Re: i think sucka has valid thoughts
 

Tom D wrote:

"I wonder, sometimes, why you see me as an enemy of online poker, but not Jimbo. It’s quite baffling. Jimbo, and his likenesses, do all they can do to control, disrupt, or prevent customers from establishing acceptable contractual arrangements with poker sites. That’s bad, very bad for online poker. I’m baffled by your complacency, or anybody’s."

I think in general, your views are biased by your belief that if rigging is possible, it's happening. Also accusing others of being "paid goons" smells like paranoia to me. I also think Jimbo's views are biased because he likes playing poker online (and is a winning player, I'm assuming). I think most (99%+) of the posters here are in it for the money, and NOT being paid by the sites to post. They defend online poker because they don't want it to go away, since they enjoy playing and winning money (or trying to win money. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]).

I do agree with you that regulation is good! I would love a fully regulated poker site to appear that's based in the US. And for buyins to be easier. It would really open up the market for PokerStat. Don't think I haven't thought of that!

Anyways, I don't agree with most of the accusations here against online sites. I just don't see the "rigging" some people see. But I'm totally for more regulation. Actually the number #1 thing I'd like to see is for buying in to be easier, like the days when players could buy-in with a VISA card. *sigh*, miss those days! More regulation would make that more likely.


- Tony

BUMP
 

BUMP