[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.