[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, this thread was originally about what has HAPPENED, not conjecture or what "options might be examined."

What HAS happened has been a change in wording. This *MAY* be about a forthcoming change in raked hand tabulation to a contributed-pot definition. Or it instead *MAY* be a clarification so that NLHE rakes of .10 count as "raked hands" but NLHE rakes of .05 do NOT.

As of this moment, according to several on this thread, Party is continuing to tabulate raked hands in the same way as before -- and that method includes crediting a player for hands in which he folds pre-flop without putting money in the pot.

I have made it clear in my prior post that if/when I see actual evidence of a change in how Party is tabulating raked hands, then I will certainly defer to such evidence. At this moment, there is none.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the original thing that had HAPPENED was supposedly a change in the definition of a raked hand; not a change in the counting of raked hands -- a change in the language. Notice the difference?

Company write text that reads a certain way for a reason -- and often are informed of how to write it by lawyers. Whether they are currently counting as contributed or not is irrelevant, they CAN do so at any point they want.

The more interesting thing is that some people are saying that this text has always read this way -- that means party has always stated that it was contributed hands but computed the count differently.

All I am saying is this -- if the text reads a particular way but things are done a different way, don't be suprised when it changes.