|
|
#41
11-24-2005, 10:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 8 for 1 v. 8 to 1
I'm in...PM me when we get this thing rolling on a $10 omaha tournament.
|
|
#42
11-24-2005, 11:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#43
11-25-2005, 03:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#44
11-25-2005, 03:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ]
|
|
#45
11-25-2005, 09:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#46
11-25-2005, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 ]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
