|
Pokerstars is an online poker site. Pokerstrategy is an educational training site. They are not the same site. The TSL3 is sponsored by pokerstrategy.com. |
On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote:
cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce
I think that was a mistake =(
|
So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
|
How do Stars and FTP handle bounced checks? Fortunately I took most of my roll offline fearing this scenario and don't play much on FTP but if the check bounces, do you just email support and they credit your account or what? I'm a bit scared because we have no direct contact with the processors obviously.
|
Does anyone have experience with moneybookers xfer limits, it says 11k for 90 days for me
Does that mean im gonna have money stuck on there for months or what? How hard is it gonna be to put it back onto ftp/stars (or shove it all onto a euro website), or to take it into my bank?
From UK btw
|
On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote:
So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers.
How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
|
On April 16 2011 09:43 Seide wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote:
So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers. How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task.
Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
|
On April 16 2011 09:37 sikatrix wrote:
cashed out 12k via check on stars, hopefully it gets here and doesn't bounce
I'm in the same boat for 9k via check.
:S :S :S come through canada (even tho this has nothing to do with it)
EDIT: although, I wonder if leaving it in pokerstars might be better. If the check bounces you are kinda screwed forever  )
|
|
|
On April 16 2011 09:28 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:23 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 08:10 trias_e wrote:On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote:Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Poker isn't necessarily gambling under that definition. Poker is under the control or influence of the person, due to the option to bet/fold/raise at any given street. Over 70% hands involve pure skill: They end before showdown, meaning someone bet everyone out of the pot. Clearly it is only the actions of players that determine such hands, as no cards are ever shown. Even the hands that do involve some sort of chance are not as clearcut as say, a roulette spin, because of the fact that players make the choice to call or fold in any given situation, a choice that is clearly skill based. Whether or not poker is a game of chance or a game of skill is something that must be determined, and hasn't been determined in any court that I know of. It's not a question of chance vs. skill. It's a question of whether you are 1. risking something of value (your tournament buy-in or your blind, raise, or call in a cash game) 2. upon the outcome of a future contingent event (what cards are coming next, or the actions of your opponent) 3. not under the control or influence of the person (the cards that come out, or your opponent's actions) 4. upon the agreement or understanding that the person will receive something of value (the pot, or the tournament payout) 5. in the event of a certain outcome (having the better hand, your opponent folding, or finishing in the money). You might bet your opponent(s) out of every pot preflop, but every time, whether or not he folded was out of your control. That's a "future contingent event". It was never sure he was going to fold. You don't know what your opponent is going to do, because you don't know his cards. Even if he folded to your first 99 PFRs, you don't know that he's going to fold to the 100th. And even if you were going to be dealt the nuts, you didn't know that until you had put some money in the pot, somehow. You risked money on a future contingent event. It doesn't need to be clear-cut, you just need to put money in, not knowing what would happen, with the possibility of winning something. I don't think you can defend the law in this way. In chess, I don't know what my opponent's next move will be. Therefore, by your reasoning, it is gambling if I put money on myself to win. Maybe if you reword it it will make more sense.
Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
|
On April 16 2011 09:44 Ingenol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:43 Seide wrote:On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote:
So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers. How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task. Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter.
Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources? Just because a goverment has say 20 bil to put into say crime in general doesn't mean they should invest all of that into one kind of crime, if i put 200 people working on one assignment who's to say with paperwork among other things that cause delay that just 20 people would be just as effective for the most part, it's likely easier to push a bunch of paper work though channels to get servers and people served. Vs criminals hiding out in obscure locations.
|
On April 16 2011 09:52 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:44 Ingenol wrote:On April 16 2011 09:43 Seide wrote:On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote:
So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers. How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task. Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter. Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources? Just because a goverment has say 20 bil to put into say crime in general doesn't mean they should invest all of that into one kind of crime, if i put 200 people working on one assignment who's to say with paperwork among other things that cause delay that just 20 people would be just as effective for the most part, it's likely easier to push a bunch of paper work though channels to get servers and people served. Vs criminals hiding out in obscure locations.
The first step is to decide what the purpose of government is. From that all other answers flow. Today we find ourselves in a situation where our government has no clearly defined purpose, and so we get into irresolvable, endless arguments about what politicians refer to as "issues." We are completely drowning in a sea of pragmatism, and it's like that all over the world.
Nothing can happen without a return to thinking and acting on ideals and principles, rather than approaching each subject as a new task. I'm a pessimist who believes it is a virtual certainty this will never happen.
|
On April 16 2011 09:50 Modafinil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:28 Wohmfg wrote:On April 16 2011 09:23 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 08:10 trias_e wrote:On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote:Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Poker isn't necessarily gambling under that definition. Poker is under the control or influence of the person, due to the option to bet/fold/raise at any given street. Over 70% hands involve pure skill: They end before showdown, meaning someone bet everyone out of the pot. Clearly it is only the actions of players that determine such hands, as no cards are ever shown. Even the hands that do involve some sort of chance are not as clearcut as say, a roulette spin, because of the fact that players make the choice to call or fold in any given situation, a choice that is clearly skill based. Whether or not poker is a game of chance or a game of skill is something that must be determined, and hasn't been determined in any court that I know of. It's not a question of chance vs. skill. It's a question of whether you are 1. risking something of value (your tournament buy-in or your blind, raise, or call in a cash game) 2. upon the outcome of a future contingent event (what cards are coming next, or the actions of your opponent) 3. not under the control or influence of the person (the cards that come out, or your opponent's actions) 4. upon the agreement or understanding that the person will receive something of value (the pot, or the tournament payout) 5. in the event of a certain outcome (having the better hand, your opponent folding, or finishing in the money). You might bet your opponent(s) out of every pot preflop, but every time, whether or not he folded was out of your control. That's a "future contingent event". It was never sure he was going to fold. You don't know what your opponent is going to do, because you don't know his cards. Even if he folded to your first 99 PFRs, you don't know that he's going to fold to the 100th. And even if you were going to be dealt the nuts, you didn't know that until you had put some money in the pot, somehow. You risked money on a future contingent event. It doesn't need to be clear-cut, you just need to put money in, not knowing what would happen, with the possibility of winning something. I don't think you can defend the law in this way. In chess, I don't know what my opponent's next move will be. Therefore, by your reasoning, it is gambling if I put money on myself to win. Maybe if you reword it it will make more sense. Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling?
|
On April 16 2011 09:57 Wohmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:50 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 09:28 Wohmfg wrote:On April 16 2011 09:23 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 08:10 trias_e wrote:On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote:Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Poker isn't necessarily gambling under that definition. Poker is under the control or influence of the person, due to the option to bet/fold/raise at any given street. Over 70% hands involve pure skill: They end before showdown, meaning someone bet everyone out of the pot. Clearly it is only the actions of players that determine such hands, as no cards are ever shown. Even the hands that do involve some sort of chance are not as clearcut as say, a roulette spin, because of the fact that players make the choice to call or fold in any given situation, a choice that is clearly skill based. Whether or not poker is a game of chance or a game of skill is something that must be determined, and hasn't been determined in any court that I know of. It's not a question of chance vs. skill. It's a question of whether you are 1. risking something of value (your tournament buy-in or your blind, raise, or call in a cash game) 2. upon the outcome of a future contingent event (what cards are coming next, or the actions of your opponent) 3. not under the control or influence of the person (the cards that come out, or your opponent's actions) 4. upon the agreement or understanding that the person will receive something of value (the pot, or the tournament payout) 5. in the event of a certain outcome (having the better hand, your opponent folding, or finishing in the money). You might bet your opponent(s) out of every pot preflop, but every time, whether or not he folded was out of your control. That's a "future contingent event". It was never sure he was going to fold. You don't know what your opponent is going to do, because you don't know his cards. Even if he folded to your first 99 PFRs, you don't know that he's going to fold to the 100th. And even if you were going to be dealt the nuts, you didn't know that until you had put some money in the pot, somehow. You risked money on a future contingent event. It doesn't need to be clear-cut, you just need to put money in, not knowing what would happen, with the possibility of winning something. I don't think you can defend the law in this way. In chess, I don't know what my opponent's next move will be. Therefore, by your reasoning, it is gambling if I put money on myself to win. Maybe if you reword it it will make more sense. Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise. So any chess tournament where it costs to enter is gambling?
And if you take that money and use questionable ways of transferring the money to avoid certain laws you too can be served by the government.
|
Pokerstars lowering guarantees... 100k Guaranteed now 50k. Seems like they are moving fast now to reduce losses.
|
On April 16 2011 09:50 Modafinil wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:28 Wohmfg wrote:On April 16 2011 09:23 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 08:10 trias_e wrote:On April 16 2011 08:02 Modafinil wrote:Is "poker" gambling in Oregon? Yes: ORS 167.117 (7): "Gambling" means that a person stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the control or influence of the person, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Because it is against Oregon state law, it is a violation of the UIGEA. We could repeat this for every state. But even if UIGEA didn't exist, it'd still be illegal in your state, and sites could still be liable under state law, which is fine for any definition of "illegal". Poker isn't necessarily gambling under that definition. Poker is under the control or influence of the person, due to the option to bet/fold/raise at any given street. Over 70% hands involve pure skill: They end before showdown, meaning someone bet everyone out of the pot. Clearly it is only the actions of players that determine such hands, as no cards are ever shown. Even the hands that do involve some sort of chance are not as clearcut as say, a roulette spin, because of the fact that players make the choice to call or fold in any given situation, a choice that is clearly skill based. Whether or not poker is a game of chance or a game of skill is something that must be determined, and hasn't been determined in any court that I know of. It's not a question of chance vs. skill. It's a question of whether you are 1. risking something of value (your tournament buy-in or your blind, raise, or call in a cash game) 2. upon the outcome of a future contingent event (what cards are coming next, or the actions of your opponent) 3. not under the control or influence of the person (the cards that come out, or your opponent's actions) 4. upon the agreement or understanding that the person will receive something of value (the pot, or the tournament payout) 5. in the event of a certain outcome (having the better hand, your opponent folding, or finishing in the money). You might bet your opponent(s) out of every pot preflop, but every time, whether or not he folded was out of your control. That's a "future contingent event". It was never sure he was going to fold. You don't know what your opponent is going to do, because you don't know his cards. Even if he folded to your first 99 PFRs, you don't know that he's going to fold to the 100th. And even if you were going to be dealt the nuts, you didn't know that until you had put some money in the pot, somehow. You risked money on a future contingent event. It doesn't need to be clear-cut, you just need to put money in, not knowing what would happen, with the possibility of winning something. I don't think you can defend the law in this way. In chess, I don't know what my opponent's next move will be. Therefore, by your reasoning, it is gambling if I put money on myself to win. Maybe if you reword it it will make more sense. Yeah, it probably would be gambling if you bet on chess... not sure why that's a surprise.
Would you consider it gambling to have a chess tournament with cash prizes as well as entry fees? If so, this is surprising to me.
|
On April 16 2011 09:24 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:11 Drowsy wrote:
Thank goodness the U.S. government is tackling the hard-line issues like this one instead of silly shit like America's massive incarceration rate, unsustainable transfer payment systems, or an outrageously inflated budget. who says this isn't for the budget :D increased income! I always enjoy these posts, I dislike the government in general so when they deal with one thing I'm going to complain about another thing they deal with poorly, as if the said government is incapable of multitasking. Zeesh it's like you're the government mother nothing is every good enough for you is it?
This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else.
|
On April 16 2011 09:52 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:44 Ingenol wrote:On April 16 2011 09:43 Seide wrote:On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote:
So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers. How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task. Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter. Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources?
Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources.
|
On April 16 2011 10:00 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
Pokerstars lowering guarantees... 100k Guaranteed now 50k. Seems like they are moving fast now to reduce losses.
Makes sense to lower it since half their userbase can't play.
|
On April 16 2011 09:33 trias_e wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:23 Modafinil wrote:
3. not under the control or influence of the person (the cards that come out, or your opponent's actions) This is where I have a problem with your argument. Whether or not my opponent folds might not be under my direct control, but it certainly under my influence. Also, folding when I am behind is under my direct control. The only time in poker where something is not in my direct control or influence is an all-in situation with cards yet to come. Even in this case, it was a choice over which I had direct control over in the context of the game to go all-in. If I felt I was behind, I had the choice to fold.
But none of it was under your control or influence when you first put money in the pot. I mean, sure, maybe it wouldn't be "gambling" if you sat at a cash game and never called the bb? But once you do, you've bet on a contingent event that's outside your influence; that's kind of why it's called a "blind". You have no influence on the cards you get dealt, or the cards anyone else gets dealt.
As to "influencing" your opponent's actions, I think that it's a little more complicated, because you can do something *hoping* that your opponent reacts a certain way, but you don't really know that it well, or what that reaction will be. People going against your "influence" is how they suck out; you put them in a situation where they have to have to fold or make a bad call doesn't really mean you're "influencing" them to play correctly and fold. And hell, maybe he makes some kind of meta-game calculation like "if I suck out here this guy is going to steam like crazy", so maybe he makes a "bad" call in the hopes of more payout than just the pot.
Regardless, Oregon actually does better and just goes ahead and defines hold'em and poker generally as a "casino game" that is "gambling":
167.117 (4)
"Casino game" means any of the traditional gambling-based games commonly known as dice, faro, monte, roulette, fan-tan, twenty-one, blackjack, Texas hold-’em, seven-and-a-half, big injun, klondike, craps, poker, chuck-a-luck, Chinese chuck-a-luck (dai shu), wheel of fortune, chemin de fer, baccarat, pai gow, beat the banker, panquinqui, red dog, acey-deucey, or any other gambling-based game similar in form or content.
In other states, it might be considered a "game of skill" but still regulated specifically. In Oregon, at least, it is definitely gambling.
|
On April 16 2011 10:03 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:52 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 09:44 Ingenol wrote:On April 16 2011 09:43 Seide wrote:On April 16 2011 09:41 Scriptix wrote:
So happy they can do this and no hunt down terrorists or murderers. How does one thing stop the other. Or are we using the pretext that the government is a small team that can only dedicate themselves to one task. Governments have fixed resources and should have a clearly defined purpose. Unfortunately ours seems to have forgotten the former (crazy deficit spending) and definitely lacks the latter. Are you qualified to assign which tasks are worth their resources? Yes, we fucking elected them and paid the taxes to give them the resources.
By that logic you would be qualified to build roads, police people and fight fires. So next time you are being robbed or your house is on fire, you should just mosey on over the the police and fire stations to borrow equipment becuase you clearly don't need the trained professionals.
On April 16 2011 10:02 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:24 semantics wrote:On April 16 2011 09:11 Drowsy wrote:
Thank goodness the U.S. government is tackling the hard-line issues like this one instead of silly shit like America's massive incarceration rate, unsustainable transfer payment systems, or an outrageously inflated budget. who says this isn't for the budget :D increased income! I always enjoy these posts, I dislike the government in general so when they deal with one thing I'm going to complain about another thing they deal with poorly, as if the said government is incapable of multitasking. Zeesh it's like you're the government mother nothing is every good enough for you is it? This is a non-issue and the time spent on "dealing" with it could much better be directed almost anywhere else.
That assumes time does not exist and things happen in sequence without having a delay in execution. If i bake a pizza can i not also cook some pasta during the time the pizza is in the oven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
