Eh, I guess it does read that way a bit, but I wasn't trying to be melodramatic. My family is much more important to me than poker, and I won't compromise their safety for the sake of a game. And let's face it, even low stakes home games can attract people that you might not want in your home. A thorough screening process is a mechanism for identifying these people and keeping them out.

A short conversation can tell you a lot about a person, and so can a background check. I don't see a problem with doing both.

Sheesh. I was attempting to make a point with a play on words - you're reading way too much into my statement.

It comes down to risk-reward analysis. Most of my new players have found the game through existing players that I trust. I consider these guys low risk, don't do much vetting other than getting basic contact info before the first game, and have been pretty successful with that so far.

Randoms who find my game via online ads need more vetting before they even get an invitation to my home - in part because my family lives here, and in part because I want to confirm that the player is a good fit for the existing player base. I think a more in-depth screening process is reasonable in this case - the more information I can get, the better my decision will be.

It just depends on where you personally draw the line on valuing someone's privacy over possibly allowing an undesirable character into your game. I might draw it at a criminal background check, while someone else may not see a problem in hiring a private eye to surreptitiously follow around possible attendees.

I can't fault OP, nor anyone who chooses a similar method. It's just not for me.

A voluntary criminal background check and surreptitious surveillance are two vastly different things. Who's being melodramatic now?

As long as the player is aware of the screening and consents, I don't see that there's a privacy issue.

Fair enough. Honestly, I'm not sure that this method is for me either, but I'm thinking about it.

Of course it is anecdotal. But it is also relevant for him. We all make decisions based on our own experiences. The problem I had with your post was you were being dismissive.

I see you haven't changed. Of course, why would you?

Any chance that you might perhaps examine the common factor in some of the reactions you've had?


It's still amazing to me that someone who claims not to care is so thin-skinned.... AND obtuse.

Perhaps, one day, you'll be able to look at your writing style, from another person's viewpoint, and maybe interpret it in a different manner than you currently do.... but, I'm not hopeful about that.



oh, the irony....

FYP.

I give a rat's ass about someone's privacy, when I'm dealing with some unknown person. If that drives some potential players off.... I'll eat that cost (given that I'm not running a business anyway, losing potential 'customers' of a colorful background isn't going to cost me sleep).


However, proving or disproving a negative isn't "proof" that is ISN'T warranted, either.


No.

When I first proposed starting my game, I got a lot of negative reaction from my wife and my parents, along with some non-poker people.... centered mainly around the "inviting strange gamblers into your home, where your kids are??" paranoia.

Remember, the common image of poker players is NOT the same one that we, the enlightened insiders, have.


It's probably a good thing people like SGspecial didn't show up until later... or my startup might have been done before it began....

Hey, it's not my fault I wasn't blessed with the kid whispering skills of someone like Evil Jafar! Sounds like you guys could go on arguing this point forever, but I think there's enough info itt already to lead most reasonable people to the side of "keep the obvious nutjobs out even if you lose a few potential good players in the process." I will add, however, that most of the questions in Larry's CPA exam have to do with the prospective player's preferences, and good hosts like him really do try to please everyone they invite with the spread of games and stakes that they provide.

Oh, suddenly I'm a GOOD host? What, absence makes the heart grow fonder, or sumptin' ?


moi?? Beat something into the ground? SURELY you jest!

He's serious. And don't call him Shirley.

I'm far and away the most thick skinned person here. I couldn't
care less what anyone in this thread or this forum says about me, I use this site as a time killer and to once in a blue moon pick up decent strategy advice. Say anything you like in a thread, I'll never get insulted or complain to a mod about langauge. Doesn't bother me in the least, you guys are the ones who are ultra nitty, extremely conservative and boring, and generally turn tiny rules technicalities into the world's biggest controversies.

The only things I've complained about have been bizarre, creepy, unnecessary PM's by people who can't handle the way I speak in these forums. that, and a couple of angry, easily offended middle aged people who have started posting immediately after me in every thread I enter. It's weird behavior. It began again in the form of ChicagoTroy, who I don't even remember ever exchanging posts with and barely remember seeing here, sending me PM's six and seven paragraphs long ranting and raving about how wrong I am about OP's game. This follows other such similar instances. Before you tell the forum how wrong this is, keep in mind that I have the PM's and that PFap has creepily admitted openly in this forum to following my posts because I "push his buttons".

You don't like the way I say things? That's fine. Certainly your right. But people should try keeping it normal and not obsessing over it.

And, no, I haven't changed at all. I'm still a successful, well-educated, well-spoken individual with a good life, a happy marriage, and enjoyable experiences at poker. Never once in my life have I created a problem for anyone whose home game I attended, nor has anyone who has attended mine caused a problem. I have had the same number of major incidents and undesirable people as OP has* - zero. This is without using "law enforcement" to perform a background check (no idea how this is even legal, it sure as hell is not an action that could be legally performed by the NYPD) and without a multi page vetting process.

I popped back in here after I said I'd bounce just to see how it had progressed, since there have been a heavy number of posts in the past few days. What I see is more unfair treatment of someone with a non-nitty dissenting opinion. Asdf posts that he finds it a bit strange, and gets jumped on.

* in the interests of full disclosure, the only person ever not invited back to my home game for activity at it was a guy we'll call K who went by "Raks" or "Chip Raks". This individual posted here in this forum a couple of years ago, and was banned from the site for the same reason they weren't invited back to my home game - excessive promotion of and lying about his own illegally raked home game after trying to convince people it wasn't raked

This is nice and I'm glad you were able have your vetting process provide what you consider to be a worthwhile result, but this ultimately does zero to prove your point. First, as aforementioned, this does nothing to weed out people who have no criminal record, or people who've lied during the "etiquette" portion of your application. They can still get into your game as they can get into mine. Second, your example is an obvious cherry pick. It doesn't mean much unless you also include the people who've spoken to you about coming to the game and then ceasing being interested because of the bizarre nature of your screening process.

I really am curious as to how it's legal for your law enforcement friends/sources to be getting background information for you on potential applicants. They perform private background checks for you while on the job of people who want to come to a poker game? How is this possible?

golf clap

I mean, nicely done. Nice performance. Keep fightin' on, there, champ!




Have they changed the laws in NY already, or isn't it still illegal to play in many of the games that I think you've reported on?

I mean, if the legality of something is so central to your stance on things....

oh, naive young child.....

No, they can't necessarily, because that's only part of the process. If you're foolishly thinking that he, or I, believes it's 100% guaranteed.... then put down the crack pipe.

I believe you should review again:

"Probably around 5-10%. I get about a 33% non-completion rate during the screening process though so I think a lot of people that I would turn down weed themselves out for me. "

I'll bet that 50% of the people who stopped would have been decent for his game... and 50% wouldn't. So, he's ahead of the game.

As for your reduced screening process and its success rate, I'll quote a famous philosopher

"This is nice and I'm glad you were able have your vetting process provide what you consider to be a worthwhile result, but this ultimately does zero to prove your point"

BWAAHAHAHHAHAHAHA.

Wait, the famous words of that world-famous philosopher are coming back to me:

" But you cannot post this in a public forum and then expect no dissenting opinions."


and asdfasdf32- I hope you've recovered from the tramatizing experience that you'd experienced, here... obviously. We still luvs you lots, really! I hope your doctor will be okay with that.