an "expert's" comments on online poker

figure this was kinda interesting...he's an "expert" ..i guess i'll take his word for it..gonna clean out my account now.

The Fallacy of Online Poker Gambling

by Stephen Katz

Online poker is rapidly becoming one of the most popular gambling games at gambling websites on the internet. The main reason for this popularity is the belief that it is a game of skill in which money could be won. This belief is a fallacy. Skillful play will never help gamblers to win money at online poker because winning money at online poker is impossible.

Online poker is a game of skill only to the extent that skillful play would allow gamblers to lose their money slower. Money could temporarily be won in the short-run. In the long-run though, the gambling "house" which operates the gambling website, will permanently win all the money from all of the players. With a fast played game such as poker, the short-run quickly becomes the long-run when playing enough hands. Each hand played whether winning or losing any particular hand, slowly disintegrates the bankroll of every gambler. There is not anything that gamblers can do to save their bankrolls except to never play online poker.

The top poker players in the world do not play poker at gambling websites. Some top poker players may say they do only because of getting paid for endorsements. These top poker players know they can beat the other players, but that they cannot beat the house. There is not anybody on the face of this earth who can make money playing online poker. Even the world’s best poker player will never be good enough to overcome the "rake" which is the house cut from each pot.

"It takes a minute to learn and a lifetime to master" is a phrase used by some gambling website promoters to describe the poker game of Texas Holdem. This phrase is true when playing against other poker players if there is not any rake. But this phrase is false for online poker because of the rake involved. Gambling house promoters know this phrase is false for their poker. Yet they keep parroting this phrase to fool you into thinking that even though you keep losing money at their website, that one day you could "master" Texas Holdem and then start making money. This phrase for online Texas Holdem should be corrected to truthfully state, "It takes a minute to learn and a lifetime to lose money."

Here is an example of how the gambling house will always win all the money from all of the players. Five players sit-in on an online poker game each with a $20 bankroll for a total at the website table of $100. Let’s say the average pot is $10 and the rake is 5% or 50 cents per hand. Let’s say 200 hands are played which does not take that long. After 200 hands, that 50 cents rake per hand totals $100 which is the entire amount that all of the players started with at the website table. Of course not all of the players go broke at the exact same time and fresh money can come into the game. But sooner or later each gambler will eventually lose their $20 bankroll every time without exception. If bringing in $20 more, that will also eventually be lost. Every amount brought in will eventually be lost through continued play. Those are the facts in a nutshell. Any honest mathematician, statistician, or numbers expert who understands the game of poker, would not dispute the example in this paragraph.

Now knowing that money cannot be won playing online poker, here are three more nails in the online poker coffin so that this complete waste of your money, time and life can be buried:

1. How do you know the other online poker players are real? You could be the only real player at the website table with the rest being software program players which would be programmed so that you could not possibly win even in the short-run.

2. How do you know the cards are a randomly dealt deck? You would eventually lose your money anyway even with a randomly dealt deck. However some gambling houses do not want to wait that long to fleece you out of your money. The cards could be rigged in any which way to assure that you will lose quicker. They can easily rig any hand. For instance you could have four kings on the flop but a software program player gets a fourth ace at the river to beat you.

3. How do you know a gambling website can be trusted with your bank account and credit card information? Without your knowledge, they can easily clean out your bank account and max out your credit card anytime they wanted. After they do this, even if locating them in their country of origin and getting them hauled into court, they could just falsify some computer records and claim that you gambled away the money. It is highly unlikely that a judge from their country is going to rule in your favor.

There are a good number of dishonest gambling websites out there just waiting to steal money from you. But even if you did happen to find the most honest, forthright, respectable gambling house that exists, it still is a money fleecing business which would be most happy to financially destroy you. Do not give them the pleasure no matter how nice their website appears to be. Do not give them the pleasure no matter how friendly their promoters seem to be. Do not give them the pleasure for any reason.

These gambling houses along with their slick marketing campaigns are very clever at trying to influence you into gambling. Do not believe any advertising or information from gambling websites or other sources which state or imply that money can be made playing online poker. Do not let them fool you but if they have, then permanently delete their money fleecing software from your computer.

You have a choice to follow the guidance of this article or play online poker. Playing online poker will cost you money and quite possibly a lot of money. You may get addicted to it even if believing that could not happen. It very well can happen. Unfortunately, getting addicted to online poker has happened to many people. But even if never technically getting addicted to online poker, isn’t it foolish to play a game in which losing your money is a certainty? Losing money is not only true for online poker, but for all other gambling games on the internet. There are not and never will be any exceptions. You are absolutely, positively, guaranteed to lose your money. Those are the facts. Do not allow gambling promoters or anyone else to convince you otherwise.

Please make the right choice, the smart choice and the necessary choice to never play the money losing game of online poker or any other online gambling game. Keep your money in your bank account where it belongs. Your money does not belong in the bank account of a gambling house.

Stephen Katz

Stephen Katz is the author of Gambling Facts and Fictions: The Anti-Gambling Handbook to get yourself to stop gambling, quit gambling or never start gambling. If interested, please check out the website for our new book at http://www.gamblingfactsandfictions.com/ which details the realities and consequences of gambling.

Reprinting entire articles is very bad. Don't be surprised if it gets deleted...

...Even if the author is, as they say here, a "moran."

[ QUOTE ]
Reprinting entire articles is very bad. Don't be surprised if it gets deleted...

...Even if the author is, as they say here, a "moran."

[/ QUOTE ]

he posted this article in a poker article of a college newspaper objecting to the students who were making all this money online. this article wasn't from his website or anything like that...in fact he's probably glad i posted this in two plus two

he still doesn't know jack $hit about poker

[ianlippert]

How can he be an expert if he doesnt make money playing online?

Let him post some hand histories, then we might accept his point of view.

[MicroBob]

I think I've seen this guy quoted in a few articles about the horrible evils of online gambling.


It really doesn't matter that this guy is borderline-retarded.
The fact is..he claims to be an 'expert' about online-gambling (even though he is just making stuff up) and his arguments are very convincing for those who don't know any better.


Congressmen who want to prohibit and inhibit online-gambling more can turn to this 'expert' for his ridiculous ideas and use it to push forth legislation.


It strikes me as completely bizarre that there is wide-spread evidence of long-term winners in online-poker...including MANY mathematicians or statisticians or other experts who would tell you "of course it's possible. Are you an idiot?"...but this guy insists that it just isn't possible.


It's really easy to see that it's possible for a good player to beat a bad player if there is no rake.
It's equally easy to see that if they take $0.01 in rake on each hand then the good player will have to be a little bit better to make up for the rake being taken out.
And it's equally easy to see that there is a point at which the rake COULD be so high that poker WOULD be impossible to beat.....but that $0.50 per hand on a 1/2 (or whatever) limit table is NOT to that point.


How anyone can write semi-articulately AND have actually studied and thought through this stuff (much-less claim to be an expert about it) and NOT see the obvious is truly beyond me.

[Equal]

I disagree... his article reads like a 12 year old's class paper.

[reddred]

geez..... makes no sense.....they take a rake in a casino too (plus a tip)....is he trying to say there is no such thing as a professional poker player? Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey, D. Negraneau, etc....they "can't possibly win money playing poker b/c of a rake?" Everyone (without exception) who claims to be up at online poker, is lying? What a whackjob....

[MicroBob]

Well...i did say that it was 'semi-articulate'.


Have you ever heard Dr. Phil speak about the evils of online-gambling (or anything else for that matter)?

I think he's a moron. You probably do to.
but his opinions DO influence people because there are SOME people who think he's a freaking genius and that he really IS an expert on EVERYTHING.


I'm happy that this Katz guy isn't able to make a more intelligent argument (if he was...then he would actually be smart enough to realize that it's wrong)...but the fact is, his argument IS convincing to plenty of people who know nothing about gambling or poker or how it works.


I guarantee you that if my Mom saw this article (which she will soon since I posted it my blog) she would immediately get worried.
She knows that I have made my income from poker for the past year and a half.
But this guy is the 'expert' and HE says it can't be beaten. So I would have to tell my mom that HE is the idiot and that I actually do have a clue what I'm doing and I can confirm that this guy is just making stuff up.

Just thinking of how my Mom or a couple other relatives might react to this article is enough to convince me that this guy actually COULD have an impact.
If anything, the spreading of this kind of incorrect info can dissaude a new player from giving online-poker a try and thereby could stunt growth.

[Equal]

Yeah I hear you Bob, and agrre completely with what you are saying.

The problem is that an article that refuted that one above or even just explained the online poker phenomenon would never ever reach the masses.

Whatever, any uproar over online poker will just blow over the minute there is new "evil" fad for the Bible Belt to bitch about.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

this guy sure is an expert in jackassery

[wall_st]

Somebody get this guy a rakeback deal.

[EStreet20]

I only made it through the first few paragraphs. But I guess this guy believes that live cardrooms don't charge a rake???

[ThaHero]

What a moran.

[Grisgra]

Given the month I've been having, I'm starting to think that this guy might be on to something.

[Cancuk]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the month I've been having, I'm starting to think that this guy might be on to something.

[/ QUOTE ]

word

[Amid Cent]

[ QUOTE ]

You have a choice to follow the guidance of this article or play online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm...after much deliberation, I have decided to go with option B.

[Girchuck]

This article reminds me of the old instructional film,
"The reefer madness"

[DMBFan23]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

EDIT: my favorite part is, I'm reading this on a laptop paid for by online poker.

[lozen]

If his theory was true than B&M players would go broke quicker wehn tipping is included.Probaly a religous right wing nut against gambling who cheats on his taxes and his wife.

[KrmtDfrog]

I take it his site is the fiction and 2+2 is the fact, right?

[MicroBob]

my dad doesn't even know how to play poker and only took a couple of statistics course in college and even HE can figure this stuff out (as far as i can tell)
his comments on the article (having read it in my blog):



[ QUOTE ]
While I didn't totally understand his rationale it
is probable that his analysis applies to the whole population of internet
poker players and fails to take into account that some are much better
than the population. There was a similar analysis of investors in the
stock market which concluded that it was impossible to beat the market.
But obviously there are many investors who have beaten the market over
a significant number of years. I had several credits of statistics in
college and grad school and one of the frequent problems that was
encountered was that the population of whatever is not normally
distributed which is a requirement to apply probability analysis.
Thus if there are a small percentage of outliers in a given
population--such as excellent poker players or investors--then it
becomes difficult if not impossible to apply probability theory.


[/ QUOTE ]


I think his observation that similar arguments have been made about the stock-market not being beatable is kind of interesting.

[uw_madtown]

People win money at online poker?

[augie00]

Someone get this goober's e-mail address so I can taunt him.

[young nut]

It just makes me laugh when so called "experts" completely disregard all statistics and mathematics in general. It is articles like these that make me wish for mandatory credential postings. As in, if you call yourself an expert, justify why you are an expert. If only all journalists were forced to do this /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ZenMusician]

Haaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!!!!

Now I know who's been posting all the bad beat stories around here!

This should have been XP'd in Probability. I wonder what he would
say about the $4 rake in the 4-8 game at the 'Woods...I guess I am
a statistical anomally.

nh / np

-ZEN

[Uppercut]

"You are absolutely, positively, guaranteed to lose your money".

I think that the good Mr. Katz does not understand the meaning of the words "absolutely, positively, guaranteed".

[Losing all]

This dude's a cartoon..

[Gramps]

[ QUOTE ]
Gambling Facts and Fictions: The Anti-Gambling Handbook to get yourself to stop gambling, quit gambling or never start gambling

Copyright © 2004

by Stephen Katz

ISBN: 1418472409

Library of Congress: 2004094023

[/ QUOTE ]

When someone is putting out misinformation, the first question one should ask (when trying to figure out why this misinformation is being put forth) is, "is this person making money off of this misinformation?"

Take an extreme viewpoint that discords with reality, if challenged be steadfast in your "beliefs," write a book about it, market it, sell as many copies as you can, make $$$. He's just using a time-tested formula for making a buck (whether he admits that to himself or not).

[ianlippert]

Who is this guy? Does he have a Tv show or something? Does he have any pull in the mainstream media?

[UATrewqaz]

The author's only expertise is that in the field of utter ignornace.

Edit: It appears this article is agenda, not fact driven. This guy wants to see online gambling fail as an industry, most likely B&M gambling as well. His goal is to make as many people as possible quit gambling, which is good advice for most people, thus he most likely feels he can take a few liberties with the truth if it will accomplish his "for the greater good" goal.

And the sad thing is he has most likely delluded himself into 100% believing what he wrote (and I doubt he even plays poker).

What a moron this guy is.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is an example of how the gambling house will always win all the money from all of the players. Five players sit-in on an online poker game each with a $20 bankroll for a total at the website table of $100. Let’s say the average pot is $10 and the rake is 5% or 50 cents per hand. Let’s say 200 hands are played which does not take that long. After 200 hands, that 50 cents rake per hand totals $100 which is the entire amount that all of the players started with at the website table. Of course not all of the players go broke at the exact same time and fresh money can come into the game. But sooner or later each gambler will eventually lose their $20 bankroll every time without exception. If bringing in $20 more, that will also eventually be lost. Every amount brought in will eventually be lost through continued play. Those are the facts in a nutshell. Any honest mathematician, statistician, or numbers expert who understands the game of poker, would not dispute the example in this paragraph.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is he making huge assumptions ($10 dollar pots for $100 at the table as an average pot size) but his logic is fatally flawed. One of these players could be better than his opponents by more than 5% and continually beat them out of money. New opponents will come and that player can still win money. Also there are bonuses and rakeback programs that significantly reduce this rake.

This man probably has good intentions but he's uninformed about online poker nonetheless.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]



Here is an example of how the gambling house will always win all the money from all of the players. Five players sit-in on an online poker game each with a $20 bankroll for a total at the website table of $100. Let’s say the average pot is $10 and the rake is 5% or 50 cents per hand. Let’s say 200 hands are played which does not take that long. After 200 hands, that 50 cents rake per hand totals $100 which is the entire amount that all of the players started with at the website table. Of course not all of the players go broke at the exact same time and fresh money can come into the game. But sooner or later each gambler will eventually lose their $20 bankroll every time without exception. If bringing in $20 more, that will also eventually be lost. Every amount brought in will eventually be lost through continued play. Those are the facts in a nutshell. Any honest mathematician, statistician, or numbers expert who understands the game of poker, would not dispute the example in this paragraph.



[/ QUOTE ]

From the first sentence to the next in the bold is where the logical fallacy occurs.

[UATrewqaz]

He assumes over the long run people will just trade pots back and forth and nobody will do more winning than losing long term.

[MaxPower]

Wait. Where are these places that the top pros play that don't charge rake?

I want to go there.

[meow_meow]

After reading that little note, I send an e-mail to him. Very polite, not disaggreeing with his goals, just telling him he was wrong. Got a response the very next day, kinda funny and pathetic. Here is my e-mail and his response:

Just read a short article by Mr. Katz re online poker.

Unfortunately, Mr. Katz doesn't know what he is talking about. There are
plenty of good reasons not to gamble. Gambling destroys thousands of lives
and negatively influences the lives of millions more. However, making
things up and/or lying about certain types of gambling is, in my opinion,
counter productive to the cause of gambling prevention.

What Mr. Katz's piece offers is an incentive for people to find out more
about online poker. Why? Because it is so obviously wrong. How do I know
it's wrong? I support my family by playing online poker, and have done so
for several years, as do many of my aquaintances.

Look, you can't just go around saying "you can't beat the rake!". Whether
or not the rake can be beaten depends on the size of the rake relative to
the game, and your skill relative to the other players in it. No matter how
noble your motives, the ends don't justify the means, and in these case the
means are counter productive to the desired end.

Just thought you should know


Some of your comments are good and that is appreciated.

But unless you PROVE your claims of winning, anyone stating that they are winning money in the long-run playing online poker, is only a rumor. Don't take it personal - I say that to EVERYONE.

You probably realize that gambling income is taxable and so you have paid taxes on the money. So simply do the following. Post in a public forum, not to me because anyone can photoshop items, do it in a public forum whereby everyone can see it including the IRS which also canvases the internet looking for tax cheats. No one should ever publicly post a false tax return. To the best of my knowledge this is a federal offense.

So...post copies of your last years federal tax return. Post two years since you said "several years." Also post copies of your credit card transactions and documentation from the gambling websites regarding deposits and withdrawals. Before posting though, take all this documentation to a very reputable accounting firm and have all the information audited. They will matchup the documentation with your bank statements, etc. And also post a signed letter from this accounting firm regarding the audit and the accuracy of your documentation. Since you've been paying your taxes and have filed and previously calculated all these figures anyway, this should all be quite easy for you to quickly hand over to the accounting firm. The audit will probably cost you around $2,000 but since you are making all this money playing online poker, a couple thousand bucks should be peanuts to you.

Everyone who I have asked to do this has refused despite the simplicity. If you want to do it...fine, e-mail me back with the public website info after it is posted and of course I'll take a look at it. If you don't want to do it...fine, but the article stands as fact. We both know that there is not any formula for "proving" that online poker can be beat. The best hand doesn't always win - it can be bluffed out. So again...the only way to prove claims of winning money would be showing documented and audited proof of this income. You made the claims, so prove it!

Best Regards,

Steve

[Siingo]

Which casinos in real life is rake free? In Sweden we have to pay more rake/tipp in real casinos than I have to pay online..

Please tell me so I can go there!!! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
So...post copies of your last years federal tax return. Post two years since you said "several years." Also post copies of your credit card transactions and documentation from the gambling websites regarding deposits and withdrawals. Before posting though, take all this documentation to a very reputable accounting firm and have all the information audited. They will matchup the documentation with your bank statements, etc. And also post a signed letter from this accounting firm regarding the audit and the accuracy of your documentation. Since you've been paying your taxes and have filed and previously calculated all these figures anyway, this should all be quite easy for you to quickly hand over to the accounting firm. The audit will probably cost you around $2,000 but since you are making all this money playing online poker, a couple thousand bucks should be peanuts to you.

Everyone who I have asked to do this has refused despite the simplicity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ladies and gentlemen, we have full idiot status.

By this logic, I can go around saying Brad Pitt has AIDS, and the only way I have to stop is if someone sends me a vial of his blood and a negative lab test.

I can't believe I just read "most of that crap". It would be true if losing players stopped playing the game.

[Vollycat]

[ QUOTE ]
So...post copies of your last years federal tax return. Post two years since you said "several years." Also post copies of your credit card transactions and documentation from the gambling websites regarding deposits and withdrawals. Before posting though, take all this documentation to a very reputable accounting firm and have all the information audited. They will matchup the documentation with your bank statements, etc. And also post a signed letter from this accounting firm regarding the audit and the accuracy of your documentation. Since you've been paying your taxes and have filed and previously calculated all these figures anyway, this should all be quite easy for you to quickly hand over to the accounting firm. The audit will probably cost you around $2,000 but since you are making all this money playing online poker, a couple thousand bucks should be peanuts to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he is so sure his statements are true, make him pay for the audit. He even says his information is 'fact'. I'd bet there may be a few here that would be willing to have their accountant post a letter stating the truth, so long as personal information is not divulged (SS#, names, etc). However given this, would this idiot even accept the word/certification of a CPA? That way he can prove his thoughts and call us all a bunch of degenerate gambling liers and be even more happy with himself. Last time I checked we are considered 'innocent' (not lieing) before proven guilty.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
geez..... makes no sense.....they take a rake in a casino too (plus a tip)....is he trying to say there is no such thing as a professional poker player? Doyle Brunson, Phil Ivey, D. Negraneau, etc....they "can't possibly win money playing poker b/c of a rake?" Everyone (without exception) who claims to be up at online poker, is lying? What a whackjob....

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read past this response, so forgive me if someone already stated this:

Imagine everyone who was currently playing on party poker, kept playing on party poker until they went broke, and no one else was allowed to enter the game, and no one was allowed to bring any money into the game from other incomes other than what was in their current neteller balance or whatever.

Now you can start to see that eventually the house must win ever last penny of money.

In this respect, poker is somewhat similar (but not exactly) a ponzi scheme.

Anyways, this doesn't matter on a practical level, because on a practical level, fish keep coming, busting, and bringing money in from outside of poker to do it with. Professionals do exist, even in the long term.

All that stuff about mathematicians and whatnot doesn't matter though, as it supposes that both players have unlimited money.

--Dave.

Oh yeah, and I guess eventually one guy would be left with a ton of money on party, whoever was best... but in the process a lot of the money on the server would disappear to rake.

what is this guy's email
i think i'm ready to join in the fun

[KKbluff]

[ QUOTE ]
what is this guy's email
i think i'm ready to join in the fun

[/ QUOTE ]

Count me in!

[bjarne]

Maybe I'm off topic but...

What this guy doesn't realize is that most people play for fun, not for profit. If it turned out (god forbid) that I was a losing player with say -1BB/100 I would probably still be playing.

I would eventually lose my bankroll. But I lose money a lot faster doing other things I think is fun as well. With this guys logic I should stop going to movies, theatres, concerts, the pub etc.?

These forms of entertainment are certainly -EV.

so i wrote him an email..enjoy:

dear stephen katz,

i read your online poker articles and the vices of gambling. you are correct gambling is bad. gambling is very bad.
but what I also found out is bad is lying. one time in a dream, jesus christ came to me and spoke to me. He said, "Sid watch out for that Stephen Katz man. he is spreading the bad word about online poker. I already have crap to deal with the intelligent design and Creationists, make sure this man doesn't go infiltrating and brainwashing everyone into thinking he's Moses."

So I said, "yessir Jesus," and decided to write you an email. Jesus also said, "Without any significant data to support his claims he's basically making me look like an idiot. Make sure he backs up what he says. Because from what I sense, he is making claims in order to make money in my Father's name. Shame on him."

So I was in a conundrum. Do I listen to you..reputable expert on gambling and online poker, or do I listen to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And from what I say..don't phyuck with the Jesus, that's what. Jesus also says, "I see a lot of winning poker players. Are you telling me that Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Phil Ivey and Barry Greenstein are guaranteed losers? I smell religious fanaticism again that's what I smell. Make sure you spread the good word and stop this Stephen Katz character."

So from this dream, I woke up and turned bread into wine, and started to bring followers into my movement against people who think online gambling is guaranteed losing. First, I wanted to teach our counterparts that instead of making invalid claims. They should try using some data toward backing up these claims. I don't believe this is too hard. And if you can support your claim more power to you. If you don't, I guess you really do want to keep selling more books.

So I come in here in the name of Jesus. Stop what you're doing until you actually know what you're doing. And by actually knowing what you're doing take the time to gather sufficient data to make claims. I don't care if you keep telling others Men are not monkeys, that's fine. But don't say online poker is guaranteed losing until you know what you're talking about.

Thank you Stephen Katz, I hope you don't go to hell.

Siddartha

His response full of jackassery as expected:

Are you telling me that Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Phil Ivey and Barry Greenstein are guaranteed losers?
Nope! The article, stated in the title, is about online poker, not poker played in private games - you should know the difference. It is clearly stated in the book that poker played in private games is a game of skill in which the best players in the long-run do win money. So all of your sanctamonious comments do not have any credability.

You mentioned Barry Greenstein. Read the below article which you may find interesting. This article here is from a recent Steve Rosenbloom interview of Barry who as you know is highly considered to be one of the world's top poker players. When Barry uses the lingo "tournament" players, he is referring to ALL players who play poker against a house cut whether in a casino or at an online poker website. Because casino tournament players also are playing against a house cut which averages 3% to 10%, they will all eventually go broke. Tournament poker players can windup spending many, many thousands of dollars to constantly enter these tournaments in which even the best players will all eventually go broke. You may say, "What about the person who wins a million bucks in a tournament?" Yes, it may take some years but when entering enough tournaments and constantly putting up $1,000 or $5,000 or buy-ins like the WSOP for $10,000 - even a million bucks eventually gets eaten up over time. Phil Ivey plays in a number of casino tournaments and has had a nice profit so far. But Phil is on an ego trip - he loves the spotlight - he'll eventually also lose back any tournament winnings if he keeps playing in enough tournaments. Phil is good enough though to consistantly win money because of his skillful play in private games whereby again...poker there is a game of skill and the best players do win money. As for Doyle - he made his money playing poker in private games. Doyle was playing poker and his first book was published well before the internet - I have read that book. Enjoy the article.

LAS VEGAS -- Barry Greenstein is cranky.
As he stands inside the Bellagio, where he regularly plays in the biggest cash game in the world, Greenstein and I are discussing who exactly should be called a great poker player and who shouldn't.
No. Wait. Greenstein is not exactly discussing. More like lecturing. In that contemptuous way of his. Lovably contemptuous. But contemptuous just the same.
Now, I could explain here that Greenstein's crankiness stems from the media making stars of players who win tournaments on television, declaring them "great" players, when actually many of those tournament players are not winning players who show a profit playing poker, which is why they hawk books and DVDs, and besides, tournaments aren't nearly the challenge or barometer that cash games are, and so, the bigger the cash game, the better the player who can beat it until a player gets to the biggest cash game around, which just happens to be - ta-da! - the one Greenstein plays in.
But my writing the previous paragraph risks the wrath of Greenstein's precision, so I'll let him explain.
"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says. "Those are the five people who beat the biggest game. There isn't any tournament player you're going to put in our game who's going to beat it. They'd be drawing dead. They'd be the live ones. We'd play 'til they're broke. But they already are broke, for the most part. The public says, 'Oh he's a great player.' He's a live one in our game.
"You could make millions of dollars if you could beat our game. Do you really think these people would worry about making a few hundred-thousand (dollars) selling DVDs and videos if you could make millions playing poker? It's pretty obvious, isn't it?
"What tournaments are all about is beating bad players. Building up big chips in tournaments is a skill. I don't want to say they don't have certain skills. But playing good players, they'd have their heads handed to them at the highest levels.
"That isn't to say that they aren't smart enough individuals to become top players. The way you get good is by playing against the best players. You've now got to make adjustments to the adjustments they've made against you.
"The reason these other guys play in tournaments for the most part is because they are broke, because other people put them in a tournament and they've made a name for themselves. But they're not as good as many professionals out there."
When told of some of Greenstein's contention the best poker players are playing poker and not selling pokerphernalia -- Greenstein, by the way, is coming out with a book called "Ace on the River - An Advanced Poker Guide" -- renowned pro Howard Lederer raised his eyebrows and showed part of his famous weapons-grade stare, then somewhat backed up Greenstein's point.
"I had success in those biggest side games for 10 years," Lederer says. "I think I've gotten a lot of satisfaction and expanded my horizons a little bit and made a conscious decision.
"One thing I did decide, though, is I have too much respect for Barry Greenstein as a poker player and those other guys who play in the biggest games. I don't feel like I can put in a full day of business and come to Bellagio and play in a side game right now. I'm not the poker player they are right now. That's just the mental preparation thing. It's not that I don't have it in me. I just choose not to have it in me where it's all poker."
So, indeed, there is truth in Greenstein's argument. Still sounds cranky.
"The crankiness is that for years I'd just bite my tongue when the media would talk about losing players being top players in the game," Greenstein said, preferring not to name names. "I'd say, 'OK, they don't know the difference.' And everything I'd read or see on the news is, from where I sit, false.
" 'Great' is given to people who aren't even winning poker players. So, if someone's not a winning player, and I'm being told that's a 'great' player, they're being put up as top professionals and 'This is how they act.' Then they act like goofballs, and I say, 'That's because they're not (top professionals). You've got the wrong people.'
"I'm almost defending the working poker players around the country and even around the world who make a living playing poker. There are many people who do that, but it's very expensive to go around and play in these tournaments and often not the right way to make their living. They live with their families, they play in the local clubs.
"On some levels, I'm arrogant. That level is, there are cash game players - and not only that but I play in the biggest cash game; what we call the first tier - and a lot of people don't appreciate what the level of differences are between us and people playing in tournaments."
Greenstein began playing tournaments the past 18 months and has one of the better records, winning a World Series of Poker bracelet, finishing second in another WSOP tournament, capturing a World Poker Tour event and earning a bracelet in a Bellagio tournament.
What's more, to underscore the value of tournament winnings compared to his cash game accomplishments, Greenstein gives all his tournament winnings to charity, most notably Children's Inc., which is why Greenstein is often referred to as the "Robin Hood of poker."
"My crankiness is not for myself, because I have been given - whether I've deserved it or not - almost the best persona of any player in poker history," Greenstein says. "I'm defending other poker professionals."
You can doubt Greenstein's contentions about how cash game players compare to tournament players. And he will be happy to welcome you to his game. Bring money.
Steve Rosenbloom is a contributor to ESPN.com and writes a syndicated poker column for the Chicago Tribune.


i'm ready for my response, stay tuned for further developments.

[Greg J]

I've never seen the ecological fallacy integrated so nicely with tin foil hat conspiracies before.

so i responded to his latest email:
Stephen Katz,
Once you again you fail to understand. Jesus told me this in a dream. Are you calling me a liar?
Jesus said this to me, not you. He told me this therefore i have "CREDABILITY" (which is spelled credibility).

Once again your intellectual capability and knowledge about poker is up to par as one of our closest relatives, the chimpanzee.

You present an article that is weak in your cause. Once again, you either did not read the article, misinterpreted it, or allowed idealogy to cloud your judgment. Obviously, when you are seeking something that fits your idealogy, you're going to subjectively utilize it for you own personal gain, while not realizing what the whole MAIN IDEA is really stating.

Did you know Barry Greenstein is Jewish? Why are you using him to help your cause. You know the Jews killed Jesus right?

LET ME EXPLAIN THE ARTICLE FOR YOU! I read this article a long time ago. WHAT HE IS STATING is that Barry feels the media exposure to the "tournament" stars is unjust. They are presented as "winners" of the game, but in actuality they are broke and not THAT good. They are good tournament players and cash game players. When tournament players (who perform well on the circuit) play in the cash games, they are overall losers and broke because they cannot beat the cash games. This MEANS that their skill level IS NOT BETTER than others at the table and also is probably contributed to other gambling distractions that are overall LOSERS in the long-run.

Also, your fail to conduct any effective research on the subject matter. You fail to recognize these private games THESE PROS PLAY ARE IN THE CASINO and they PAY AN HOURLY RATE TO SIT AT THE TABLE, which is in actuality MORE than the RAKE that is taken out of the pot.

Most casino games the rake is maxed at 4 dollars. In fact, the online poker rake rate is SMALLER. Talk to Barry Greenstein and email him your article, he will tell you how asinine to say you cannot win playing online.

One thing you are correct on is that if all the players at the table are ALL THE SAME SKILL LEVEL, and they keep playing all day all night with no one reloading for more cash, eventually the rake will steadily whittle them down. But once again, you fail to understand mathematics and probably believe the solar system revolves around Earth. When you keep taking out say 10% out of each damn pot (which is to say that the pot is bigger than 5 big bets), everyone over a long period of time will not go down to zero. Do you know what 10% of 1 dollar is. Ok, now what is 10% of 90 cents? If you need to consult a calculator please do that. What is 10% of 81 cents? The amount of money at the table gets smaller but it doesn't mean EVERYONE goes broke.

Bottom line: if you are better than the players at the table and you can beat the game in the long run. If you play against good players, you will be the one who goes broke bottom. The rake makes a difference, but skill level makes more THE difference.

Jesus told me all this by the way. If you say Jesus is wrong, then you a heretic and I hope you don't get burned at the stake.

Sincerely,
Siddartha

P.S. Please stop making money off an inaccurate book. You can tell others that with a watch, comes a watchmaker, but stop making money off a book that is poorly researched.

His response:
The article stands as fact and will not be changed.

Stephen Katz


wow someone PUSSY'd out

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
Somebody get this guy a rakeback deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh.