikeouts are forgotten. Fans give credit to the player who does win the game, but the player who could have won the game that was lost is rarely remembered. Except it's there in the statistics for all to see.
<< <i>A famous old saying is there are..."Lies, damned lies, and statistics" and it was written to point out misleading statistics such as these on this topic. >>
Ahhhhh, the last line of defense for the statistically challenged. I'll admit that someone who knows statistics can run roughshod over people who don't know them, but as long as the playing field is level, statistics are truth.
<< <i>PS: No offense - you're a good poster here and I respect your viewpoint, no matter how dumb and how wrong. >>
Likewise, I'm sure. If we all agreed, this would be a very boring place. >>
I think we both agree about sportswriters. I mean really...they of course can be and usually are "talented' in their writing abilities, but in no way, shape, or form does that necessarily translate into "evaluating" abilities...otherwise baseball owners would be offering and paying them big money to properly evaluate the next batch of free agents.
No, I haven't forgotten the Howard strikeouts, but it seemed like when Howard struckout, nothing else was going on offensively either. I mentioned Schmidt...as much as it pains me to say this it seemed like Mike often and I do mean often would strike out or popup at the wrong times during the games, whereby Ryan seems to strikeout at times whereby it doesn't hurt the Phillies chances, and the Phillies were gonna lose that particular game whether he struckout or got a hit. I remember very few times thinking to myself that "Howard is a friggin' choke artist", and believe me, when Schmidt played, thinking that with him was almost an every game event.
You look at that Phillies team from around 1976 thru 1983, and really it is hard to believe they only won one World Series - Schmidt obviously helped get them there through stats accumulation, but he didn't help in most of the time performing in clutch situations. It's not easy to explain, without seeing the two players over a long period of time, and I don't disagree with your "unmentioned phrase" premise that fans have to be careful not to engage in sorta "self-fulfilling prophesies" of sorts and simply believing what they want to believe to the point where they believe it's real, and stats do help to smooth that out and clarify, even correct that type of thinking. But I just ask to remember that it can work the same way with stats - stats can be misleading and as far as evaluating the "value" of a Ryan Howard - I do believe the stats in that regard are misleading, but of course the HR's and RBI's speak for themselves.
And if you or Hoop or anyone else thinks these thoughts of mine here are irrational, then that's okay. Actually being "irrational" is probably some of the fun of being a sports fan, especially a Philadelphia fan. I'd be the first to admit that it isn't "rational" to keep rooting for teams that have a "habit" of losing, but for me being a good sportsfan is an escape from everyday life especially the world of business and family pressures, and I enjoy this forum in the same manner. Well now I'm rambling (LOL) so I'll end it here.
I'll tell you in what way - Philadelphia sports fans are widely acclaimed at being perhaps the most knowledgeable sports fans in the country.
Hope that answered your intuitive question.
You Pujols fans and Philly bashers, got your wish...your boy got the MVP and Ryan didn't. But we got the 2008 ring so Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! - It's great to get the last laugh >>
last laugh? The world series has been over for weeks.
steveK, you may believe that or 'feel' that Howard's strikeouts didnt' seem to hurt, or that Schmidt invariably never came through when they needed it, but there are other eye witnesses who believe the complete opposite. You will both swear by your beliefs, yet they cannot both be right...and in the end, they are both wrong.
I am always reminded of the guy who debated me on witnessing dozens of Joe Carter clutch extra base hits to take the lead in the late innings at Fenway. The guy swore by it on these boards. But when we checked the game by game logs, his description occured a grand total of one time!
I can guarantee that Howard had plenty of strikeouts that hurt the team's chances of winning, and if you continue to spout or belive that his strikeouts never seemed to hurt, or that he did them in times where it didn't matter much, you have pretty much lost any shred of credibility you may have had on this board.
I'll tell you in what way - Philadelphia sports fans are widely acclaimed at being perhaps the most knowledgeable sports fans in the country.
Hope that answered your intuitive question.
You Pujols fans and Philly bashers, got your wish...your boy got the MVP and Ryan didn't. But we got the 2008 ring so Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! - It's great to get the last laugh >>
last laugh? The world series has been over for weeks.
Though i will admit you probably did laugh best. >>
I'll be a "laughing" and enjoying this right up until the first game of the 2009 season. I was around in 1980, and I was at the first game in that World Series. You "think" it will happen again soon but it didn't until 28 years later, and frankly, there was a lot that could have went wrong this season - "everything" seemed to fall into place very nicely and there's no guarantee that will happen again anytime soon. I appreciate this one more the second time arouind, perhaps because I'm older, but definitely because I'm fully aware that the Phillies most likely won't be the favorites to even repeat just in the National League, let alone winning the World Series. So i'm savoring this like a bottle of fine wine, and sipping it slowly, knowing I may not get another "bottle" for possibly quite some time into the future.
<< <i>steveK, you may believe that or 'feel' that Howard's strikeouts didnt' seem to hurt, or that Schmidt invariably never came through when they needed it, but there are other eye witnesses who believe the complete opposite. You will both swear by your beliefs, yet they cannot both be right...and in the end, they are both wrong.
I am always reminded of the guy who debated me on witnessing dozens of Joe Carter clutch extra base hits to take the lead in the late innings at Fenway. The guy swore by it on these boards. But when we checked the game by game logs, his description occured a grand total of one time!
I can guarantee that Howard had plenty of strikeouts that hurt the team's chances of winning, and if you continue to spout or belive that his strikeouts never seemed to hurt, or that he did them in times where it didn't matter much, you have pretty much lost any shred of credibility you may have had on this board. >>
Yea, yea, yea...and again you would be wise to remember this - "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - unless you feel that you are so intuitive and brilliant that this doesn't apply to you. You've already lessened your credibilty believing that someone who has an opinion about what Joe Carter did, has any inference at all on what I think, and frankly sorry to inform you but using a comparison such as that and believing the two should equate, borders on madness.
Howard is going to win the triple crown next year..you heard it here first!
JS
Howard has about as good a chance at winning the NL Triple Crown as he does of winning the horse racing triple crown, LOL!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Howard is going to win the triple crown next year..you heard it here first!
JS >>
Good God! You think a .210 average is going to lead the league?!?!
As for Howard and his clutch K's:
For the season Howard struck out once for every 3.5 times he came to the plate (I had to double check that - damn that's bad)
In late and close situations, he struck out once every 2.8 plate appearances (I wouldn't have thought that was possible for anyone but a pitcher).
In games where the Phillies were up or down by 4 or more, he struck out once every 3.8 plate appearances.
So, when the game was close and late (what some people might be inclined to call a clutch situation) he struck out more often than normal. And when the game was a blowout, he struck out less often than normal.
This debate is just plain silly - Ryan Howard was not a clutch hitter in any sense of the word. He hit for less power, got on base less, and struck out more when the game was close, and he got on base more, hit for more power and struck out less when the game was effectively over.
There's truth, smack me in the head and call me Nancy truth, and there's statistics. In this case, they are all identically the same. And I have no doubt you remember it completely differently than the way it actually happened - which is why what people "remember" is a really lousy way to evaluate baseball players.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
<< <i>Howard is going to win the triple crown next year..you heard it here first!
JS >>
Good God! You think a .210 average is going to lead the league?!?!
As for Howard and his clutch K's:
For the season Howard struck out once for every 3.5 times he came to the plate (I had to double check that - damn that's bad)
In late and close situations, he struck out once every 2.8 plate appearances (I wouldn't have thought that was possible for anyone but a pitcher).
In games where the Phillies were up or down by 4 or more, he struck out once every 3.8 plate appearances.
So, when the game was close and late (what some people might be inclined to call a clutch situation) he struck out more often than normal. And when the game was a blowout, he struck out less often than normal.
This debate is just plain silly - Ryan Howard was not a clutch hitter in any sense of the word. He hit for less power, got on base less, and struck out more when the game was close, and he got on base more, hit for more power and struck out less when the game was effectively over.
There's truth, smack me in the head and call me Nancy truth, and there's statistics. In this case, they are all identically the same. And I have no doubt you remember it completely differently than the way it actually happened - which is why what people "remember" is a really lousy way to evaluate baseball players. >>
Here's a stat for ya - Reggie Jackson is the career strikeouts leader as you should know. I don't believe many knowledgeable baseball fans would consider him NOT to be a clutch hitter.
I think some here are fixated on strikeouts, and of course a strikeout isn't good for the offense, but it doesn't necessarily equate to not being a clutch hitter, especially for a power hitter. Bottom line - The Phillies just won the World Series, won the NL East two seasons ago, and were close before that...all with Ryan Howard in the heart of the lineup - those are facts, not statistics and you already know the famous saying about statistics - statistics can create an incorrect perception which is exactly why that saying came about, and just so it is understood...perception is not reality...your stats are providing you with a perception that is not reality because the reality based on all the FACTS is that Ryan Howard is a clutch hitter.
So you and others go ahead and keep minding your stats...while me and my fellow Phillies fans will mind the titles and championships with Ryan Howard in the lineup - LOL
<<< which is why what people "remember" is a really lousy way to evaluate baseball players. >>>
Well then you would have been perfect to sit on the Hall of Fame old timers committeee to vote in all those Hall of Famers who didn't get in the "first time" - guys like Bill Mazeroski who has no business being in the Hall of Fame.
Actually, my viewpoint is the Hall of Fame voting should end a MAXIMUM of five years after a player retires - the voting should depend on what people recently remember and not on what time and statistics distort reality. I saw Mazeroski play - in no fathomable way, shape, or form should this guy be considered a Hall of Famer - Yet over 20 plus years he seemed to get "better" because of a bunch of defensive statistics whereby the reality is being a top defensive second baseman for a time is no better than being the tallest midget in the circus.
<< <i>Howard is going to win the triple crown next year..you heard it here first!
JS >>
Howard is not going to win the triple crown, but he very well may up his batting average. He is working out with Albert Pujols during this off season. Both Howard and Pujols live in St Louis. Maybe Pujols can give him some pointers.
Oh, Steve, memory strikes again. Like Howard, Reggie also struck out more and lost power in late/close situations and struck out less and had more power in blowouts. He had some great World Series, but describing him as a "clutch" hitter is an exampe of what I'm talking about - fans remember the good at bats long after the bad ones are forgotten.
But you know who was a clutch hitter - hitting for more power with fewer strikeouts in the late/close situations? That's right, Ron Santo. I rest my case.
edit to add: Mike Schmidt, by the way, has the most consistent stats I've ever seen; regardless of the situation, his power, OBP, K's, everything stayed virtually the same. So your recollection that he was not a clutch hitter is accurate, but your recollection that he was the opposite is inaccurate. Schmidt was, btw, my favorite player and I watched him play whenever I could; I never had that dread you had when Schmidt came up in key situations; I seem to recall thinking nobody was better in those situations. Turns out, we were both wrong.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Stevek, you keep using that "Lies, damned Lies" quote about statistics, and then you go ahead and use a pair of statistics to support your claims(HR & RBI), one of which lies more than any other statistic(RBI).
That is the typical M/O of the retarded sports fan that gives all sports fans a bad name! That is exactly what that quote you use is referring to...people who use only a portion of the information that gives their position credence, and then ignores the overwhelming portion of the information that refutes their claims.
Now you are saying it is a fact that howard is a clutch hitter? Based on what facts? You can't use a stat to support it(according to you)...and a team win is a stat by the way. In fact, a WS win is a stat too. So it is just your notion that is left, and it is obviously a severely biased one(which means it has no credibility).
You have just completed the trifecta of the three most biased based retarded fans on this board, you, Drj, and joestalin. All happen to be Phillies fans(Probably all become one in October of 1980).
There is no point debating a guy who is just a simple zealot.
Aren't you the same guy who used statistics to show how gambling was bad????? Are you the guy who showed that x number of people had x number of things go bad for them when they gambled?
The bottom line I guess is that your gambling made you lose your shirt. I guess your intuition isn't very good. Mine did quite well for me, so I guess my factually valid based information worked pretty good.
<< <i>Stevek, you keep using that "Lies, damned Lies" quote about statistics, and then you go ahead and use a pair of statistics to support your claims(HR & RBI), one of which lies more than any other statistic(RBI).
That is the typical M/O of the retarded sports fan that gives all sports fans a bad name! That is exactly what that quote you use is referring to...people who use only a portion of the information that gives their position credence, and then ignores the overwhelming portion of the information that refutes their claims.
Now you are saying it is a fact that howard is a clutch hitter? Based on what facts? You can't use a stat to support it(according to you)...and a team win is a stat by the way. In fact, a WS win is a stat too. So it is just your notion that is left, and it is obviously a severely biased one(which means it has no credibility).
You have just completed the trifecta of the three most biased based retarded fans on this board, you, Drj, and joestalin. All happen to be Phillies fans(Probably all become one in October of 1980).
There is no point debating a guy who is just a simple zealot.
Aren't you the same guy who used statistics to show how gambling was bad????? Are you the guy who showed that x number of people had x number of things go bad for them when they gambled?
The bottom line I guess is that your gambling made you lose your shirt. I guess your intuition isn't very good. Mine did quite well for me, so I guess my factually valid based information worked pretty good. >>
Yea, yea, yea...and I guess all those World Series championships in Oakland and New York with Reggie on the team had nothing to do with anything? All your "stat theories" about players such as Ryan and Reggie, aren't jiving with the facts that those players greatly helped their teams win championships, and it's clutch players who win championships...and in the end game, that's the important thing to most fans...winning a championship.
So you just keep on keeping on with your beloved statistics. And I'm amending the old saying of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" to "Lies, damned lies, and statistics, and Hoopster's belief on statistics" LOL
<<< The bottom line I guess is that your gambling made you lose your shirt. I guess your intuition isn't very good. Mine did quite well for me, so I guess my factually valid based information worked pretty good. >>>
Lemme guess - you're an online poker or sports handicapping genius, and if anyone would just signup on your gambling website affiliate commission account, you would be happy to share all those "secrets" about winning poker and profitable sports betting.
First thing to clear, Reggie and howard are on the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of how good they were. REggie is a legit Hall of Famer, Howard not even close. So please stop confusing the two. Reggie was a huge reason why his team's won the WS, Howard was a coattail rider.
Please tell me more about your gambling woes, and how the intuition burned you and took your money. That is really the only funny thing in this whole thing. LOL.
Please be consistent with your use of statistics, and bring that same lies quote up when you use them to try and support a case. Why did you use statistics to support your case against gambling??????
Which face will you be speaking from on your next post?
<< <i>Look, this thread was all just fun and games until you had to go and compare Reggie Jackson to Ryan Howard.
For a 60's comparison - my favorite kind: Reggie was better than Harmon Killebrew; Howard is worse than Bob Allison. You owe Reggie a serious apology. >>
Hope you're talking about your "buddy" Hoopster and not me.
This was your buddy's quote:
"Like Howard, Reggie also struck out more and lost power in late/close situations and struck out less and had more power in blowouts. He had some great World Series, but describing him as a "clutch" hitter is an exampe of what I'm talking about - fans remember the good at bats long after the bad ones are forgotten."
I previously was just illustrating the strikeout thing - I didn't compare Reggie's career to Ryan's career at all, and I clearly know the difference between the two players, so stop trying to force your argument - that is just plain silly and it won't work.
You wanna bring up the gambling thing to try to change the subject because you're losing credibility in your premise here, well that's your prerogative...but either stay on topic or they'll be no response from me.
But this thread is done for me anyway...I've made my points and bottom line - The Phillies are the 2008 World Champions - Don't forget to place that in your book of statistics. LOL
I haven't seen you substantiate any of your points yet, but see ya later.
You also quoted the wrong person in your last post.
The gambling is relevent because you use statistics to back up your theories against gambling. But now you say the statistics lie. Which is it?
You say statistics lie, but you use HR and RBI as evidence for you side. Why do you use them if they lie? WHich is it?
The gambling is also relevent because when you rely on your intuition, you lose money, like you did. It is used to show that your gut feeling isn't exactly very reliable, so why would anyone take your word and believe that NONE of Howards 199 strikeouts hurt his team in those games. LOL.
Just let me know which face I am talking to. I'm sorry if the gambling stings, but I can see with your use of logic how you could have landed yourself in a big hole.
Hi Carol, If you happen to be reading this thread, please lock it or poof it NOW! lol I've lost critical moments of my life reading this thread as it's gotten out of hand. Brian
Actually, this thread was officially out of hand right at the very beginning with the title of it!
Stevek, for what it is worth, I will certainly add a WS win to the 2008 stat book for the Phillies...and right underneath it wil be the list of players of whom were the best or most important for them...and you won't find Howard until at least the fourth on that list. LOL.
As per the Best players on the team, Jimmy Rollins makes him fifth(even though Rollins had a down year this year, he is still better than Kingman).
SteveK, I am still waiting for your answer on YOUR use of stats for when you want to present an argument, but then you dismiss them when somebody else presents a BETTER argument.
Just please let me know which face I am responding to so I can answer appropriately.
Hey, I won't speak for anybody but myself, but I enjoyed the discussion, argument, or whatever Monty Python would call it, and the main reason I'm not going to mix in gambling with this is that gambling out there is real life, too many people addicted to it, getting devastated from it...This sportstalk to me is just smack fun, along with card and coin collecting, and if I'm the only one here with this viewpoint about Ryan Howard, that's fine with me. Whether Ryan Howard is a clutch hitter or not, or whether the Phillies win the WS or not ever again, won't make one bit of "real" difference in my life as far as making a living for myself and enjoying my family and friends is concerned. I think Dallas gets that and i hope Hoopster does as well, although he was bordering in some comments on "Axtell behavior" and I for one am not gonna go there - frankly it's too boring. If you're gonna zing me, then zing me good with some well thought out insults such as those like Grote15, WinPitcher, Lawnmowerman and others - I may not like those guys very much () but one thing for sure is that they aren't boring and they help keep this forum lively and fun...and that to me makes it worth it.
You can be sure. I argue because I enjoy arguing, it doesn't go much deeper than that. I don't enjoy arguing with morons and I'll stop once I realize that's what I'm doing; you won't ever catch me in a drawn out debate with Dr. J again, or Axtell in any of his many incarnations, but that's about it.
Now, it would make my day if everybody were to say "damn, dallasactuary, you have opened my eyes and shown me the light; you are a freakin' genius and I will never doubt you again". It would also make my day if I found a billion dollars in my attic. I'm not expecting either one to happen.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Gambling is related to this. You use statstics to back up your viewpoint on that subject, but then call statistics lies here. You simply can't have it both ways. If you are offended by that, then so be it.
Your entire stance is based on your thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. You gave them to us as if they were more valuable than the reality of what occured. You neglected to realize that two guys sitting next to each other at the same game can have completely opposite view and perceptions of the same event. THose views have been shown time and and time again to be worthless.
It is a good thing you stopped gambling, because if you try and use those feelings of Howard being clutch and apply them to some form of betting next year...ouch.
<< <i>Morgoth, if he lost in gambling, then somebody won. Maybe I won indirectly. >>
Actually, Hoopster's gambling comments don't bother me in the least, not even a little bit. I actually feel a bit sorry for him because from his last post, it appears that he could be a typical addicted gambler who claims to be winning money for whatever reason - could be ego, could be to lure others to an affiliate commission program so he can profit off of other gamblers, could be other reasons of which I couldn't care less. Gamblers are notorious liars, all of them, often underestimating or ignoring their losses, while overestimating and bragging about the times they win - the addiction causes them to do that and any competent psychiatrist would agree with that assessment.
There could be more addicted gamblers out there claiming to be winning money, especially at online poker, than there are grains of sand on the earth, and I'm almost not kidding - and unfortunately I don't mean that in a "funny" way because it isn't funny...I know because I used to be one of them, but happily, VERY happily not any more.
Hoopster probably thinks I'm berating him personally - I'm not...my comments are true about all addicted gamblers - I'm trying to stick a bug in his ear to wake up about the realities of gambling...however he won't quit now...not yet...but hopefully some day.
I have never really gambled on games of chance, other than the occasioanl trip to Las Vegas for fun.
I would only partake in gambling where I could use my information or knowledge as an advantage, thereby reducing chance as a factor. >>
That's cool man, and I've said this many times...I have never rooted against a gambler in my life...it's the "industry" and the way they exploit their customers that bugs me.
Hoop - Like I stated - nothing you said bothered me...below is an example of what truly bugs me. Perkdog asked me one time to go easy on the gambling rhetoric, so this will be my last post about this in this thread - I only mentioned it because you pressed it and Morgoth mentioned "it" - and no problem at all with me - I don't mind at all.
Advertisement "disguised" as a news story: (i deleted ****** the affiliate link)
*****.com Exclusive: How College Kids Are Making $100,000 Per Year Playing Online Poker
It's no secret that online poker exploded over the past few years - the secret is that thousands of college aged students are making six figures from it.
(PRWEB) March 6, 2005 -- It's no secret that online poker exploded over the past few years - the secret is that thousands of college aged students are making six figures from it.
Today thousands of college aged kids are doing the impossible, wagering the unthinkable, and living the dream. Students are skipping class to play $15/$30 texas hold'em, making over $200 per hour, and are finding less and less of a reason to go to class.
How are they doing it? By doing their homework. The new breed of poker player mostly plays on the internet, is 18- 25 years old, and is most likely a male. Young players have the past 50 years of poker theory wrapped up in a dozen or so books, and tons of software to help model what a winning strategy is. These players are using community poker sites like www.*****.com to communicate and discuss strategy. Most importantly, the modern poker player is taking advantage of the online poker room.
Astute players are making over $10,000 per year off sign up bonuses alone. For instance, if you open an account at ***** (www.*****.com/******** and enter the bonus code ***** you will receive up to $100 free on your first deposit. There are over 1,000 online poker rooms, and while players tend to stick to one room, most will give their action to another site for a week or two with the added equity of the bonus. *****, for instance, runs deposit bonuses almost every month which will total thousands for each player in 2005.
Now for the part that will make you sick: New players are building their bankrolls from almost nothing. Affiliate programs such as the one run by ***** (*****com) allow anyone with poker friends to sign them up for their ***** account, and earn a percentage of the rake they generate. This part alone can account for tens of thousands of dollars per year for the young internet player.
Of course you must be good enough to beat the game. Winning just one big bet per hour at $15/$30 can make you well over $50,000 per year. Total all of those income sources up, and you have a six-figure 19 year old.
<<< Students are skipping class to play $15/$30 texas hold'em, making over $200 per hour, and are finding less and less of a reason to go to class. >>>
In my view, this statement is encouraging students to "skip class" and I find that quite repugnant.
For what its worth, I always preach to young people not to gamble. Even if a young person says something in fun, "I will bet you ten dollars..." I always tell them, betting is something you should never do.
I have preferred games of skill for money...but I chose wise enough to know when the odds were in my favor
<< <i>If Pujols was on the Phillies right now, he would be the third of fourth best hitter on the team.
Sincerely BAM >>
In a thread where Phillies fans have shown themselves to be the most retarded group around, here is yet another quote above to further exemplify that point.
Ibanez is lights out right now and is on par with Pujols through the first 40+ games, but why would any retard take that amount of games and use it as a criteria to proclaim that he is better than Pujols.
The more appropriate post would be that Howard is YET AGAIN, no better than the fourth best player on his own team, let alone an MVP of the entire league. There is your bam Stalin...
Comments
If Howard can revert back to his form of the previous two years(mainly '06), then I am with you, but this year he just wasn't good. He turns 29 tomorrow. We'll see.
Utley's walk year has to be approaching. If the Phils think like you and opt for Howard instead of Utley, you may be in for more Steve Jeltz years.
<< <i>To illustrate further...in a powerful lineup such as the Phillies...you think Charlie Manuel is stupid? You think Charlie Manuel would keep a stiff batting 4th in the lineup if he wasn't producing and wasn't a clutch hitter? >>
I don't know if Charlie Manuel is stupid or not, or why it matters. If I had the Phillies roster and was asked to make a lineup, I would bat Howard cleanup more often than not myself. The single only thing he does better than an average player is hit home runs - I'd want him batting with as many people on base as possible so I'd bat him behind my three best hitters. I'll only think Charlie Manuel is an idiot if he moves Utley out of the three spot where the best hitter always bats.
<< <i>You can think and believe whatever you want, but those points are absolutely ridiculous that some sportswriter voting looking over some statistics or anyone else looking at statistics who only sees the Phillies games occasionally, would know more about this than the fans who watch every game. >>
If I read you correctly, we are in general agreement that the people who are at the very bottom of the knowledge ladder of stat geeks, fans and sportswriters are the sportswriters. You can't help but laugh when the argument is made that because the sportswriters voted for so-and-so that means so-and-so deserved the award. Sportswriters neither understand statistics nor watch enough games (other than their own teams) to make reasoned votes. But fans can remember Bobby Richardson hitting better than Tom Tresh or any number of similar things; "fans", or fanatics, see what they want to see more often than they see what is actually happening. Ryan Howard no doubt got some really clutch hits - 90% of them probably in September - and somehow the hundreds of "clutch" strikeouts are forgotten. Fans give credit to the player who does win the game, but the player who could have won the game that was lost is rarely remembered. Except it's there in the statistics for all to see.
<< <i>A famous old saying is there are..."Lies, damned lies, and statistics" and it was written to point out misleading statistics such as these on this topic. >>
Ahhhhh, the last line of defense for the statistically challenged. I'll admit that someone who knows statistics can run roughshod over people who don't know them, but as long as the playing field is level, statistics are truth.
<< <i>PS: No offense - you're a good poster here and I respect your viewpoint, no matter how dumb and how wrong.
Likewise, I'm sure. If we all agreed, this would be a very boring place.
<< <i>
<< <i>To illustrate further...in a powerful lineup such as the Phillies...you think Charlie Manuel is stupid? You think Charlie Manuel would keep a stiff batting 4th in the lineup if he wasn't producing and wasn't a clutch hitter? >>
I don't know if Charlie Manuel is stupid or not, or why it matters. If I had the Phillies roster and was asked to make a lineup, I would bat Howard cleanup more often than not myself. The single only thing he does better than an average player is hit home runs - I'd want him batting with as many people on base as possible so I'd bat him behind my three best hitters. I'll only think Charlie Manuel is an idiot if he moves Utley out of the three spot where the best hitter always bats.
<< <i>You can think and believe whatever you want, but those points are absolutely ridiculous that some sportswriter voting looking over some statistics or anyone else looking at statistics who only sees the Phillies games occasionally, would know more about this than the fans who watch every game. >>
If I read you correctly, we are in general agreement that the people who are at the very bottom of the knowledge ladder of stat geeks, fans and sportswriters are the sportswriters. You can't help but laugh when the argument is made that because the sportswriters voted for so-and-so that means so-and-so deserved the award. Sportswriters neither understand statistics nor watch enough games (other than their own teams) to make reasoned votes. But fans can remember Bobby Richardson hitting better than Tom Tresh or any number of similar things; "fans", or fanatics, see what they want to see more often than they see what is actually happening. Ryan Howard no doubt got some really clutch hits - 90% of them probably in September - and somehow the hundreds of "clutch" strikeouts are forgotten. Fans give credit to the player who does win the game, but the player who could have won the game that was lost is rarely remembered. Except it's there in the statistics for all to see.
<< <i>A famous old saying is there are..."Lies, damned lies, and statistics" and it was written to point out misleading statistics such as these on this topic. >>
Ahhhhh, the last line of defense for the statistically challenged. I'll admit that someone who knows statistics can run roughshod over people who don't know them, but as long as the playing field is level, statistics are truth.
<< <i>PS: No offense - you're a good poster here and I respect your viewpoint, no matter how dumb and how wrong.
Likewise, I'm sure. If we all agreed, this would be a very boring place. >>
I think we both agree about sportswriters. I mean really...they of course can be and usually are "talented' in their writing abilities, but in no way, shape, or form does that necessarily translate into "evaluating" abilities...otherwise baseball owners would be offering and paying them big money to properly evaluate the next batch of free agents.
No, I haven't forgotten the Howard strikeouts, but it seemed like when Howard struckout, nothing else was going on offensively either. I mentioned Schmidt...as much as it pains me to say this it seemed like Mike often and I do mean often would strike out or popup at the wrong times during the games, whereby Ryan seems to strikeout at times whereby it doesn't hurt the Phillies chances, and the Phillies were gonna lose that particular game whether he struckout or got a hit. I remember very few times thinking to myself that "Howard is a friggin' choke artist", and believe me, when Schmidt played, thinking that with him was almost an every game event.
You look at that Phillies team from around 1976 thru 1983, and really it is hard to believe they only won one World Series - Schmidt obviously helped get them there through stats accumulation, but he didn't help in most of the time performing in clutch situations. It's not easy to explain, without seeing the two players over a long period of time, and I don't disagree with your "unmentioned phrase" premise that fans have to be careful not to engage in sorta "self-fulfilling prophesies" of sorts and simply believing what they want to believe to the point where they believe it's real, and stats do help to smooth that out and clarify, even correct that type of thinking. But I just ask to remember that it can work the same way with stats - stats can be misleading and as far as evaluating the "value" of a Ryan Howard - I do believe the stats in that regard are misleading, but of course the HR's and RBI's speak for themselves.
And if you or Hoop or anyone else thinks these thoughts of mine here are irrational, then that's okay. Actually being "irrational" is probably some of the fun of being a sports fan, especially a Philadelphia fan. I'd be the first to admit that it isn't "rational" to keep rooting for teams that have a "habit" of losing, but for me being a good sportsfan is an escape from everyday life especially the world of business and family pressures, and I enjoy this forum in the same manner. Well now I'm rambling (LOL) so I'll end it here.
Enjoyed the chat.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>Which stats are misleading? In what way? >>
I'll tell you in what way - Philadelphia sports fans are widely acclaimed at being perhaps the most knowledgeable sports fans in the country.
Hope that answered your intuitive question.
You Pujols fans and Philly bashers, got your wish...your boy got the MVP and Ryan didn't. But we got the 2008 ring so Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! - It's great to get the last laugh
last laugh? The world series has been over for weeks.
Though i will admit you probably did laugh best.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
I am always reminded of the guy who debated me on witnessing dozens of Joe Carter clutch extra base hits to take the lead in the late innings at Fenway. The guy swore by it on these boards. But when we checked the game by game logs, his description occured a grand total of one time!
I can guarantee that Howard had plenty of strikeouts that hurt the team's chances of winning, and if you continue to spout or belive that his strikeouts never seemed to hurt, or that he did them in times where it didn't matter much, you have pretty much lost any shred of credibility you may have had on this board.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Which stats are misleading? In what way? >>
I'll tell you in what way - Philadelphia sports fans are widely acclaimed at being perhaps the most knowledgeable sports fans in the country.
Hope that answered your intuitive question.
You Pujols fans and Philly bashers, got your wish...your boy got the MVP and Ryan didn't. But we got the 2008 ring so Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! - It's great to get the last laugh
last laugh? The world series has been over for weeks.
Though i will admit you probably did laugh best. >>
I'll be a "laughing" and enjoying this right up until the first game of the 2009 season. I was around in 1980, and I was at the first game in that World Series. You "think" it will happen again soon but it didn't until 28 years later, and frankly, there was a lot that could have went wrong this season - "everything" seemed to fall into place very nicely and there's no guarantee that will happen again anytime soon. I appreciate this one more the second time arouind, perhaps because I'm older, but definitely because I'm fully aware that the Phillies most likely won't be the favorites to even repeat just in the National League, let alone winning the World Series. So i'm savoring this like a bottle of fine wine, and sipping it slowly, knowing I may not get another "bottle" for possibly quite some time into the future.
<< <i>steveK, you may believe that or 'feel' that Howard's strikeouts didnt' seem to hurt, or that Schmidt invariably never came through when they needed it, but there are other eye witnesses who believe the complete opposite. You will both swear by your beliefs, yet they cannot both be right...and in the end, they are both wrong.
I am always reminded of the guy who debated me on witnessing dozens of Joe Carter clutch extra base hits to take the lead in the late innings at Fenway. The guy swore by it on these boards. But when we checked the game by game logs, his description occured a grand total of one time!
I can guarantee that Howard had plenty of strikeouts that hurt the team's chances of winning, and if you continue to spout or belive that his strikeouts never seemed to hurt, or that he did them in times where it didn't matter much, you have pretty much lost any shred of credibility you may have had on this board. >>
Yea, yea, yea...and again you would be wise to remember this - "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - unless you feel that you are so intuitive and brilliant that this doesn't apply to you. You've already lessened your credibilty believing that someone who has an opinion about what Joe Carter did, has any inference at all on what I think, and frankly sorry to inform you but using a comparison such as that and believing the two should equate, borders on madness.
Enjoy your stats in your white suit. LOL
JS
JS
Howard has about as good a chance at winning the NL Triple Crown as he does of winning the horse racing triple crown, LOL!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Howard is going to win the triple crown next year..you heard it here first!
JS >>
Good God! You think a .210 average is going to lead the league?!?!
As for Howard and his clutch K's:
For the season Howard struck out once for every 3.5 times he came to the plate (I had to double check that - damn that's bad)
In late and close situations, he struck out once every 2.8 plate appearances (I wouldn't have thought that was possible for anyone but a pitcher).
In games where the Phillies were up or down by 4 or more, he struck out once every 3.8 plate appearances.
So, when the game was close and late (what some people might be inclined to call a clutch situation) he struck out more often than normal. And when the game was a blowout, he struck out less often than normal.
This debate is just plain silly - Ryan Howard was not a clutch hitter in any sense of the word. He hit for less power, got on base less, and struck out more when the game was close, and he got on base more, hit for more power and struck out less when the game was effectively over.
There's truth, smack me in the head and call me Nancy truth, and there's statistics. In this case, they are all identically the same. And I have no doubt you remember it completely differently than the way it actually happened - which is why what people "remember" is a really lousy way to evaluate baseball players.
<< <i>
<< <i>Howard is going to win the triple crown next year..you heard it here first!
JS >>
Good God! You think a .210 average is going to lead the league?!?!
As for Howard and his clutch K's:
For the season Howard struck out once for every 3.5 times he came to the plate (I had to double check that - damn that's bad)
In late and close situations, he struck out once every 2.8 plate appearances (I wouldn't have thought that was possible for anyone but a pitcher).
In games where the Phillies were up or down by 4 or more, he struck out once every 3.8 plate appearances.
So, when the game was close and late (what some people might be inclined to call a clutch situation) he struck out more often than normal. And when the game was a blowout, he struck out less often than normal.
This debate is just plain silly - Ryan Howard was not a clutch hitter in any sense of the word. He hit for less power, got on base less, and struck out more when the game was close, and he got on base more, hit for more power and struck out less when the game was effectively over.
There's truth, smack me in the head and call me Nancy truth, and there's statistics. In this case, they are all identically the same. And I have no doubt you remember it completely differently than the way it actually happened - which is why what people "remember" is a really lousy way to evaluate baseball players. >>
Here's a stat for ya - Reggie Jackson is the career strikeouts leader as you should know. I don't believe many knowledgeable baseball fans would consider him NOT to be a clutch hitter.
I think some here are fixated on strikeouts, and of course a strikeout isn't good for the offense, but it doesn't necessarily equate to not being a clutch hitter, especially for a power hitter. Bottom line - The Phillies just won the World Series, won the NL East two seasons ago, and were close before that...all with Ryan Howard in the heart of the lineup - those are facts, not statistics and you already know the famous saying about statistics - statistics can create an incorrect perception which is exactly why that saying came about, and just so it is understood...perception is not reality...your stats are providing you with a perception that is not reality because the reality based on all the FACTS is that Ryan Howard is a clutch hitter.
So you and others go ahead and keep minding your stats...while me and my fellow Phillies fans will mind the titles and championships with Ryan Howard in the lineup - LOL
Well then you would have been perfect to sit on the Hall of Fame old timers committeee to vote in all those Hall of Famers who didn't get in the "first time" - guys like Bill Mazeroski who has no business being in the Hall of Fame.
Actually, my viewpoint is the Hall of Fame voting should end a MAXIMUM of five years after a player retires - the voting should depend on what people recently remember and not on what time and statistics distort reality. I saw Mazeroski play - in no fathomable way, shape, or form should this guy be considered a Hall of Famer - Yet over 20 plus years he seemed to get "better" because of a bunch of defensive statistics whereby the reality is being a top defensive second baseman for a time is no better than being the tallest midget in the circus.
<< <i>Howard is going to win the triple crown next year..you heard it here first!
JS >>
Howard is not going to win the triple crown, but he very well may up his batting average. He is working out with Albert Pujols during this off season. Both Howard and Pujols live in St Louis. Maybe Pujols can give him some pointers.
Shane
But you know who was a clutch hitter - hitting for more power with fewer strikeouts in the late/close situations? That's right, Ron Santo. I rest my case.
edit to add: Mike Schmidt, by the way, has the most consistent stats I've ever seen; regardless of the situation, his power, OBP, K's, everything stayed virtually the same. So your recollection that he was not a clutch hitter is accurate, but your recollection that he was the opposite is inaccurate. Schmidt was, btw, my favorite player and I watched him play whenever I could; I never had that dread you had when Schmidt came up in key situations; I seem to recall thinking nobody was better in those situations. Turns out, we were both wrong.
That is the typical M/O of the retarded sports fan that gives all sports fans a bad name! That is exactly what that quote you use is referring to...people who use only a portion of the information that gives their position credence, and then ignores the overwhelming portion of the information that refutes their claims.
Now you are saying it is a fact that howard is a clutch hitter? Based on what facts? You can't use a stat to support it(according to you)...and a team win is a stat by the way. In fact, a WS win is a stat too. So it is just your notion that is left, and it is obviously a severely biased one(which means it has no credibility).
You have just completed the trifecta of the three most biased based retarded fans on this board, you, Drj, and joestalin. All happen to be Phillies fans(Probably all become one in October of 1980).
There is no point debating a guy who is just a simple zealot.
Aren't you the same guy who used statistics to show how gambling was bad????? Are you the guy who showed that x number of people had x number of things go bad for them when they gambled?
The bottom line I guess is that your gambling made you lose your shirt. I guess your intuition isn't very good. Mine did quite well for me, so I guess my factually valid based information worked pretty good.
<< <i>Stevek, you keep using that "Lies, damned Lies" quote about statistics, and then you go ahead and use a pair of statistics to support your claims(HR & RBI), one of which lies more than any other statistic(RBI).
That is the typical M/O of the retarded sports fan that gives all sports fans a bad name! That is exactly what that quote you use is referring to...people who use only a portion of the information that gives their position credence, and then ignores the overwhelming portion of the information that refutes their claims.
Now you are saying it is a fact that howard is a clutch hitter? Based on what facts? You can't use a stat to support it(according to you)...and a team win is a stat by the way. In fact, a WS win is a stat too. So it is just your notion that is left, and it is obviously a severely biased one(which means it has no credibility).
You have just completed the trifecta of the three most biased based retarded fans on this board, you, Drj, and joestalin. All happen to be Phillies fans(Probably all become one in October of 1980).
There is no point debating a guy who is just a simple zealot.
Aren't you the same guy who used statistics to show how gambling was bad????? Are you the guy who showed that x number of people had x number of things go bad for them when they gambled?
The bottom line I guess is that your gambling made you lose your shirt. I guess your intuition isn't very good. Mine did quite well for me, so I guess my factually valid based information worked pretty good. >>
Yea, yea, yea...and I guess all those World Series championships in Oakland and New York with Reggie on the team had nothing to do with anything? All your "stat theories" about players such as Ryan and Reggie, aren't jiving with the facts that those players greatly helped their teams win championships, and it's clutch players who win championships...and in the end game, that's the important thing to most fans...winning a championship.
So you just keep on keeping on with your beloved statistics. And I'm amending the old saying of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" to "Lies, damned lies, and statistics, and Hoopster's belief on statistics" LOL
Lemme guess - you're an online poker or sports handicapping genius, and if anyone would just signup on your gambling website affiliate commission account, you would be happy to share all those "secrets" about winning poker and profitable sports betting.
Please tell me more about your gambling woes, and how the intuition burned you and took your money. That is really the only funny thing in this whole thing. LOL.
Please be consistent with your use of statistics, and bring that same lies quote up when you use them to try and support a case. Why did you use statistics to support your case against gambling??????
Which face will you be speaking from on your next post?
For a 60's comparison - my favorite kind: Reggie was better than Harmon Killebrew; Howard is worse than Bob Allison. You owe Reggie a serious apology.
<< <i>Look, this thread was all just fun and games until you had to go and compare Reggie Jackson to Ryan Howard.
For a 60's comparison - my favorite kind: Reggie was better than Harmon Killebrew; Howard is worse than Bob Allison. You owe Reggie a serious apology. >>
Hope you're talking about your "buddy" Hoopster and not me.
This was your buddy's quote:
"Like Howard, Reggie also struck out more and lost power in late/close situations and struck out less and had more power in blowouts. He had some great World Series, but describing him as a "clutch" hitter is an exampe of what I'm talking about - fans remember the good at bats long after the bad ones are forgotten."
I previously was just illustrating the strikeout thing - I didn't compare Reggie's career to Ryan's career at all, and I clearly know the difference between the two players, so stop trying to force your argument - that is just plain silly and it won't work.
You wanna bring up the gambling thing to try to change the subject because you're losing credibility in your premise here, well that's your prerogative...but either stay on topic or they'll be no response from me.
But this thread is done for me anyway...I've made my points and bottom line - The Phillies are the 2008 World Champions - Don't forget to place that in your book of statistics. LOL
I haven't seen you substantiate any of your points yet, but see ya later.
You also quoted the wrong person in your last post.
The gambling is relevent because you use statistics to back up your theories against gambling. But now you say the statistics lie. Which is it?
You say statistics lie, but you use HR and RBI as evidence for you side. Why do you use them if they lie? WHich is it?
The gambling is also relevent because when you rely on your intuition, you lose money, like you did. It is used to show that your gut feeling isn't exactly very reliable, so why would anyone take your word and believe that NONE of Howards 199 strikeouts hurt his team in those games. LOL.
Just let me know which face I am talking to. I'm sorry if the gambling stings, but I can see with your use of logic how you could have landed yourself in a big hole.
Steve
I've lost critical moments of my life reading this thread as it's gotten out of hand.
Brian
...or me.
<< <i>Yes, this has turned into one of those Monty Python skits, >>
No it hasn't.
Stevek, for what it is worth, I will certainly add a WS win to the 2008 stat book for the Phillies...and right underneath it wil be the list of players of whom were the best or most important for them...and you won't find Howard until at least the fourth on that list. LOL.
As per the Best players on the team, Jimmy Rollins makes him fifth(even though Rollins had a down year this year, he is still better than Kingman).
SteveK, I am still waiting for your answer on YOUR use of stats for when you want to present an argument, but then you dismiss them when somebody else presents a BETTER argument.
Just please let me know which face I am responding to so I can answer appropriately.
Youtube of Monty Python sketch
<< <i>I think Dallas gets that >>
You can be sure. I argue because I enjoy arguing, it doesn't go much deeper than that. I don't enjoy arguing with morons and I'll stop once I realize that's what I'm doing; you won't ever catch me in a drawn out debate with Dr. J again, or Axtell in any of his many incarnations, but that's about it.
Now, it would make my day if everybody were to say "damn, dallasactuary, you have opened my eyes and shown me the light; you are a freakin' genius and I will never doubt you again". It would also make my day if I found a billion dollars in my attic. I'm not expecting either one to happen.
Gambling is related to this. You use statstics to back up your viewpoint on that subject, but then call statistics lies here. You simply can't have it both ways. If you are offended by that, then so be it.
Your entire stance is based on your thoughts, feelings, and perceptions. You gave them to us as if they were more valuable than the reality of what occured. You neglected to realize that two guys sitting next to each other at the same game can have completely opposite view and perceptions of the same event. THose views have been shown time and and time again to be worthless.
It is a good thing you stopped gambling, because if you try and use those feelings of Howard being clutch and apply them to some form of betting next year...ouch.
<< <i>Morgoth, if he lost in gambling, then somebody won. Maybe I won indirectly. >>
Actually, Hoopster's gambling comments don't bother me in the least, not even a little bit. I actually feel a bit sorry for him because from his last post, it appears that he could be a typical addicted gambler who claims to be winning money for whatever reason - could be ego, could be to lure others to an affiliate commission program so he can profit off of other gamblers, could be other reasons of which I couldn't care less. Gamblers are notorious liars, all of them, often underestimating or ignoring their losses, while overestimating and bragging about the times they win - the addiction causes them to do that and any competent psychiatrist would agree with that assessment.
There could be more addicted gamblers out there claiming to be winning money, especially at online poker, than there are grains of sand on the earth, and I'm almost not kidding - and unfortunately I don't mean that in a "funny" way because it isn't funny...I know because I used to be one of them, but happily, VERY happily not any more.
Hoopster probably thinks I'm berating him personally - I'm not...my comments are true about all addicted gamblers - I'm trying to stick a bug in his ear to wake up about the realities of gambling...however he won't quit now...not yet...but hopefully some day.
I have never really gambled on games of chance, other than the occasioanl trip to Las Vegas for fun.
I would only partake in gambling where I could use my information or knowledge as an advantage, thereby reducing chance as a factor.
<< <i>SteveK,
I have never really gambled on games of chance, other than the occasioanl trip to Las Vegas for fun.
I would only partake in gambling where I could use my information or knowledge as an advantage, thereby reducing chance as a factor. >>
That's cool man, and I've said this many times...I have never rooted against a gambler in my life...it's the "industry" and the way they exploit their customers that bugs me.
Hoop - Like I stated - nothing you said bothered me...below is an example of what truly bugs me. Perkdog asked me one time to go easy on the gambling rhetoric, so this will be my last post about this in this thread - I only mentioned it because you pressed it and Morgoth mentioned "it" - and no problem at all with me - I don't mind at all.
Advertisement "disguised" as a news story: (i deleted ****** the affiliate link)
*****.com Exclusive: How College Kids Are Making $100,000 Per Year Playing Online Poker
It's no secret that online poker exploded over the past few years - the secret is that thousands of college aged students are making six figures from it.
(PRWEB) March 6, 2005 -- It's no secret that online poker exploded over the past few years - the secret is that thousands of college aged students are making six figures from it.
Today thousands of college aged kids are doing the impossible, wagering the unthinkable, and living the dream. Students are skipping class to play $15/$30 texas hold'em, making over $200 per hour, and are finding less and less of a reason to go to class.
How are they doing it? By doing their homework. The new breed of poker player mostly plays on the internet, is 18- 25 years old, and is most likely a male. Young players have the past 50 years of poker theory wrapped up in a dozen or so books, and tons of software to help model what a winning strategy is. These players are using community poker sites like www.*****.com to communicate and discuss strategy. Most importantly, the modern poker player is taking advantage of the online poker room.
Astute players are making over $10,000 per year off sign up bonuses alone. For instance, if you open an account at ***** (www.*****.com/******** and enter the bonus code ***** you will receive up to $100 free on your first deposit. There are over 1,000 online poker rooms, and while players tend to stick to one room, most will give their action to another site for a week or two with the added equity of the bonus. *****, for instance, runs deposit bonuses almost every month which will total thousands for each player in 2005.
Now for the part that will make you sick: New players are building their bankrolls from almost nothing. Affiliate programs such as the one run by ***** (*****com) allow anyone with poker friends to sign them up for their ***** account, and earn a percentage of the rake they generate. This part alone can account for tens of thousands of dollars per year for the young internet player.
Of course you must be good enough to beat the game. Winning just one big bet per hour at $15/$30 can make you well over $50,000 per year. Total all of those income sources up, and you have a six-figure 19 year old.
<<< Students are skipping class to play $15/$30 texas hold'em, making over $200 per hour, and are finding less and less of a reason to go to class. >>>
In my view, this statement is encouraging students to "skip class" and I find that quite repugnant.
That's all for me......exit stage left....LOL
For what its worth, I always preach to young people not to gamble. Even if a young person says something in fun, "I will bet you ten dollars..." I always tell them, betting is something you should never do.
I have preferred games of skill for money...but I chose wise enough to know when the odds were in my favor
Sincerely,
2009
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Sincerely
BAM
<< <i>If Pujols was on the Phillies right now, he would be the third of fourth best hitter on the team.
Sincerely
BAM >>
In a thread where Phillies fans have shown themselves to be the most retarded group around, here is yet another quote above to further exemplify that point.
Ibanez is lights out right now and is on par with Pujols through the first 40+ games, but why would any retard take that amount of games and use it as a criteria to proclaim that he is better than Pujols.
The more appropriate post would be that Howard is YET AGAIN, no better than the fourth best player on his own team, let alone an MVP of the entire league. There is your bam Stalin...
<< <i>Ryan Howard - all he does is help his team win championships. Case closed. >>
(championship)
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
<< <i>
<< <i>Ryan Howard - all he does is help his team win championships. Case closed. >>
(championship) >>
you're gettin' me mads.