|
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 10:55 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:50 jeparie wrote:On April 16 2011 10:45 Hatsu wrote:On April 16 2011 10:41 jeparie wrote:On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote:
Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson." That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact. You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong." Also "ruining lives" in some cases. It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives. But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
Half society does nothing "productive" in absolute terms. They were making money on a highly competitive market against people freely willing to risk their money on a skill game with high variance. Under your narrow perception, korean progamers don't do anything "productive" aswell. Guess what, gamblers are "paying" for entetainment aswell as people do to watch progamers. The only kind of human beings that do not deserve respect are those who try to live by stealing from others, be it big companies with illegal practices or people trying to use government as a way to take other's property masking it as "equality".
|
Korea (South)11601 Posts
On April 16 2011 10:55 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:50 jeparie wrote:On April 16 2011 10:45 Hatsu wrote:On April 16 2011 10:41 jeparie wrote:On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote:
Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson." That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact. You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong." Also "ruining lives" in some cases. It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives. But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
They may not do anything like building a highway like your construction workers, or your teachers teaching 5 year olds how to count to ten. But professional poker players provide an entertainment to other people. They provide the ability to have the adrenaline rush to other people who want to risk their few dollars.
They may not provide research or anything useful to the community (but what do movies and actors do? atheletes? How are they any different? Where you are literally allowed to sit down and play with these people in their professional field. There's no way you would be able to put on some ice skates and join the Washington Capitals during their hockey season. They just won't allow it.
Poker is a game where you can play with famous people in their choice of profession.
It is similar to daytrading in the sense you are working at home. But you cant compete with a high class day trader in a social atmosphere like poker.
|
On April 16 2011 10:55 PJA wrote:
But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
Much like starcraft pros... o wait.
And before you say starcraft pros are entertainers, so are poker players. Phil Ivey has like 1000 times the fan base of any US Starcraft player and tons of people follow the results of big online tournaments, watch videos of online pros, etc just like SC2.
How hostile much of TL is to poker just blows my mind.
Pokerstrategy which would not exist without online poker is sponsoring the TSL FFS.
Raging so hard at this post lol.
|
On April 16 2011 10:49 CaucasianAsian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:45 Hatsu wrote:On April 16 2011 10:41 jeparie wrote:On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote:
Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson." That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact. Playing online poker was not and is not illegal. It is illegal for banks/credit card companies to process them to offshore gambling sites reflecting with sports betting and casino games based entirely on luck.
You're still giving your money to a company that's engaged in illegal action by hosting online poker, to say nothing of their financial actions. It's not fair that people are going to lose their money, but anyone paying attention should have been aware of the risk.
|
For anyone that cares, 2p2 seems to be back up for the time being.
And since when does "doing something productive for society" even matter in the US? Isn't that the point of democracy and capitalism?
Not feeling sorry for the people really hit by this just because they don't "contribute" to society is pretty harsh, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the situation.
|
On April 16 2011 10:55 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:50 jeparie wrote:On April 16 2011 10:45 Hatsu wrote:On April 16 2011 10:41 jeparie wrote:On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote:
Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson." That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact. You're confusing "a pretty good lesson" with "absolutely ridiculous punishment for people that didn't do anything wrong." Also "ruining lives" in some cases. It is absolutely ridiculous, and definitely ruining some people's lives. But the people whose lives are being ruined weren't doing anything productive for society. Not saying they deserved it, but it makes it hard to feel sorry for them.
How does one be a productive member of society? One could make the case that everyone is productive in one way or another.
|
If you want to talk about doing nothing productive for society, look at politicians. Stealing trillions of dollars world-wide annually.
|
On April 16 2011 11:06 benefluence wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:49 CaucasianAsian wrote:On April 16 2011 10:45 Hatsu wrote:On April 16 2011 10:41 jeparie wrote:On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote:
Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson." That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact. Playing online poker was not and is not illegal. It is illegal for banks/credit card companies to process them to offshore gambling sites reflecting with sports betting and casino games based entirely on luck. You're still giving your money to a company that's engaged in illegal action by hosting online poker, to say nothing of their financial actions. It's not fair that people are going to lose their money, but anyone paying attention should have been aware of the risk.
the risk that brick and mortar (read: las vegas) push for legislation to trample online competition through legislature. blame the 'free market'
|
oh man im so glad i decided not to invest anymore money in poker lol. this really blows for a lot of people though..wow O.o
|
On April 16 2011 10:16 crojar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote:
A friend told me about this while at was at work. My basic response was this: I have no real sympathy for those who can't access their money or funds. This has been illegal since its existence and you were taking a risk in putting your money into something that could have been seized at any time. I saw a documentary on this on ABC about a year ago and I wised up - I decided not to put any money into pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money. Luckily it's not a crime to have poor reading comprehension. It's not illegal at all unless you live in a state where it's defined as such. Like New York or Washington. God I wish 2p2 was up.
Who cares, the point is that it's illegal to run these sites in the US, so you're stupid if you hand over large amounts of money to people engaging in illegal activity, whether it's legal for you to play or not. The sites are not legal. They simply circumvent the system, and authorities have been ignoring it. That is, up until now. I'm not just talking about the payment processing thing..the act of online gambling is illegal in the US, regardless of anything else.
Anybody who plays poker is well aware of these facts (if you aren't, I doubt you were making any money playing poker anyway..lol).
Proof - > what just happened
|
On April 16 2011 11:14 applejuice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:16 crojar wrote:On April 16 2011 10:14 enzymezero wrote:
A friend told me about this while at was at work. My basic response was this: I have no real sympathy for those who can't access their money or funds. This has been illegal since its existence and you were taking a risk in putting your money into something that could have been seized at any time. I saw a documentary on this on ABC about a year ago and I wised up - I decided not to put any money into pokerstars - where I was playing pretty heavily with "play" money. Luckily it's not a crime to have poor reading comprehension. It's not illegal at all unless you live in a state where it's defined as such. Like New York or Washington. God I wish 2p2 was up. Who cares, the point is that it's illegal to run these sites in the US, so you're stupid if you hand over large amounts of money to people engaging in illegal activity, whether it's legal for you to play or not. The sites are not legal. They simply circumvent the system, and authorities have been ignoring it. That is, up until now. Anybody who plays poker is well aware of these facts (if you aren't, I doubt you were making any money playing poker anyway..lol). Proof - > what just happened
anytime you say 'illegal' it should be in quotes imo.
|
Korea (South)11601 Posts
On April 16 2011 11:06 benefluence wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:49 CaucasianAsian wrote:On April 16 2011 10:45 Hatsu wrote:On April 16 2011 10:41 jeparie wrote:On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote:
Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson." That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact. Playing online poker was not and is not illegal. It is illegal for banks/credit card companies to process them to offshore gambling sites reflecting with sports betting and casino games based entirely on luck. You're still giving your money to a company that's engaged in illegal action by hosting online poker, to say nothing of their financial actions. It's not fair that people are going to lose their money, but anyone paying attention should have been aware of the risk.
No one had any idea that they were performing any illegal acts beside those engaged in them personally. If Amazon got hijacked by the FBI for insider trading or over-charing peoples credit cards by a penny per purchase for instance, no one would know. (bad example, but still relevant in the same idea no one knew FTP was making fake companies to give me what I wanted which on my end is completely legal)
If anyone knew FTP and PStars were engaging in illegal activity no one would have played there. (Much the same reason why UltimateBet/Absolute had a MUCH smaller player pool because they had super users / the phil helmuth hand scandal)
|
Glad I only have a bankroll on partypoker right now after having withdrawn my other bankrolls last week (enjoying the incredible amounts of fish on party right now :D)
|
Wow, really can't believe this happened. People like Dwan, Ivey, and Negreanu have millions of dollars on these sites, and to hear that it's all been poofed away is kind of scary...
It also makes me kind of thankful that I didn't pursue online poker as much as I had planned to this year, but still, wow. Interested to see how this fiasco develops over the upcoming weeks.
|
On April 16 2011 11:19 vlaric wrote:
Wow, really can't believe this happened. People like Dwan, Ivey, and Negreanu have millions of dollars on these sites, and to hear that it's all been poofed away is kind of scary...
It also makes me kind of thankful that I didn't pursue online poker as much as I had planned to this year, but still, wow. Interested to see how this fiasco develops over the upcoming weeks.
Those guys won't lose their money. They will be the first people to get payed. Negative publicity from them = catastrophe for the site.
|
On April 16 2011 11:14 applejuice wrote:
the act of online gambling is illegal in the US, regardless of anything else.
This is false. I don't know where you got this information, but you are misinformed.
Anybody who plays poker is well aware of these facts (if you aren't, I doubt you were making any money playing poker anyway..lol).
This is also false.
|
On April 16 2011 10:43 relyt wrote:
Why can't you play online poker but you can be a day trader?
Scottrade, eTrade, etc. pay taxes and Pokerstars/FTP didn't. It's that simple really.
|
Wow so many people arguing. Who cares?
Just because it's illegal, it doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
|
On April 16 2011 11:16 CaucasianAsian wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 11:06 benefluence wrote:On April 16 2011 10:49 CaucasianAsian wrote:On April 16 2011 10:45 Hatsu wrote:On April 16 2011 10:41 jeparie wrote:On April 16 2011 10:36 Hatsu wrote:
Yes, indeed it is. But living off something like that entails a certain risk. As I said I sympathize on a personal level, but what is happening is not unfair to them or anything, it is simply a pretty good lesson. It might be a good time to look at other career opportunities, especially for those with a decent amount of money (I have a feeling good poker players might be good traders too).
You do realize that there are people that could be losing 5 and 6 figures here. That's hardly "a pretty good lesson." That is the very definition of a "pretty good lesson", in fact. Playing online poker was not and is not illegal. It is illegal for banks/credit card companies to process them to offshore gambling sites reflecting with sports betting and casino games based entirely on luck. You're still giving your money to a company that's engaged in illegal action by hosting online poker, to say nothing of their financial actions. It's not fair that people are going to lose their money, but anyone paying attention should have been aware of the risk. No one had any idea that they were performing any illegal acts beside those engaged in them personally. If Amazon got hijacked by the FBI for insider trading or over-charing peoples credit cards by a penny per purchase for instance, no one would know. (bad example, but still relevant in the same idea no one knew FTP was making fake companies to give me what I wanted which on my end is completely legal) If anyone knew FTP and PStars were engaging in illegal activity no one would have played there. (Much the same reason why UltimateBet/Absolute had a MUCH smaller player pool because they had super users / the phil helmuth hand scandal)
I am in the same boat as you, but that's not true. If you followed the legislation whatsoever it was evident from the moment UIGEA went into effect that by paying our withdrawals someone was engaging in an illegal activity, either the site (deceiving the banks) or the bank (not complying with UIGEA).
I'm not saying this isn't ludicrous on the governments part and that UIGEA is a huge steaming pile of shit, along with public smoking bans, social security and everything else the government has done since FDR was sworn in, but to any regular player paying attention it should have been clear that some legal funny business was afoot.
|
On April 16 2011 10:25 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 10:21 Modafinil wrote:On April 16 2011 09:57 Wohmfg wrote: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? Ah, now that's probably tricky. If it's a tournament with an entry fee, but a pre-set prize, then maybe not. You're just paying an entry fee. Often there's some kind of prize fund supplementing the tournament, from club fees or something. Even if you had to "join the club" to enter the tournament, and all the prize money comes from the "club". It's different in poker - usually it's a tournament where you pay $50+5 or something, with the $5 as your fee and $50 going into the winnings pot with a payout structure like 60%/30%/10%, that's probably gambling, even if you're playing chess. I mean, if you go play chess hustlers in the park for money, that's gambling, definitely. That's just "I bet you $50 I can beat you in chess." I know it's a dumb semantic difference, but it's more about the appearance of it than the logical difference. You can definitely gamble on chess. But most tournaments just aren't going to be treated as "gambling". If millions of people were spending billions of dollars competing in online chess, the law would treat it differently. Sure, some people do. But not at the same level as poker. Chess has a different cultural situation than cards. It's not rational but it's how people operate. In chess, you can't raise the stakes during the game. In poker you can.
You cannot raise the stakes during a game of poker. When you sit down at a cash game, you are staking all of the money you buy into that game with, and when you enter a tournament, you are staking the amount of money that the tournament costs to enter. There is no situation were you can choose to raise the stake mid-hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
