an "expert's" comments on online poker

what is this guy's email
i think i'm ready to join in the fun

[KKbluff]

[ QUOTE ]
what is this guy's email
i think i'm ready to join in the fun

[/ QUOTE ]

Count me in!

[bjarne]

Maybe I'm off topic but...

What this guy doesn't realize is that most people play for fun, not for profit. If it turned out (god forbid) that I was a losing player with say -1BB/100 I would probably still be playing.

I would eventually lose my bankroll. But I lose money a lot faster doing other things I think is fun as well. With this guys logic I should stop going to movies, theatres, concerts, the pub etc.?

These forms of entertainment are certainly -EV.

so i wrote him an email..enjoy:

dear stephen katz,

i read your online poker articles and the vices of gambling. you are correct gambling is bad. gambling is very bad.
but what I also found out is bad is lying. one time in a dream, jesus christ came to me and spoke to me. He said, "Sid watch out for that Stephen Katz man. he is spreading the bad word about online poker. I already have crap to deal with the intelligent design and Creationists, make sure this man doesn't go infiltrating and brainwashing everyone into thinking he's Moses."

So I said, "yessir Jesus," and decided to write you an email. Jesus also said, "Without any significant data to support his claims he's basically making me look like an idiot. Make sure he backs up what he says. Because from what I sense, he is making claims in order to make money in my Father's name. Shame on him."

So I was in a conundrum. Do I listen to you..reputable expert on gambling and online poker, or do I listen to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And from what I say..don't phyuck with the Jesus, that's what. Jesus also says, "I see a lot of winning poker players. Are you telling me that Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Phil Ivey and Barry Greenstein are guaranteed losers? I smell religious fanaticism again that's what I smell. Make sure you spread the good word and stop this Stephen Katz character."

So from this dream, I woke up and turned bread into wine, and started to bring followers into my movement against people who think online gambling is guaranteed losing. First, I wanted to teach our counterparts that instead of making invalid claims. They should try using some data toward backing up these claims. I don't believe this is too hard. And if you can support your claim more power to you. If you don't, I guess you really do want to keep selling more books.

So I come in here in the name of Jesus. Stop what you're doing until you actually know what you're doing. And by actually knowing what you're doing take the time to gather sufficient data to make claims. I don't care if you keep telling others Men are not monkeys, that's fine. But don't say online poker is guaranteed losing until you know what you're talking about.

Thank you Stephen Katz, I hope you don't go to hell.

Siddartha

His response full of jackassery as expected:

Are you telling me that Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Phil Ivey and Barry Greenstein are guaranteed losers?
Nope! The article, stated in the title, is about online poker, not poker played in private games - you should know the difference. It is clearly stated in the book that poker played in private games is a game of skill in which the best players in the long-run do win money. So all of your sanctamonious comments do not have any credability.

You mentioned Barry Greenstein. Read the below article which you may find interesting. This article here is from a recent Steve Rosenbloom interview of Barry who as you know is highly considered to be one of the world's top poker players. When Barry uses the lingo "tournament" players, he is referring to ALL players who play poker against a house cut whether in a casino or at an online poker website. Because casino tournament players also are playing against a house cut which averages 3% to 10%, they will all eventually go broke. Tournament poker players can windup spending many, many thousands of dollars to constantly enter these tournaments in which even the best players will all eventually go broke. You may say, "What about the person who wins a million bucks in a tournament?" Yes, it may take some years but when entering enough tournaments and constantly putting up $1,000 or $5,000 or buy-ins like the WSOP for $10,000 - even a million bucks eventually gets eaten up over time. Phil Ivey plays in a number of casino tournaments and has had a nice profit so far. But Phil is on an ego trip - he loves the spotlight - he'll eventually also lose back any tournament winnings if he keeps playing in enough tournaments. Phil is good enough though to consistantly win money because of his skillful play in private games whereby again...poker there is a game of skill and the best players do win money. As for Doyle - he made his money playing poker in private games. Doyle was playing poker and his first book was published well before the internet - I have read that book. Enjoy the article.

LAS VEGAS -- Barry Greenstein is cranky.
As he stands inside the Bellagio, where he regularly plays in the biggest cash game in the world, Greenstein and I are discussing who exactly should be called a great poker player and who shouldn't.
No. Wait. Greenstein is not exactly discussing. More like lecturing. In that contemptuous way of his. Lovably contemptuous. But contemptuous just the same.
Now, I could explain here that Greenstein's crankiness stems from the media making stars of players who win tournaments on television, declaring them "great" players, when actually many of those tournament players are not winning players who show a profit playing poker, which is why they hawk books and DVDs, and besides, tournaments aren't nearly the challenge or barometer that cash games are, and so, the bigger the cash game, the better the player who can beat it until a player gets to the biggest cash game around, which just happens to be - ta-da! - the one Greenstein plays in.
But my writing the previous paragraph risks the wrath of Greenstein's precision, so I'll let him explain.
"There are five top players: There's Doyle Brunson, there's Chip Reese, there's Chau Giang, there's Phil Ivey, there's myself," Greenstein says. "Those are the five people who beat the biggest game. There isn't any tournament player you're going to put in our game who's going to beat it. They'd be drawing dead. They'd be the live ones. We'd play 'til they're broke. But they already are broke, for the most part. The public says, 'Oh he's a great player.' He's a live one in our game.
"You could make millions of dollars if you could beat our game. Do you really think these people would worry about making a few hundred-thousand (dollars) selling DVDs and videos if you could make millions playing poker? It's pretty obvious, isn't it?
"What tournaments are all about is beating bad players. Building up big chips in tournaments is a skill. I don't want to say they don't have certain skills. But playing good players, they'd have their heads handed to them at the highest levels.
"That isn't to say that they aren't smart enough individuals to become top players. The way you get good is by playing against the best players. You've now got to make adjustments to the adjustments they've made against you.
"The reason these other guys play in tournaments for the most part is because they are broke, because other people put them in a tournament and they've made a name for themselves. But they're not as good as many professionals out there."
When told of some of Greenstein's contention the best poker players are playing poker and not selling pokerphernalia -- Greenstein, by the way, is coming out with a book called "Ace on the River - An Advanced Poker Guide" -- renowned pro Howard Lederer raised his eyebrows and showed part of his famous weapons-grade stare, then somewhat backed up Greenstein's point.
"I had success in those biggest side games for 10 years," Lederer says. "I think I've gotten a lot of satisfaction and expanded my horizons a little bit and made a conscious decision.
"One thing I did decide, though, is I have too much respect for Barry Greenstein as a poker player and those other guys who play in the biggest games. I don't feel like I can put in a full day of business and come to Bellagio and play in a side game right now. I'm not the poker player they are right now. That's just the mental preparation thing. It's not that I don't have it in me. I just choose not to have it in me where it's all poker."
So, indeed, there is truth in Greenstein's argument. Still sounds cranky.
"The crankiness is that for years I'd just bite my tongue when the media would talk about losing players being top players in the game," Greenstein said, preferring not to name names. "I'd say, 'OK, they don't know the difference.' And everything I'd read or see on the news is, from where I sit, false.
" 'Great' is given to people who aren't even winning poker players. So, if someone's not a winning player, and I'm being told that's a 'great' player, they're being put up as top professionals and 'This is how they act.' Then they act like goofballs, and I say, 'That's because they're not (top professionals). You've got the wrong people.'
"I'm almost defending the working poker players around the country and even around the world who make a living playing poker. There are many people who do that, but it's very expensive to go around and play in these tournaments and often not the right way to make their living. They live with their families, they play in the local clubs.
"On some levels, I'm arrogant. That level is, there are cash game players - and not only that but I play in the biggest cash game; what we call the first tier - and a lot of people don't appreciate what the level of differences are between us and people playing in tournaments."
Greenstein began playing tournaments the past 18 months and has one of the better records, winning a World Series of Poker bracelet, finishing second in another WSOP tournament, capturing a World Poker Tour event and earning a bracelet in a Bellagio tournament.
What's more, to underscore the value of tournament winnings compared to his cash game accomplishments, Greenstein gives all his tournament winnings to charity, most notably Children's Inc., which is why Greenstein is often referred to as the "Robin Hood of poker."
"My crankiness is not for myself, because I have been given - whether I've deserved it or not - almost the best persona of any player in poker history," Greenstein says. "I'm defending other poker professionals."
You can doubt Greenstein's contentions about how cash game players compare to tournament players. And he will be happy to welcome you to his game. Bring money.
Steve Rosenbloom is a contributor to ESPN.com and writes a syndicated poker column for the Chicago Tribune.


i'm ready for my response, stay tuned for further developments.

[Greg J]

I've never seen the ecological fallacy integrated so nicely with tin foil hat conspiracies before.

so i responded to his latest email:
Stephen Katz,
Once you again you fail to understand. Jesus told me this in a dream. Are you calling me a liar?
Jesus said this to me, not you. He told me this therefore i have "CREDABILITY" (which is spelled credibility).

Once again your intellectual capability and knowledge about poker is up to par as one of our closest relatives, the chimpanzee.

You present an article that is weak in your cause. Once again, you either did not read the article, misinterpreted it, or allowed idealogy to cloud your judgment. Obviously, when you are seeking something that fits your idealogy, you're going to subjectively utilize it for you own personal gain, while not realizing what the whole MAIN IDEA is really stating.

Did you know Barry Greenstein is Jewish? Why are you using him to help your cause. You know the Jews killed Jesus right?

LET ME EXPLAIN THE ARTICLE FOR YOU! I read this article a long time ago. WHAT HE IS STATING is that Barry feels the media exposure to the "tournament" stars is unjust. They are presented as "winners" of the game, but in actuality they are broke and not THAT good. They are good tournament players and cash game players. When tournament players (who perform well on the circuit) play in the cash games, they are overall losers and broke because they cannot beat the cash games. This MEANS that their skill level IS NOT BETTER than others at the table and also is probably contributed to other gambling distractions that are overall LOSERS in the long-run.

Also, your fail to conduct any effective research on the subject matter. You fail to recognize these private games THESE PROS PLAY ARE IN THE CASINO and they PAY AN HOURLY RATE TO SIT AT THE TABLE, which is in actuality MORE than the RAKE that is taken out of the pot.

Most casino games the rake is maxed at 4 dollars. In fact, the online poker rake rate is SMALLER. Talk to Barry Greenstein and email him your article, he will tell you how asinine to say you cannot win playing online.

One thing you are correct on is that if all the players at the table are ALL THE SAME SKILL LEVEL, and they keep playing all day all night with no one reloading for more cash, eventually the rake will steadily whittle them down. But once again, you fail to understand mathematics and probably believe the solar system revolves around Earth. When you keep taking out say 10% out of each damn pot (which is to say that the pot is bigger than 5 big bets), everyone over a long period of time will not go down to zero. Do you know what 10% of 1 dollar is. Ok, now what is 10% of 90 cents? If you need to consult a calculator please do that. What is 10% of 81 cents? The amount of money at the table gets smaller but it doesn't mean EVERYONE goes broke.

Bottom line: if you are better than the players at the table and you can beat the game in the long run. If you play against good players, you will be the one who goes broke bottom. The rake makes a difference, but skill level makes more THE difference.

Jesus told me all this by the way. If you say Jesus is wrong, then you a heretic and I hope you don't get burned at the stake.

Sincerely,
Siddartha

P.S. Please stop making money off an inaccurate book. You can tell others that with a watch, comes a watchmaker, but stop making money off a book that is poorly researched.

His response:
The article stands as fact and will not be changed.

Stephen Katz


wow someone PUSSY'd out

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
Somebody get this guy a rakeback deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh.