Canadian Online Poker Tax Thread
08-16-2010
, 11:30 PM
08-17-2010
, 07:37 AM
08-17-2010
, 12:09 PM
Quote:
I'm not sure what your point is...has any scandal/bot ring been uncovered on Svenska Spel? We could never know. Just like we have no way to know if there are any bots running over there? That's the point.
Results should always be publicly available from an independent 3rd party or you'll never have even a shot of knowing if you're being cheated.
Results should always be publicly available from an independent 3rd party or you'll never have even a shot of knowing if you're being cheated.
I didn't have a point, I was asking a question.
Do you know the answer?
08-21-2010
, 05:02 PM
Quote:
No way. Superuser knows all cards. He has AA against KK of some reg. profitable player. Preflop all in. Superuser wins $100. Next hand it has KK against AA of some fish. Again Allin preflop. Fish wins $100. Result? Totally normal stats but room gets double rake and money will stay in room longer. Any superuser-bot exists just 10000-20000 hands. Could u catch it? Noway. Any stats anomaly doesn't exist.
Why government can't do the same? Because of personal risk of management. They don't have personal interest to do such things. Private room does.
Why government can't do the same? Because of personal risk of management. They don't have personal interest to do such things. Private room does.
The sites are very strict in controlling these things. They don't want a bad reputation there is too much money at stack. I can tell you your life story right now. You played some online poker, lost some buy ins and talked it over with your buddies over a beer who all had the same conspiracy theory that poker the rng is rigged and there are superusers everywhere conspiring against you
09-21-2010
, 03:33 AM
09-21-2010
, 03:34 AM
09-21-2010
, 03:37 AM
Quote:
lol you are overthinking it and paranoid. If a superuser knew all the cards he is just as happy being dealt 72o as AA because he will just bluff people out. It would be very easy to catch hence why that scandal got caught.
The sites are very strict in controlling these things. They don't want a bad reputation there is too much money at stack. I can tell you your life story right now. You played some online poker, lost some buy ins and talked it over with your buddies over a beer who all had the same conspiracy theory that poker the rng is rigged and there are superusers everywhere conspiring against you
The sites are very strict in controlling these things. They don't want a bad reputation there is too much money at stack. I can tell you your life story right now. You played some online poker, lost some buy ins and talked it over with your buddies over a beer who all had the same conspiracy theory that poker the rng is rigged and there are superusers everywhere conspiring against you
"they already make enough money" so obv everything is perfect
I lawled
(/hijack, sorry)
Last edited by tiltymcfish0; 09-21-2010 at 03:39 AM.
Reason: it's also perfect at the B&M casinos, it's all legit fair with no funny business
09-21-2010
, 04:00 AM
Quote:
yea, everything is definitely on the up and up, there are no superusers or colluders, never have been, all rng's are certainly perfectly random, all sites have been proven trustworthy, etc. etc. yeah for sure definitely 100%
"they already make enough money" so obv everything is perfect
I lawled
(/hijack, sorry)
"they already make enough money" so obv everything is perfect
I lawled
(/hijack, sorry)
Anyways back to tax talk this does not need to continue in here,
09-21-2010
, 05:54 AM
Quote:
lol you take it so black and white kido. I said that it is very unlikely that sites are going to implement superusers. I never said colluding didn't happen or anything like that. I said that the sites are trying to stay within regulations on there own. Yes some make mistakes, but not purposefully like the previous guy suggested. Your the one to take it so extreme Anyways back to tax talk this does not need to continue in here,
Anyways back to tax talk this does not need to continue in here,
just messing with ya/drunk trolling, sorryhere's a somewhat on topic question though - over/under on when something actually goes to court at a higher level a la Leblanc?
I know, I know - this is not the same as Leblanc... but that's the whole point really if Leblanc isn't adequate precedence.
I'm just wondering whether people think there might be a Leblanc equivalent, for poker specifically, on the horizon.
09-21-2010
, 06:04 PM
Quote:
My aunt is a bank manager and she told me she is required to report any suspicious CASH transaction regardless of the amount and they are under no obligation to report electronic transactions at all.
It sounds like people believe there is some kind of third party monitoring system which may be the case but that sounds like it would be a breach of our privacy wouldn't it?
It sounds like people believe there is some kind of third party monitoring system which may be the case but that sounds like it would be a breach of our privacy wouldn't it?
