What's FTP got, that the others didn't???

[hoterdoc]

"WE'RE HERE TO STAY." do y'all buy this???,
or will Full Tilt simply be the last to close up shop to the U.S. market???
I read the statement (http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/playing-online-poker-in-the-us.php) on their "front" page",
how are they any different than the other online cardrooms?
doc

[JoseGonzlez]

ever heard of pokastas?

[hoterdoc]

yahh, dont play there, tho
so, . . .them too????

[MiltonFriedman]

They have the tallest weeds in the garden* ?

Are Team FullTilt members still traveling in and playing in the US ?

*Actually, Doyle is more upfront on this issue, but if you were a prosecutor would you rather fight with the "FullTilt" media-created bunch or an old man who is tough as nails and has a long history of dealing with adversity.

[jackaaron]

If they are in trouble, they would argue that poker is a game of skill. IMO. Someone on here has listed cases where poker was considered a game of skill, but it never went as far as the Supreme Court.

[Jerry D]

Full Tilt is one of the many privately held online gaming companies that are not buckling under to the illegal US legislation. Almost all of the sites that pulled out of the US market are publicly held corporations and the pressures and restrictions they have to follow because they are public corporations is why they had to leave the US market. I do believe Full Tilt and other sites are here to stay.

[RemyXO]

balls

[dibbs]

Smart, greedy, crafty lawyers.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
balls

[/ QUOTE ]
Beat me to it.

[MiltonFriedman]

If they believe that then they should stop crying about the hordes of Internet players who mow them down in tournaments........ Annie Duke (altho not FullTilt) is an example of a whining pro whose "born-again" skill mantra would lack credibility... unless she happens to hit a` 2 outer 10 to stay alive.

You tell me, do you think poker is a game "subject to chance", not dominated by chance, but "subject to chance" ?

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
You tell me, do you think poker is a game "subject to chance", not dominated by chance, but "subject to chance" ?

[/ QUOTE ]Though I think the whole "game of skill" thing isn't going to make a difference, poker is a game of skill period. The chance part just makes the skill harder to see sometimes, which is why people stay bad at it for so long without improving.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
poker is a game of skill period.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The chance part just makes the skill harder to see sometimes, which is why people stay bad at it for so long without improving.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty funny to see one statement right after the other. No wonder poker is so good these days!!!

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
You tell me, do you think poker is a game "subject to chance", not dominated by chance, but "subject to chance" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you ask me all games and sports are subject to chance. It's only a matter of degree. Imagine your drive on a short par 4 hits the same sprinkler head two rounds in a row. The first time it kicks out of bounds and the 2nd time it takes a big bounce onto the green this is chance, right? If the degree of chance doesn't come into it then every game not specifically excluded seems to fall under the regulation.

[stefluv1104]

you know in all reality isn't EVERYTHING subject to chance, i mean hell there's a chance I could be walking down the sidewalk and by chance get hit by a car, hit by lightning, have a tree fall on me, etc.....does this mean i'm going to stop walking down sidewalks. No. I actually wrote a two page article regarding this same subject. So IMO this whole "subject to chance" [censored] is bull [censored]. Kobe byrant will hit 3s 35.7% of the time, a person will set pocket 8s 1/8th of the time, my wrapped flush draw will win over a set 62% of the time in omaha hi. Isn't skill just recognizing all the statistical averages and having confidence in it? Should kobe quit shooting 3s because he knows he'll miss the other 64.3%, ask the Three rings on his fingers. Everyone is subject to the same probabilities, it's refining these to your advantage that makes one skillful. Point blank

[MiltonFriedman]

"poker is a game of skill period"

So, Chris Moneymaker was the best player at the WSOP one year ?

[MiltonFriedman]

"Beat me to it."

.... not an image we need to visualize.

[stefluv1104]

the fact that you can name him as a "best" player period means something. I mean Tiger Woods doesn't win EVERY golf event but he is still hands down the BEST golfer, because of the frequency he wins. Which as much as I hate to say Phil Helmuth definantly FREQUENTLY wins any tournament he sits at, if not first he at least makes more then his buyin which means he has to have SOME kind of skill.

[blane]

[ QUOTE ]
Kobe byrant will hit 3s 35.7% of the time, a person will set pocket 8s 1/8th of the time, my wrapped flush draw will win over a set 62% of the time in omaha hi

[/ QUOTE ]

Errr... That's about the weirdest comparison I've read here so far...

[MiltonFriedman]

So does his whining mean his success is skill but everyione else is luckboxing ?

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
So does his whining mean his success is skill but everyione else is luckboxing ?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it weren't for luck he'd win every tournament. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]

You tell me, do you think poker is a game "subject to chance", not dominated by chance, but "subject to chance" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends how you define chance:

1. the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency: Chance governs all.

2. a possibility or probability of anything happening

3. not planned or expected; accidental

If one or three, then no poker is not subject to chance. If 2, then yes it is subject to chance. But then so is every single game ever invented as well as pretty much any human activity that I can think of offhand.

--Zetack

Edit: of course I suppose you have to define "subject to" as well, but I'll leave it to somebody else. I would note that I would expect a legal defintion in a law to include (or be deemed to include) something along the lines of an activity where chance predominates over skill.

[SlapPappy]

Hmmm. Is poker a game of skill?
Suppose I have $1000 I want to gamble with. Do I go to the craps table or the poker table? Key word here is gambling.
Poker should not be considered "gambling" in my opinion.

You are always gambling at the craps table or blackjack table and this is not the case with poker.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty funny to see one statement right after the other. No wonder poker is so good these days!!!

[/ QUOTE ]I don't see what you're driving at.

Poker is a skill game. The element of chance adds variance, which tricks people into drawing incorrect conclusions about their play. The players who play the game the best will win more than the losers.

I don't see how my two statements are inconsistent at all.

[Jeff76]

"poker is a game of skill period"

[ QUOTE ]
So, Chris Moneymaker was the best player at the WSOP one year ?

[/ QUOTE ]No. Which is why I made the second statement that chance part of it makes the skill part hard to see. Variance makes some anomolies jump out, but this doesn't make poker any less of a skill game. It just means that the short term results don't always reflect the skill used in the actions taken.

[brianjb]

Sure, if you look at poker hand by hand chance is a factor. IMO true poker isn't a hand, it's your game over the long haul. If you make the play that has the best expectation every time, the more hands you play the less of a factor chance will be. It's just simple statistics.

Can you you get sucked out on? Yes. Can you have a losing day, week, month? Sure. Can Chris Moneymaker win the WSOP? Yes.

But, if your game is right your winning days, weeks and months will more than compensate for the downswings, just as surely as Moneymaker hasn't done much but get invited to a lot of cool parties since his WSOP triumph.

[Dickie_Drain]

I heard that Full tilt have photo's of Bill Frist in compromising positions with young boys.

[okietalker]

What Full Tilt has that the other sites dont have is FULL TILT POINTS!!!!!

I got me one of them thar Unibomber hoodies!!

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how my two statements are inconsistent at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

I could tell that was the case, that is why I said I see why poker is so good, the fact that you cannot understand the inconsistency between your two absolutes is the same reason why poker is good. Do you see why?

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
I could tell that was the case, that is why I said I see why poker is so good, the fact that you cannot understand the inconsistency between your two absolutes is the same reason why poker is good. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]No, but I think we are arguing an issue of semantics. I assume we both agree the poker is a skill game and that the element of chance adds variance. I never meant to imply that chance does not exist in poker- rather that it does not affect the long term outcomes, which some people do not understand.

I will conceed, though, there are some cases where the variance is magnified (the WSOP ME is a good example) to the point where the the effects of luck will not be overcome due to a finite amount of time by the participants. So perhaps "period" was an overstatement.

But barring those cases, poker IS a game of skill: those who make the correct decisions will win the most money in the long run, and in poker the long run is all that matters. The luck part merely affects short term wins or losses.

You say that I am the reason poker is so good, but I am doubtful. As a winning player, small stakes as they might be, I have not directly increased the available pool of money for you.

[Wake up CALL]

Yes we do agree that in the long run skill will prevail. I'm not sure the long run ever arives in a single lifetime, or it may arrive for one person but not for others. A good example is that it is possible that the best poker plaer who ever lived just got extremely unlucky his first year playing poker for a living, went broke and then got a 9 to 5 job and was never heard from again. This being possible, however improbable, proves (to me at least) that poker is subject to chance.

As far as semantics unless you expect others to be mindreaders on the internet it is best to type what you really mean unless you do not care about your message in the first place. In that case the delete button is best used. I honestly thought you believed both statements you made (one right below the other in the very same post) could be true, that is why I made my remark about poker being so good. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[TripleNet]

I have not heard of many professional craps, blackjack (if they play straight up and don't count cards), roulette players.

Poker is a game of skill.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure the long run ever arives in a single lifetime, or it may arrive for one person but not for others.

[/ QUOTE ]I think part of playing the game well is understanding variance and planning for it. A person who makes individual +EV decisions in a poker hand but goes broke because he's playing above his bankroll is not playing the game with optimal skill, IMHO, because managing your bankroll is part of the skill of poker. I think the long run is probably a fine amount of time for variance to even out, provided the player isn't taking actions that magnify the variance (like risking his entire bankroll on a single session).

[ QUOTE ]
A good example is that it is possible that the best poker plaer who ever lived just got extremely unlucky his first year playing poker for a living, went broke and then got a 9 to 5 job and was never heard from again.

[/ QUOTE ]This shouldn't happen if this great poker player played within his bankroll. If he played at a level too high to handle the variance in the game, then he probably wasn't the greatest player who ever lived. Or that's how I see it.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as semantics unless you expect others to be mindreaders on the internet it is best to type what you really mean unless you do not care about your message in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]I honestly thought I was being clear. Unforuntely I'm not perfect, so you'll have to pardon that.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
This shouldn't happen if this great poker player played within his bankroll. If he played at a level too high to handle the variance in the game, then he probably wasn't the greatest player who ever lived. Or that's how I see it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Am I to interpret this as meaning that you believe the long run is only one year? I suppose you do not remember that Doyle for one has gone broke before as well as many current and former professional poker players. By your definition only a player lucky enough to have never gone broke would ever be skillful, some irony huh?

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not heard of many professional craps, blackjack (if they play straight up and don't count cards), roulette players.

Poker is a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ]This "skill" debate is useless.Not because it isnt valid,anyone one that has played poker knows it IS a game of skill not a game of chance.But as it has been pointed out a thousand times,why do you think they used the wording "games SUBJECT to chance"?Its clear they purposely worded it in a way that would allow them to manipulate that part of the legislation anyway they wanted to.So forget about the truth here,its irrelevant to them.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I to interpret this as meaning that you believe the long run is only one year?

[/ QUOTE ]No. I mean that you can mitigate variance enough in a single year so that you don't go broke. This is different than saying the long run will work itself out in a single year. I'm sure that you can go on a run of good or bad variance that will have longer term effects than a year, but that it won't necessarily break you through good BR management. I could be wrong, though.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you do not remember that Doyle for one has gone broke before as well as many current and former professional poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]I also know that many curernt and professional poker players are terrible with money, even if they are good at poker.

I'll admit it, I could be underestimating the long term effects of variance. Variance may be more insumountable than I believe. If so, well then I'm just wrong. It has happened before.

[Wake up CALL]

Jeff, I believe you have hit the nail on the head. If you search the Probability forum and find the ROR formula you will see that risk of ruin is pretty darn difficult (if not impossible) to reduce to zero (as you imply you believe) no matter what bankroll management technique you choose to utilize.

Another good, although simplified, example is a theoritical situation where you have 300 poker players all sitting at different tables with 9 inferior players. Identical hands will be dealt to every player at a rate of 35 hands an hour, 8 playing hours per day every day for one year. At the end of that year it would be normal for at least 15 of those skillful players to be broke (even if they were allowed to adjust the table limits at will) and 15 more of them to be more than twice as wealthy as the other 290 skillful players.

Risk of ruin is real and the long run may never arrive in one's lifetime. This is true like you said because of variance, the degree of skill in poker is so small for long periods of time that even a current winning poker player may really be a loser if he lives long enough. Add in the rake and you have made everyone at the table a loser from the first moment they post a blind.

[Jeff76]

Ah well, I guess I am guilty of whishful thinking, and since wishful thinking is source of poker profit, it looks like you were correct in your original post. I conceed. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bearly]

wake, what you said is just plain true.........b