|
|
#11
10-17-2005, 03:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
THE FALLACY OF ONLINE POKER GAMBLING
he if enough of us send this THE FALLACY OF ONLINE POKER GAMBLING, to maddox maddox.xmission.com maybe he will post it.
send and email to maddox 
|
|
#12
10-17-2005, 04:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Worst Poker Article Of All Time
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] That's not the point. Even with a rake of 0.00001% the overall amount of cash on the table would be reduced if people do nothing but shuffling chips back and forth. If you do that forever the bank will indeed end up with all the money. It will only take much longer. The point is that you don't shuffle chips back and forth forever, because as soon as the bad players run out of money the game will end. At this moment the good players with an endge will walk away with profit. Sure, they all come back eventually, but only if they find new bad players to beat. The long-term problem with poker is that the losing player gets nothing but frustration in return for his effort. If you go to a mall and buy something they lift you for your money also because they sell you some crap that's worth less than you are paying for it. Still you have something that you can take home and you will even be happy. In poker if you are losing you take nothing home but anger. It shouldn't take these people long to realise that poker isn't "worth" it for them - who wants to pay for frustration? Sooner or later the good players should run out of victims. The good news is that the number of idiots on earth is virtually unlimited, so there should always be some sucker around. All you need to do is to tell them that "everyone" can win and show some more of these Moneymaker-adds. The bigger the idiot who wins, the better it is for the industry.
|
|
#13
10-17-2005, 05:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Worst Poker Article Of All Time
what about all the gamblers out there who have been playing craps or slots or roulette for the past 10 or 20 years?
some people just have lots of money. lots of these people will actually believe that they've been about break-even through their years of gambling even if they haven't been. in poker, the bad players can ALWAYS convince themselves that they just got unlucky....but they really DO know that they are better than most of their opponents.
|
|
#14
10-17-2005, 07:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Worst Poker Article Of All Time
[ QUOTE ]
Even with a rake of 0.00001% the overall amount of cash on the table would be reduced if people do nothing but shuffling chips back and forth. [/ QUOTE ] I was reminded of a scenario that came up, I don't know, like a year ago, where all of us who started a table bought in for the same amount ... and a few hours later, one of us noticed that all of us were down like $20 -- seemingly "impossible" until you think about it... It is truly a rarity, though. But I guess it can happen, especially in the short-term like the above example. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
|
#15
10-19-2005, 11:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Worst Poker Article Of All Time
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Even with a rake of 0.00001% the overall amount of cash on the table would be reduced if people do nothing but shuffling chips back and forth. [/ QUOTE ] I was reminded of a scenario that came up, I don't know, like a year ago, where all of us who started a table bought in for the same amount ... and a few hours later, one of us noticed that all of us were down like $20 -- seemingly "impossible" until you think about it... It is truly a rarity, though. But I guess it can happen, especially in the short-term like the above example. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com [/ QUOTE ] I've noticed this type of thing too, but mostly in low limit short-handed games (not even short-handed, heads up). I kept staying even and the other guy was losing money. And the house was winning. I think online poker rooms need to retool their rake for lower limit heads up and very shorthanded games.
|
|
#16
10-19-2005, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Worst Poker Article Of All Time
This was a low limit game in my scenario -- the $5-$10 Kill game at Foxwoods -- but it was a full table.
And I wouldn't hold your breath for poker rooms dropping their rate, although Foxwoods is pretty cool when it gets down to 5-6 people they'll drop their rake down and oftentimes, when we ask if we're 4-handed, they'll make it free (or $1 max) if we ask. Beyond that ... hard to get much better out of the live casino. Barron Vangor Toth BarronVangorToth.com
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
