Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition
View Poll Results: Is Online Poker Rigged?
Yes
3,508 34.88%
No
5,615 55.84%
Undecided
933 9.28%

05-05-2010 , 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicrun
its very obvious he is saying its ILLEGAL for anyone on US soil to be gambling over the internet, yes i know....so harrrd to fanthom but it is infact US law.
Actually, it's not.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
AMEC0404 -> English dictionary

everyone -> a few rigtards.




AMEC0404 -> English dictionary

no one -> a lot of people.



AMEC0404 -> English dictionary

90% -> 0.0013%.
you cant win an argument so you have to stoop to being the grammar police to show how pathetic you truly are....WEEEEEE WOOOOOO WEEEEEEEE WOOOOO GRAMMAR POLICE!
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Actually, it's not.
it is so why do you think they advertise with .net and not .com....blind def and stupid all wrapped into one. god was in a good mood on your day.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:34 PM
Oh look I can look up stuff on the interwebs too.

Criticism
The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for what many consider its lurid headlines, sensationalism, blatant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review opined that "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."[29]
Perhaps the most serious allegation against the Post is that it is willing to contort its news coverage to suit the business needs of Murdoch, in particular that the paper has avoided reporting anything that is unflattering to the government of the People's Republic of China. Murdoch has invested heavily in satellite television in China and wants to maintain the favor of local media regulators.[30]
Ian Spiegelman, a former reporter for the paper's Page Six gossip column who had been fired by the paper in 2004,[31] said in a statement for a law suit against the paper that in 2001 he was ordered to kill an item on Page Six about a Chinese diplomat and a strip club because it would have "angered the Communist regime and endangered Murdoch’s broadcast privileges."
Critics say that the Post allows its editorial positions to shape its story selection and news coverage. But as the Post executive editor, Steven D. Cuozzo, sees it, it was the Post that "broke the elitist media stranglehold on the national agenda."
According to a survey conducted by Pace University in 2004, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[32]
The Public Enemy song "A Letter to the New York Post" from their album Apocalypse '91...The Enemy Strikes Black is a complaint about what they believed to be negative and inaccurate coverage African-Americans received from the paper.
There have been numerous controversies surrounding the Post:
In 1997 a national news story concerning Rebecca Sealfon's victory in the Scripps National Spelling Bee circulated. Sealfon was sponsored by the Daily News. The Post published a picture of her but altered the photograph to remove the name of the Daily News as printed on a placard she was wearing.[33]
On November 8, 2000, the Post printed "BUSH WINS!" in a huge headline,[34] although the presidential election remained in doubt because of the recount needed in Florida. Like the Post, many other newspapers around the country published a similar headline after the four major TV networks called the election for Bush.
On March 10, 2004, the Post re-ran as a full-color page one photograph,[35] a photograph that had already been run three days earlier in black and white on page 9, showing the 24-story suicide plunge of a New York University student, who had since been identified as 19-year-old Diana Chien, daughter of a prominent Silicon Valley, California, businessman. Among criticisms levelled at the Post [36] was their having added a tightly cropped inset photograph of Chien, a former high-school track athlete, depicting her in mid-jump from an athletic meet, giving the false impression that it was taken during her fatal act, despite the fact that she had fallen face up.
On July 4, 2004, the Post ran an article claiming to have learned exclusively that Senator John Kerry, the Democratic Party's Presidential nominee-in-waiting, had selected former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt to be the Party's Vice Presidential nominee. The article, under the headline "KERRY'S CHOICE," ran without a byline.[37] The next day, the Post had to print a new story, "KERRY'S REAL CHOICE", reporting Kerry's actual selection of Senator John Edwards of North Carolina as his running mate.
On April 21, 2006, several Asian-American advocacy groups protested the use of the headline "Wok This Way" for a Post article about President Bush's meeting with the president of the People's Republic of China.[38]
On September 27, 2006, the Post published an article called "Powder Puff Spooks Keith" that made fun of Countdown host Keith Olbermann receiving an anthrax threat from an unknown terrorist.[39]
On December 7, 2006, the Post doctored a front-page photograph to depict the co-chairmen of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker and Lee Hamilton, in primate fur, under the headline "SURRENDER MONKEYS", inspired by a once-used line from The Simpsons. In defense of the "Surrender Monkeys" headline, media contributor Simon Dumenco wrote an Ad Age article about his love for the Post. [40]
On April 23, 2008, the Post ran a "Page Six" story stating that there was a sex tape about to surface featuring actor/stuntman Bam Margera and Lindsey Hughes, fiancée of radio personality Gregg "Opie" Hughes, co-host of the Opie and Anthony Show. It also stated that Hughes was planning on taking legal action to prevent the tape from running on the internet. Hughes himself said adamantly that there was no sex tape and he had never planned on taking any legal action against the phantom tape from surfacing. Also, on April 24, 2008, Margera confirmed during a phone-in to the Opie and Anthony Show that there was no sex tape and he had never met Opie's fiancée in his life. The Post printed a full retraction on May 5, 2008, after it was revealed that Chaunce Hayden of Steppin' Out magazine had supplied false information about the existence of the tape.
On February 18, 2009, the Post ran a cartoon by Sean Delonas that depicted a white police officer saying to another white police officer who has just shot a chimpanzee on the street: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." The cartoon referred the recent rampage of Travis, a former chimpanzee actor and was criticized to be in bad taste[41] primarily by making a reference to the racist stereotype of African-Americans being portrayed as non-human apes.The cartoon has been interpreted by some to compare President Barack Obama to a violent chimpanzee who promoted a stimulus bill that was unpopular with many Republicans. Civil rights activist/self-promoter Al Sharpton called the cartoon "troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys."[42] The Post has defended itself by stating that the cartoon was deliberately misinterpreted by its critics. [43]
The Post and the Daily News often take potshots at each other's work and accuracy, particularly in their respective gossip-page items.
In certain editions of the February 14, 2007, newspaper, an article referring to then-Senator Hillary Clinton's support base for her 2008 presidential run referred to then-Senator Obama as "Osama";[44] the paper realized its error and corrected it for the later editions and the website.[45] The Post noted the error and apologized in the February 15, 2007, edition.[46] Earlier, on January 20, 2007, the Post received some criticism[47] for running a potentially misleading headline, "'Osama' Mud Flies at Obama",[48] for a story that discussed rumors that then-Senator Obama had been raised as a Muslim and concealed it.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMEC0404
oops
NY Post article isn't a law. The national media has been very well known to have no idea about the legality of online gambling and many times just blanketly state that it is illegal.

Many lawyers disagree with that assertion. Other lawyers agree with it.


As far as I know nobody has ever been prosecuted for playing online poker. Also as far as I know no poker site or owner has ever had criminal charges filed against it.




Please post the statute(s) that make you believe it is illegal.





Of course none of this has anything to do with rigging which is what this thread is supposed to be about.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicrun
you cant win an argument so you have to stoop to being the grammar police to show how pathetic you truly are....WEEEEEE WOOOOOO WEEEEEEEE WOOOOO GRAMMAR POLICE!
It has nothing to do with grammar.

It has to do with semantics. In order for what AMEC0404 posted to make sense the words he used would need alternative semantics.

You seem to be using the same dictionary as AMEC0404.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eY5boHPP6Y did you hear the part when he says even tho its "ILLEGAL and UNREGUALTED in the US" heres a better link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn66ACZkKXA
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:35 PM
never said it was illegal to play online poker. I said its illegal for any institution to fund an online gaming acct in the US. The problem is the banks in the US are abiding to these laws, but the Pokersites themselves have done all they can to mask where these funds are going. How do you think echecks are still available to US players? BC they keep changing the processor. Inca/TRNpay/webpay1/others Im sure.

So the US can charge the banks with felonies but when they investigate, they see that the banks tries to abide the law and were tricked (fraud) into funding gaming sites anyways
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicrun
it is so why do you think they advertise with .net and not .com....blind def and stupid all wrapped into one. god was in a good mood on your day.
As Lego05 asked: Please post the statute that makes playing poker illegal under US law.

Unless you can do that you have no legitimate grounds for saying that it is illegal, under federal law, to play online poker in the U.S.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicrun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eY5boHPP6Y did you hear the part when he says even tho its "ILLEGAL and UNREGUALTED in the US" heres a better link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn66ACZkKXA
ROFLMAO!

Yeah, right, youtube is obviously the final arbiter on matters of US law.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMEC0404
the bottom line is everyone already knows that online poker is not legit. Whether it be the RNG, house players, bots, RNG manipulation, mass data mining/MAing everyone knows that something is wrong.

WHY DO YOU THINK NO ONE PLAYS ONLINE ANY MORE?????????????????

Why do you think that 90% of the people you talk to, think online poker is rigged?

I just want a fair game, that;s all Ive ever wanted.

Game seems fair to me.


If you have evidence pointing toward it not being fair please let one of your next 3 posts contain such evidence.




Also according to PokerScout.com there are a bunch of people who still play online.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
ROFLMAO!

Yeah, right, youtube is obviously the final arbiter on matters of US law.
well considoring its 60 minutes and not infact youtube and everybody in these forums have infact seen this episode. nice try but you just keep failing. im sure you and your buds will make 60 minutes someday. you can dream!
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMEC0404
never said it was illegal to play online poker. I said its illegal for any institution to fund an online gaming acct in the US.
You tell lies, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMEC0404
No, its straight illegal to fund an online gaming acct. no matter what method you use.
No mention of 'an institution'.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicrun
its very obvious he is saying its ILLEGAL for anyone on US soil to be gambling over the internet, yes i know....so harrrd to fanthom but it is infact US law.
It is in fact not IMO illegal for American citizens to play poker online (except possibly in ~13 specific states). I will grant it very well may be illegal to sportsbet online.


Please quote for me the statute that makes you believe this is illegal.



Also how is this related to rigging?
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05


Also according to PokerScout.com there are a bunch of people and bots who still play online.
FYP
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicrun
well considoring its 60 minutes and not infact youtube and everybody in these forums have infact seen this episode. nice try but you just keep failing. im sure you and your buds will make 60 minutes someday. you can dream!
US law is not determined by 60 mins, either.

It's determined by the legislature and the courts.

To support your assertion you need to show either primary legislation or case law.

Snippets from the mass media mean very little or nothing.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:42 PM
when I say people, I mean people. Half the traffic in micro/low limit cashgames are bots.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
You tell lies, too.



No mention of 'an institution'.
are you infact stating that CBS and 60 minutes have posted pure blatant lies about the authenticity of whether or not online poker is illegal under US law?
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:43 PM
Why does Stars and FTP have to change echeck payment processors every couple of months? TRN/webpay1/Inca are the ones Ive seen and I only started using echecks on Stars a couple months ago
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMEC0404
FYP
More lies.

Pokerscout makes no mention of bots in its traffic figures.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMEC0404
Why does Stars and FTP have to change echeck payment processors every couple of months?
Because payment processors work with banks which are financial institutions.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicrun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eY5boHPP6Y did you hear the part when he says even tho its "ILLEGAL and UNREGUALTED in the US" heres a better link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn66ACZkKXA
IMO that 60 minutes report is a main reason why some people think it is illegal to play poker on the internet.

I believe 60 minutes was incorrect as do the sites, as does the PPA, as do many lawyers.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicrun
are you infact stating that CBS and 60 minutes have posted pure blatant lies about the authenticity of whether or not online poker is illegal under US law?
I am, in fact, stating that CBS and 60 mins are not arbiters of US law.

The enactment and interpretation of that law is the province of the U.S. legislature and the U.S. courts, respectively.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMEC0404
FYP
Do you have any evidence of bots .... or are you just saying something
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote
05-05-2010 , 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lego05
IMO that 60 minutes report is a main reason why some people think it is illegal to play poker on the internet.

I believe 60 minutes was incorrect as do the sites, as does the PPA, as do many lawyers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_poker#Legality maybe you should do alittle reading. alot of people quit playing online because its a sham. even if some sites arent rigged they cant stop all the cheating, most people use programs like tournament shark data mining etc. this gives an edge. most players would rather play where they can see a deck being shuffled. cant blame them either. as for bots most people know they exsist.
The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition Quote

      
m