Are you being serious?

I didnt say nobody could make a lot of money? Of course the good players wil make money. I dont think you read me correctly.

I said that I think the good players run worse than the bad, and in that case it would mean that you should have earned more. But on the otherside, the rigged site get more money deposited on their site than a non rigged site would get. So the good players can get more out of every bad players, but the money is shuffled around more and is harder earned for the good players. So I guess that means that the best players should get at least what they are getting now, but not a lot more.

Im not saying your not worthy of your money. If you have earned 23k on poker, you would have earned at least that if the site was fair.

No no, you read me wrong. Or I explained bad, I am sorry.

I say the good players run worse than the bad players. But the good players still can win by running bad. By this I mean that overall, a player who is up a lot of money should be slitghly up a little more on average.

Of course.

As I said, would you care to explain why you think his comment was anything other than perfectly sensible?

Actually, Nfuego, some of this is correct but its hidden in his ranting conclusionary style.
First of all, nothing can be proven beyond fact. Second, the U.S. forbids sports betting over wire and phone lines, but gambling in the U.S. is within the realm of state law not federal law. That is why we have Vegas on one hand and on the other Washington State declaring internet poker a crime for its residence. Third, there is nothing illegal about an out of country website accepting money over the internet, the Fed gov't passed a law that makes it illegal for banks, of a certain size, to fund internet gambling, including poker. This law has yet to be tested in court as no person or organization has been prosecuted to date.

Sites that are offshore are not governed by U.S. law, but other than you and LEGO, no one expects them to be. They operate in a country that allows internet gambling. They operate legally.

Our international courts may one day deal with internet gambling (doubt it) but the WTO ruled against the U.S. on this issue. But that is only a trade organization, not a court of law.

It would be most helpful if you could explain why the comment is worthy of anything but derision.

LOL. yea you would believe luck plays no part in poker. Your that dilusional. Drink up!

I think that as the newbie with a very dodgy surname it is for you to start the explanations since you seem to be trying to ridicule a long standing and respected member here for making a perfectly sensible comment.

Could you be any more idiotic if you tried?

The part of your drivel that the 'wrong' was directed at was: "Also the reason there is no court rulings is there is no courts."

el wrongo

fallacious answer

erroneous.

I put it to you, sir, that the comment in question is most laughable.

Probably seems funny to anyone too stupid to understand the fundamental truth of it.

You need to at least take a stab at explaining why you think it's amusing because otherwise everyone is going to simply assume it's because you don't understand.

This!
Awaiting your answer raymears

My comment or the other comment?

Zigmund Sahamies. the online high stakes poker pro just quit FTP for pokerstars because, get this: "FTP software gives me the creeps" ..is he really saying it's manipulated/rigged?....link below..

http://www.coinflip.com/news/coincli...-sahamies.html

There would of course still be a jurisdictional argument to be made given that both the accused and the victim were in the U.S. during the the crime.

I'm not so sure a civil action could actually be successfully brought by that many people since a lot of them got their money back.



Anyway this has gone way beyond the simple point I was originally trying to make.

"Walking across the street" was meant to be a little comical ..... but that in no way makes it any less true that walking across the street is part skill and part luck. Everything in life is, just to varying degrees.

Starting a restaurant and being successful obviously takes a huge amount of luck.




But no, I am not a stand-up comedian.

I don't expect the sites to be governed by U.S. law. I never said anything of the sort. No where in our conversation were we even talking about the sites being subject to U.S. law. We were talking about an individual, who is a U.S. citizen and lives in the U.S. At no point did I say anything about prosecuting the site.

He said the software, not the RNG. In reading that I assumed he was talking about the interface. Different people have different opinions on whether they like the PokerStars software better, the Full Tilt software better, or they don't really care much.

standard Shill response!

Nope, not a shill. Just read the article. That's exactly what he says: "software". Do you think if he was saying that Full Tilt rigged the deal he might use words like: RNG, rig, deal, cheating, manipulation, improper distributions, or something else as opposed to saying he thinks the software is creepy?


The article is pretty ambiguous.

indeed....he seems to have something to lose...lol.

Oh do come on!

Quote: "The whole Full Tilt software started to give me creeps, it almost made me vomit. It might sound ridiculous, but I am not superstitious or anything"

The handulator is not a piece of software?