Joe Sebok is fail lol nothing more

haters gonna hate.

people who claim they played on cereus because they felt safer because of sebok have only themselves to blame. the logic is so flawed

the people who judge sebok for doing business (taking money) from shady organizations/corporations really need to put things into perspective. 1st if you put ur money on cereus and then judge sebok, that seems incredibly hypocritical. you are all grown men who can make ur own decisions regardless of who is the sponsor.

2nd if you boycotted cereus and judge sebok, you dont have all the facts and dont know his perspective. plus you would be surprised how many shady corporations you yourself deal with. and what exactly did he do that was so wrong? and what makes you the moral authority on what is right and wrong?

never judge another, because you dont know all the facts and all the different perspectives on the issues involved. plus it lowers your vibration/energy/attitude

Yea, never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes, because then he'll be a mile away and you'll have his shoes. (quote from I forgot who; Mitch Hedburg maybe?)

I really don't understand the gibberish I quoted from the post above. Sounds stupid to me...

If you look at my past posts regarding Sebok you would see i have supported him. Even though i have 40 on there.

But i will say this. I wish i had done more educating myself on the situation there. I do however remember hearing that the ownership had changed hands. I don't remember WHERE i heard this though. Makes sense it would happen and i believed it. I think Joe was spreading this message. If AP/UB really did change hands why should we have felt so nervous to play there?

I know after Jack in the Box had that Ecoli scare years ago i felt really safe eating a burger there. Seems to me like they would be the most likely joint to have been cooking the hell out of their burgers afterwards.

I applied some of the same logic to AP. If they had another problem in the short term, it would hurt them more than any other site. They make millions or billions without cheating. so why would they risk it when it would hurt them so much if a second incident occurred?

Also how hard should it be to update their software? I wasn't too scared about that whole deal as long as new ownership was in place. Well i guess i was wrong about new ownership. That Scott Tom guy sounds like a complete douche. If i had known he was involved i would have never played there or at the very least kept a very low balance there. Preferably wouldn't have played there, but i can 't say that for sure.

People don't require 100% of information to be able to pass judgement and have an opinion. It is entirely natural and normal to make reasonable conclusions on the basis of available information.

The game of poker is a simple demonstration of how it is possible to make judgements on incomplete information. Sometimes we're wrong, but generally, if you make a good faith effort to consider an issue, you can make a reasonable judgment on the basis of the information available.

Further, even if there was some important facts hidden from public view, then that is only the fault of the people who are privvy to that information - in this case, Joe Sebok and his partners.

I don't do any marketing for 'shady corporations'. Do you do marketing for 'shady corporations'? Who else in this thread are you saying is marketing 'shady corporations'?

He was marketing on behalf of what you implied was a 'shady corporation'. Isn't that obvious?

Your appeal to moral relativity is terrible, and the post-modern reasoning behind moral relativity is abysmal, but that's too much of a hijack of this thread.

Your post manages to combine misunderstanding the issues, terrible logic, and dismisses the capability of anyone to comment on issues of public significance.

does joe seebok even show his face at poker events now? like the upcoming wsop?

encourage many unsuspecting people to deposit their money with a criminal enterprise owned by thieves for one

We'll get back to you on that in about a month or so.

right, but no matter how much info you have you cant judge from his perspective. some people believe it is healthy and productive to judge others, i dont. not to say i dont catch myself doing it sometimes but im always getting better.

agree with this, but im talking about a different type of judgement. the type where you analyze a situation and come to the conclusion you dont like the behavior of another human being and choose to focus on their behavior for a period of time, often communicating to others your disapproval. a complete waste of time, unhealthy and can only apply to your perspective. no matter how sure you are that you are right doesnt make it so.

assuming Joe Sebok had all the important facts is also a mistake, he may have been lied to, you dont know. it sure seems he wasnt the only one who believed they had cleaned up their act.

if i remember correctly and i apologize if i am wrong, you market for PokerStars or at least used to. there are many people who believe pokerstars has done "shady" things too. there were a lot of unhappy people when the Asian DON ring was finally broken up.

here is a perfect example that should show you my point on perspectives. lets say your wife/husband lost your entire life savings on pokerstars and lost your house. you would probably think that people who market for PokerStars are total scum. there are millions of people on this planet that think pokerstars is a shady corporation and they judge you for marketing for them. who is to say if they are right or you are right.

also, most likely your hard earned money makes it into the bank accounts of 1000's of corporations every year. and i highly doubt you keep track of every corporation you give your money to and then research every single one of them to make sure they are all up to your standards.

he felt he asked enough questions and did enough research to believe they were no longer shady. in fact the jury is still out there is so much we dont know rt now.

this is your opinion, and a perfect example of judging others, being negative, and lowering your energy. i liked your arguments but this last paragraph seems like a complete waste of time to me.

I don't know any of the details but unless this Asian DON ring was organised by members of senior management/owners at Pokerstars and then they tried to cover it up, it's not equivalent to UB's shadiness.

The 'everyone in poker is shady' argument is lazy IMO. Yes, we can just go ahead and say gambling is inherently shady and then everyone involved in gambling is morally equivalent but there are clearly very different degrees of shadiness within those parameters. Where does it stop? Providing a method of gambling is morally equivalent to a site which is simply a Ponzi scheme and one day the owners just vanish with everyone's cash? (not saying this is UB, just taking this to a logical conclusion) That doesn't fly with me.

NLL,

I think we should have an argument about moral relativity at some stage, but not in this thread. Suffice to say, I believe that any coherent ethical system has a way of determining what is right and what is wrong.

A reasonable starting point in determining whether something is "good" or "bad" is to look at the consequences of the action, and measure whether the consequences create more or less happiness in the world.

If you do marketing for criminal organisations (mafia, heroin selling, etc.) then there is inherently going to be less happiness in the world - the victims of the scam are clearly going to be unhappy, and while the criminal overlords profit, and might be happier, that is not enough to offset the harm caused to the victims.

Therefore, if you do something that causes more unhappiness in the world than happiness, it is almost always going to be a "bad" thing.

Two other points on the other issues you raised:

1) I do not think it is fair to "blame" a poker site for collusion any more than it is fair to "blame" a police officer because there was a crime committed. Not every crime can be prevented (how much can be prevented is a measure of ability) but when becoming aware of the crime, how they respond is largely a moral test. I think that PS responded "good" when they became aware of the fraud.

2) Players setting up a collusion ring is fundamentally and hugely different to a site operating in the same manner as AP/UB. That's like saying an asteroid and a star are the same thing because they are both in the sky. They don't even belong in the same thread, let alone the same sentence.

Maybe because the **** getting thrown at him sticks.

"Maybe I was guilty of setting too high of expectations for myself with you guys"

dont worry Joe, anyone with half a brain had/has zero expectations of you.

Are you insulting him or us ?

one of Joe's recent tweets:

"what's worse than making a game 7 win guarantee? backing off of it after. that is just so weak."

sort of ironic huh?

Looks like him. He is giving us credit for at least half a brain.

I was seated at Joe's table for one of the $1500 nl events the other day and Joe berated two of the fishier players at the table. One time for a player calling Joe's raise with 34o in the bb, and the other for pushing allin over Joe's raises while the player was on a short stack. The guy's a real class act...