Is Rec.Gambling.Poker still worth reading?

[samsdmf]

set up your own rec.gambling.highstakerailbirds

[luckyjimm]

[ QUOTE ]
Serious answer, anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ZeTurd]

Usenet started it's downfall circa September, 1993, when AOL users where unleashed upon Usenet. Since then, it's been slowly dying, and the once glorious Usenet is now reduced to spammers, trolls, conspiracy nuts and utter morons.

There are still a few oasises out there that captures some of the former greatness of Usenet, but rec.gambling is not one of them.

R.I.P. Usenet [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[luckyjimm]

Thanks - yes, I saw lots of spam, trolling and bickering!

[btmagnetw]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks - yes, I saw lots of spam, trolling and bickering!

[/ QUOTE ]AND ALMOST NO RAILTARDING!!!!! wtf!?!??!

[iron81]

I primarily read RGP until about a year ago, but I don't read it anymore. I guess I don't think RGP is still worth reading.

[luckyjimm]

Who are the people that post to RGP - surely not 18-25 year olds?

[Johnny Hughes]

I feel psychologically more comfortable knowing that if anything interesting comes up there, LuckyJimm will let us know. He's our bird dog. Sniffing out the doves and quail and alligators and snakes and the end of many a rainbow.

[iron81]

It might skew a little older than 2+2, but there are still plenty of younger players there. Remember, most poker players came in during the boom and most of the new players are young. When the boom started, RGP still had a shred of credibility.

I can confirm that in its glory days (before I started posting there), there were a bunch of people posting who wound up as TV pros including Negreanu, Lederer and Hellmuth and other very good players. I've also recognized about 8 or 9 screen names on 2+2 from people who started on RGP. RGP was the 2+2 of its time, but smaller and higher quality.

[Dranoel]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks - yes, I saw lots of spam, trolling and bickering!

[/ QUOTE ]

On Rec.Gambling or 2+2? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]







/I keed. I keed.