The Worst Poker Article Of All Time

[BarronVangorToth]

Yeah, yeah, I know a few of my ne'er-do-well critics would claim that my On The Edge #8 fits the bill, but I say to them, Not so fast .

Check out Daniel Negreanu's STACKED site where my co-news-editor Brandon found the winner under the news caption of "Wow."

Wow, indeed.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[bobbyi]

Come on, we've already had two threads on this article. There's no way we needed someone to start a third.

[BarronVangorToth]

Didn't know that as I haven't been able to keep up with 2+2 in the last few days outside of my threads in the magazine section. And here I thought I was doing my public service of the day.

Regardless, some moderator should delete this thread.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Peter666]

That was indeed an enlightening article. I had no clue.

[Shandrax]

I find that article funny. Especially thought provoking is the hand example. If two guys play heads-up at equal skill, shuffling their chips back and forth, the rake will indeed end up with all the money. If the players all play on the same level, they could play Roulette as well. Due to the rake, casino-poker is not a zero-sum game.

This shows us that game selection is one of the most important aspects of playing professionally. You need at least one sucker at the table.

[MicroBob]

Yeah. This was discussed extensively in the General forum about a week or two ago (I had a couple comments in there).
I also x-posted the article to my blog and received more comments on it than I usually do.



Among my comments over in the general-forum thread on this was an e-mail from my Dad (who had seen it on my blog) who said that there have actually been 'experts' who used the same kind of reasoning to 'prove' that the stock-market was similarly unable to be beaten in the long-run.


I also added that this Stephen Katz guy has appeared in a handful of articles on the evils of online-poker.

He plays the so-called 'expert' who speaks of the addictive qualities and the fact that anybody who thinks they can beat the game is kidding themselves because you aren't playing real people anyway and the evil site takes out all this rake.


Barron - meowmeow e-mailed this guy and he actually wrote back with more idiocy. It was in that thread in the general forum as well that you may be interested in checking out.

[Peter McDermott]

I'm not convinced. Given that this article was published by an anti-gambling publication, I think it counts as an anti-poker article and as such, should be exempt.

Personally, I think this is a better contender

[RoyalLance]

This article poorly explains the rake system in online poker. He fails to mention that rake cap keeps the rake from passing a certain amount, and the higher the stakes, the weaker the rake would be.

He also fails to notice the highest stakes where you can play with $20 in front of you comfortably is five cent/ten cent -- and the highest possible rake for that game at Ultimate Bet is TEN CENTS!

If the writer wanted to bash poker he should have refered to the rake in the lowest stakes B & M games. I hear PROS saying that they can't beat that rake.

[Peter666]

I had a bad feeling about that guy. After reading that horrendous article, I know to trust my instincts now. The only good line in it came from Vorhaus. The worst part of the article was his attempt to salvage his image at the end. I hope somebody breaks those magic fingers. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

i wrote 2 emails to him that were just pure jackass and he responded with 2 emails...that were well..pure jackass.