Re: 8 for 1 v. 8 to 1
 

I'm in...PM me when we get this thing rolling on a $10 omaha tournament.

Re: 8 for 1 v. 8 to 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in...PM me when we get this thing rolling on a $10 omaha tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in as well. You think the odds are good we'll all get banned for this? PM me.

Re: 8 for 1 v. 8 to 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm in as well. You think the odds are good we'll all get banned for this? PM me.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, I'd imagine they get very little traffic on their sidebets, relatively speaking. All of a sudden there's 10 guys all betting every single hand. I suspicion they'd catch on. I wonder if there's a loophole in the TOC about consented collusion.

Edit: Just realized it's capped at $10. That's a hell of a lot of collusion for an expected profit of $1. Granted, you could write a software program where everyone enters their cards and the software just tells you what to do.

Re: 8 for 1 v. 8 to 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm in...PM me when we get this thing rolling on a $10 omaha tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in as well. You think the odds are good we'll all get banned for this? PM me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Party Poker Sidebets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I only heard about this "for" terminology recently in connection with craps payoffs. Is it new? Perhaps the latest attempt to fleece customers? I think it really adds confusion to a topic for which there is already much confusion over terminology.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the terminology isn’t new. I learned it about thirty-five years ago, and it had been around for quite a while then.

Re: 8 for 1 v. 8 to 1
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm in...PM me when we get this thing rolling on a $10 omaha tournament.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm in as well. You think the odds are good we'll all get banned for this? PM me.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]