A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

Dear Politics Forum,
I've been doing some reflecting about the kerfluffle going on with Absolute Poker. I would like to make a case that this is actually a study of how AC works in the real world.

Online poker is, for all intents and purposes, an unregulated market with relatively low barriers to entry. It is exactly the kind of open market one might expect to find in AC wonderland.

Now, AC hinges on the operative theory of man's basic good nature and the ability of the market to self regulate against bad actors. Bad actors being the companies that do harm to the environment, their customers, or their competition through less than ethical business practices.

In the case of Absolute Poker, we have exactly that scenario. There is a bad actor who has cheated its clients out of money through deceptive practices and presented an obviously false front of integrity.

The market has reacted. The hue and cry has been raised. The concerned customers are spontaneously organizing to spread the word of the fraud. The market is working exactly as the market should.

Only, Absolute Poker is still in business. Most of its customers uninformed, and unaware. There is no mechanism to verify its assurances that it will clean up its act, no way of knowing if the activity is still taking place, and no way of knowing who is even in charge. This situation shows no sign of changing in the immediate and forseeable future.

A real life example of a fundamental theory behind AC (that is, the self regulating market) is evident in the case of the AP scandal.

I say this incident makes a very strong case for the very real world need of law, government, and regulation.

Discuss.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
I say this incident makes a very strong case for the very real world need of law, government, and regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's sort of a free market in intarweb poker, if you ignore the fact that the most sopisticated, reputable gaming companies in the world are effectively excluded from the market due to government regulation.

</thread>

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

Risk of getting scammed playing online poker = X where x>0. Some people have tolerance for high levels of X you seem to have a slightly lower tolerance some people have no tolerance at all. What right do you have to impose you risk tolerance on others? If I want to play poker doing no research beforehand about widely publicized scams so be it. The time it takes to look stuff up isn't worth the extra risk to me. It is to you and that's great. What if (for a crazy example) some people thought that any amount of risk of being scammed online shouldn't be tolerated and tried to impose their risk levels onto you by banning online gaming?

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

To make a fair comparison, you'd have to show that this type of thing would not have happened under regulation. Despite stringent regulation, however, we've seen numerous examples of corporations defrauding customers and/or investors in much the same way. Peter Popoff is back on TV selling religious snake-oil. Head-On (which is 99.9999% wax) is still on the shelf at Walgreen's. Universal life insurance is still legal to sell as an "investment product." Worse than all that, we still have Social Security.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I say this incident makes a very strong case for the very real world need of law, government, and regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's sort of a free market in intarweb poker, if you ignore the fact that the most sopisticated, reputable gaming companies in the world are effectively excluded from the market due to government regulation.

</thread>

[/ QUOTE ]

To this point, I feel compelled to say that back when the internet was "outlawed" for the most sophisticated and reputable gaming companies in the world, none of them were actually participating. In fact, they had pretty much missed the boat on the whole show. It was widely speculated that the first move to "outlaw" such activity in the US was in fact the first step toward the legalization and regulation of such activity so the companies and US Government could get their cut.

Once again, you have managed to bring something up that is completely tangent, but related, and managed to avoid addressing the content of the argument altogether.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
What if (for a crazy example) some people thought that any amount of risk of being scammed online shouldn't be tolerated and tried to impose their risk levels onto you by banning online gaming?



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, first of all, I stopped playing online back around the time the whole Neteller thing happened. That was the end of the road for me.

About your question, that has already happened.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
To make a fair comparison, you'd have to show that this type of thing would not have happened under regulation. Despite stringent regulation, however, we've seen numerous examples of corporations defrauding customers and/or investors in much the same way. Peter Popoff is back on TV selling religious snake-oil. Head-On (which is 99.9999% wax) is still on the shelf at Walgreen's. Universal life insurance is still legal to sell as an "investment product." Worse than all that, we still have Social Security.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty funny.

My retort is that under regulation, law suits are possible against the perpetrators. Who is suing Absolute Poker? Who can sue? Who can be prosecuted? Who is going to be prosecuted? The answer to all those questions is no one.

Regulation may not prevent such things from happening, but recourse is possible.

Possible is better than not possible.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
Head-On (which is 99.9999% wax) is still on the shelf at Walgreen's.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, if you watch the head-on commercial, it never actaully makes any claims about what the product does. Some of the newer products from that company DO make claims, but those products actually have active ingredients in them.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I say this incident makes a very strong case for the very real world need of law, government, and regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's sort of a free market in intarweb poker, if you ignore the fact that the most sopisticated, reputable gaming companies in the world are effectively excluded from the market due to government regulation.

</thread>

[/ QUOTE ]

To this point, I feel compelled to say that back when the internet was "outlawed" for the most sophisticated and reputable gaming companies in the world, none of them were actually participating. In fact, they had pretty much missed the boat on the whole show. It was widely speculated that the first move to "outlaw" such activity in the US was in fact the first step toward the legalization and regulation of such activity so the companies and US Government could get their cut.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait - you first say that "back when the internet was outlawed for these companies" which implies that they were permitted to operate online. Then you say this action was a first step towards legalization which implies that they were NOT permitted to do so.

Which is it?

Perhaps you should get your story straight before slinging this:

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, you have managed to bring something up that is completely tangent, but related, and managed to avoid addressing the content of the argument altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm addressing your argument head-on. When you exclude legitimate business, you get scumbags filling the demand. Have you ever wondered why crack dealers shoot each other, but Bud and Miller delivery agents do not?

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

many ppl have the mentality that.. "if ap was really not legit the govt would do something about it!".. ppl rely on govt now and as long as the govt hasn't kicked down mark seif's door most ppl think it's safe..

also, when did it come out that ap was crooked? it's a fairly recent development isn't it... give it some time.

if nothing else, i don't play there..

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who is suing Absolute Poker? Who can sue? Who can be prosecuted? Who is going to be prosecuted? The answer to all those questions is no one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think this would be true in ACland?

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Politics Forum,
I've been doing some reflecting about the kerfluffle going on with Absolute Poker. I would like to make a case that this is actually a study of how AC works in the real world.

Online poker is, for all intents and purposes, an unregulated market with relatively low barriers to entry. It is exactly the kind of open market one might expect to find in AC wonderland.

Now, AC hinges on the operative theory of man's basic good nature and the ability of the market to self regulate against bad actors. Bad actors being the companies that do harm to the environment, their customers, or their competition through less than ethical business practices.

In the case of Absolute Poker, we have exactly that scenario. There is a bad actor who has cheated its clients out of money through deceptive practices and presented an obviously false front of integrity.

The market has reacted. The hue and cry has been raised. The concerned customers are spontaneously organizing to spread the word of the fraud. The market is working exactly as the market should.

Only, Absolute Poker is still in business. Most of its customers uninformed, and unaware. There is no mechanism to verify its assurances that it will clean up its act, no way of knowing if the activity is still taking place, and no way of knowing who is even in charge. This situation shows no sign of changing in the immediate and forseeable future.

A real life example of a fundamental theory behind AC (that is, the self regulating market) is evident in the case of the AP scandal.

I say this incident makes a very strong case for the very real world need of law, government, and regulation.

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think all you are really proving here is that what people SAY their priorities are and what their ACTUAL priorities are are very different things. If I can simply SAY that I have priority X and then X is realized for me at no cost, well then thats fine and dandy. In that universe, what I SAY my preferences are is exactly what they really are. And thats basically what voting is (although I still have to win the vote, I get to enact my preferences at no cost to my self simply by voicing them).

But there are plenty of situations where there is a cost to realizing my stated preference. And when that happens, there is a growing discrepancy between my stated preference and my true preference. I want to be a MLB manager! But I really don't. I want to make lots of money and tell baseball players what to do and wear a uniform but if I wanted to be a MLB manager I'd have to put in decades worth of very difficult work (presumably). So I dont really want to be a MLB manager. That [censored] is hard. Maybe an even better example is "I want to run a restaurant." But I think you get the point.

All you've really shown with your OP is that when people say "I want to gamble in a safe, fraud-free environment" that they really dont want that at all. They just want to say they do. If they wanted to do it, it comes at some cost and its clearly a cost they are unwillingly to pay (or else you wouldnt have made this thread).

Alternately, these people might support a system whereby they could just SAY they want a fraud-free, safe gambling environment and then have it be so at no cost to themselves. Probably many of them would prefer this sort of environment. Right up until this sort of environment banned online poker entirely.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dear Politics Forum,
I've been doing some reflecting about the kerfluffle going on with Absolute Poker. I would like to make a case that this is actually a study of how AC works in the real world.

Online poker is, for all intents and purposes, an unregulated market with relatively low barriers to entry. It is exactly the kind of open market one might expect to find in AC wonderland.

Now, AC hinges on the operative theory of man's basic good nature and the ability of the market to self regulate against bad actors. Bad actors being the companies that do harm to the environment, their customers, or their competition through less than ethical business practices.

In the case of Absolute Poker, we have exactly that scenario. There is a bad actor who has cheated its clients out of money through deceptive practices and presented an obviously false front of integrity.

The market has reacted. The hue and cry has been raised. The concerned customers are spontaneously organizing to spread the word of the fraud. The market is working exactly as the market should.

Only, Absolute Poker is still in business. Most of its customers uninformed, and unaware. There is no mechanism to verify its assurances that it will clean up its act, no way of knowing if the activity is still taking place, and no way of knowing who is even in charge. This situation shows no sign of changing in the immediate and forseeable future.

A real life example of a fundamental theory behind AC (that is, the self regulating market) is evident in the case of the AP scandal.

I say this incident makes a very strong case for the very real world need of law, government, and regulation.

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think all you are really proving here is that what people SAY their priorities are and what their ACTUAL priorities are are very different things. If I can simply SAY that I have priority X and then X is realized for me at no cost, well then thats fine and dandy. In that universe, what I SAY my preferences are is exactly what they really are. And thats basically what voting is (although I still have to win the vote, I get to enact my preferences at no cost to my self simply by voicing them).

But there are plenty of situations where there is a cost to realizing my stated preference. And when that happens, there is a growing discrepancy between my stated preference and my true preference. I want to be a MLB manager! But I really don't. I want to make lots of money and tell baseball players what to do and wear a uniform but if I wanted to be a MLB manager I'd have to put in decades worth of very difficult work (presumably). So I dont really want to be a MLB manager. That [censored] is hard. Maybe an even better example is "I want to run a restaurant." But I think you get the point.

All you've really shown with your OP is that when people say "I want to gamble in a safe, fraud-free environment" that they really dont want that at all. They just want to say they do. If they wanted to do it, it comes at some cost and its clearly a cost they are unwillingly to pay (or else you wouldnt have made this thread).

Alternately, these people might support a system whereby they could just SAY they want a fraud-free, safe gambling environment and then have it be so at no cost to themselves. Probably many of them would prefer this sort of environment. Right up until this sort of environment banned online poker entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

good post

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I say this incident makes a very strong case for the very real world need of law, government, and regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's sort of a free market in intarweb poker, if you ignore the fact that the most sopisticated, reputable gaming companies in the world are effectively excluded from the market due to government regulation.

</thread>

[/ QUOTE ]

OP is like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]

Online poker is, for all intents and purposes, an unregulated market with relatively low barriers to entry. It is exactly the kind of open market one might expect to find in AC wonderland.

[/ QUOTE ]

One word (er, acronym), UIEGA, shows how far off your initial premises are. Online poker in the US is not "unregulated" it is in fact heavily regulated for it is illegal to operate an online poker room in the US- UIEGA is regulation, and extremely harsh and invasive regulation at that. Online poker in the US is an example of black market economics and black markets are not the same thing as free markets.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
All you've really shown with your OP is that when people say "I want to gamble in a safe, fraud-free environment" that they really dont want that at all. They just want to say they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only that but most players are losing players anyway. How much extra -EV is going on for the average player at absolute? The average fish isnt probably going to notice the difference.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All you've really shown with your OP is that when people say "I want to gamble in a safe, fraud-free environment" that they really dont want that at all. They just want to say they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only that but most players are losing players anyway. How much extra -EV is going on for the average player at absolute? The average fish isnt probably going to notice the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! They guy who loses $100 a month every month doesn't care who it's going to so it's not worth it for him to do the research. Externalising his costs onto other is not only inefficient but immoral.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
When you exclude legitimate business, you get scumbags filling the demand. Have you ever wondered why crack dealers shoot each other, but Bud and Miller delivery agents do not?



[/ QUOTE ]

Holy False Dichotomy, Batman!

Just because ****some**** "legitimate" businesses don't participate, or are prohibited from participating, does not mean that the rest of the businesses participating are all run by scumbags. I, and I think a majority of others consider pokerstars to be above reproach in this industry.

To be clear, for those who don't know the history (I'm sure you do, but are just playing games). The businesses you are referring to in the US were dramatically expanding when online gaming was taking off. Since it was a gray area back then, they did not want to risk running afoul of the government. But, conceivably, they could have challenged the government and gotten into the market. They chose not to. It was not until later that there was explicit language in the law prohibited gaming online in the US.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
One word (er, acronym), UIEGA, shows how far off your initial premises are. Online poker in the US is not "unregulated" it is in fact heavily regulated for it is illegal to operate an online poker room in the US- UIEGA is regulation, and extremely harsh and invasive regulation at that. Online poker in the US is an example of black market economics and black markets are not the same thing as free markets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this movie before.

Prohibition does not equal regulation.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who is suing Absolute Poker? Who can sue? Who can be prosecuted? Who is going to be prosecuted? The answer to all those questions is no one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think this would be true in ACland?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I think you missed something. My position is that AP is operating in ACland.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

Exactly.

You are so right, people don't want to shoulder the cost. That's exactly the reason why government is around. Government is a giant cost externalization mechanism. If you gave people the promise of government regulation to facilitate a safe and fraud free gaming environment and put the actual cost of that say, on the card rooms. Everyone would jump all over it. In the end, the card room would find a way to put the cost back on the player, but the player wouldn't care because they would already think they were getting the goodies at no cost to themselves.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you exclude legitimate business, you get scumbags filling the demand. Have you ever wondered why crack dealers shoot each other, but Bud and Miller delivery agents do not?



[/ QUOTE ]

Holy False Dichotomy, Batman!

Just because ****some**** "legitimate" businesses don't participate, or are prohibited from participating, does not mean that the rest of the businesses participating are all run by scumbags.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy words in my mouth, batman!

I didn't say all of the rest of them are scumbags. But the more legitimate players are excluded, the more room there is for scumbags.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One word (er, acronym), UIEGA, shows how far off your initial premises are. Online poker in the US is not "unregulated" it is in fact heavily regulated for it is illegal to operate an online poker room in the US- UIEGA is regulation, and extremely harsh and invasive regulation at that. Online poker in the US is an example of black market economics and black markets are not the same thing as free markets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this movie before.

Prohibition does not equal regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

L
O
L

R U SRS????

You can't get any MORE "regulated" than PROHIBITED.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All you've really shown with your OP is that when people say "I want to gamble in a safe, fraud-free environment" that they really dont want that at all. They just want to say they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only that but most players are losing players anyway. How much extra -EV is going on for the average player at absolute? The average fish isnt probably going to notice the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, I lose $25 a month at the movie theater but if they started selling me tickets for The Kingdom and showing me Saw IV I'd like to think I'm smart enough to realize I'm being defrauded, and to stop going there, if I cared.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly.

You are so right, people don't want to shoulder the cost. That's exactly the reason why government is around. Government is a giant cost externalization mechanism. If you gave people the promise of government regulation to facilitate a safe and fraud free gaming environment and put the actual cost of that say, on the card rooms. Everyone would jump all over it. In the end, the card room would find a way to put the cost back on the player, but the player wouldn't care because they would already think they were getting the goodies at no cost to themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

So because some people are dumb and lazy everyone should have to pay for them to get what they want?

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly.

You are so right, people don't want to shoulder the cost. That's exactly the reason why government is around. Government is a giant cost externalization mechanism. If you gave people the promise of government regulation to facilitate a safe and fraud free gaming environment and put the actual cost of that say, on the card rooms. Everyone would jump all over it. In the end, the card room would find a way to put the cost back on the player, but the player wouldn't care because they would already think they were getting the goodies at no cost to themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but "having to shoulder the cost of your preferences" is the single most important driver of society, IMO. Thats the whole point of pvn's "Give everyone a free pony" line. If people arent faced to pay the price of realizing their preferences then there are no limits. The poor will drive the rich into oblivion with their whims.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly.

You are so right, people don't want to shoulder the cost. That's exactly the reason why government is around. Government is a giant cost externalization mechanism. If you gave people the promise of government regulation to facilitate a safe and fraud free gaming environment and put the actual cost of that say, on the card rooms. Everyone would jump all over it. In the end, the card room would find a way to put the cost back on the player, but the player wouldn't care because they would already think they were getting the goodies at no cost to themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but "having to shoulder the cost of your preferences" is the single most important driver of society, IMO. Thats the whole point of pvn's "Give everyone a free pony" line. If people arent faced to pay the price of realizing their preferences then there are no limits. The poor will drive themselves into oblivion with their whims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One word (er, acronym), UIEGA, shows how far off your initial premises are. Online poker in the US is not "unregulated" it is in fact heavily regulated for it is illegal to operate an online poker room in the US- UIEGA is regulation, and extremely harsh and invasive regulation at that. Online poker in the US is an example of black market economics and black markets are not the same thing as free markets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this movie before.

Prohibition does not equal regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever semantic argument you want to make prohibition is government intervention in a market, and that government intervention distorts the market. ACland, as proposed, would be absent that intervention and thus your proposal that the online gambling industry mimics a free market is false.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One word (er, acronym), UIEGA, shows how far off your initial premises are. Online poker in the US is not "unregulated" it is in fact heavily regulated for it is illegal to operate an online poker room in the US- UIEGA is regulation, and extremely harsh and invasive regulation at that. Online poker in the US is an example of black market economics and black markets are not the same thing as free markets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this movie before.

Prohibition does not equal regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]
ORLY? What part of the Constitution would you expect Congressmen to cite if asked where they get the power to prohibit the growth and sale of marijuana?

Prohibition is the ultimate execution of the power of regulation.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who is suing Absolute Poker? Who can sue? Who can be prosecuted? Who is going to be prosecuted? The answer to all those questions is no one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think this would be true in ACland?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I think you missed something. My position is that AP is operating in ACland.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I'm trying to argue against. It would much easier to sue AP (or individuals within it) in ACland, without state borders and other restrictions (edit: yes, I understand that it would also be easier to sue them if online poker were legal and regulated here). This indicates to me that AP is not operating in an exact ACland, and/or that we can't use every particular of this example.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who is suing Absolute Poker? Who can sue? Who can be prosecuted? Who is going to be prosecuted? The answer to all those questions is no one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think this would be true in ACland?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I think you missed something. My position is that AP is operating in ACland.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what I'm trying to argue against. It would much easier to sue AP (or individuals within it) in ACland, without state borders and other restrictions. This indicates to me that AP is not operating in an exact ACland, and/or that we can't use every particular of this example.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be much easier to sue AP if online poker were regulated instead there being feeble attempts to prohibit it. It would be no easier in ACland, and probably harder, because businessmen will take all kinds of shortcuts if all they have is a financial downside. Add risk of jail or even limited mobility and you have another layer of disincentives.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever semantic argument you want to make prohibition is government intervention in a market, and that government intervention distorts the market. ACland, as proposed, would be absent that intervention and thus your proposal that the online gambling industry mimics a free market is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the forest for the trees. The market may not be totally free, but as there are a half dozen big choices for US players and over a dozen for everyone else, there are plenty of options available. It's certainly enough to judge the effectiveness of a boycott and/or the overall hit that a site found guilty of rigging will take.

That hit appears to be 0% when the entire community knows about it but there is no admission of guilt, 5% in week 1 after that admission, and ~3% in week 2.

In other words, the market very, very clearly did not react to the perceived honesty of AP or lack thereof.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One word (er, acronym), UIEGA, shows how far off your initial premises are. Online poker in the US is not "unregulated" it is in fact heavily regulated for it is illegal to operate an online poker room in the US- UIEGA is regulation, and extremely harsh and invasive regulation at that. Online poker in the US is an example of black market economics and black markets are not the same thing as free markets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this movie before.

Prohibition does not equal regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, which is why the War on Drugs is unconstitutional.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

That's lame.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]

You are missing the forest for the trees. The market may not be totally free, but as there are a half dozen big choices for US players and over a dozen for everyone else, there are plenty of options available.

[/ QUOTE ]

There isn't some magical number that's "enough", two or three options may suffice in some markets while a dozen may not be enough in others. Regulations (and prohibition) alter the landscape making it harder for consumers to make informed decisions. Here's one example

To play online poker in the US you have to go through a client that is not listed on a major stock exchange and is located in a country that doesn't have certain treaty obligations with the US. Normally the choice of a location like that would be a big ole warning sign to many people. Why play at absolute when PartyPoker is listed on the London stock exchange and must abide by their rules?

[ QUOTE ]

That hit appears to be 0% when the entire community knows about it but there is no admission of guilt, 5% in week 1 after that admission, and ~3% in week 2.

In other words, the market very, very clearly did not react to the perceived honesty of AP or lack thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has being caught cheating not cost Absolute money? Hiring auditors, paying lawyers to craft statements, paying players back, loss of traffic, flying 2+2ers to CR (I stopped following a few days ago, is this going to happen?).

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
To play online poker in the US you have to go through a client that is not listed on a major stock exchange and is located in a country that doesn't have certain treaty obligations with the US. Normally the choice of a location like that would be a big ole warning sign to many people. Why play at absolute when PartyPoker is listed on the London stock exchange and must abide by their rules?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be way more relevant were it not for the fact that since the overall drop a week later stands at 3%, the European population at AP didn't drop by any appreciable amount, either.

[ QUOTE ]
Has being caught cheating not cost Absolute money? Hiring auditors, paying lawyers to craft statements, paying players back, loss of traffic, flying 2+2ers to CR (I stopped following a few days ago, is this going to happen?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Being caught cheating cost AP money because they have to pay people back? *What*?

As to the rest...I happen to know the approximate numbers involved. The rest of this list likely does not even add up to the amount of the refunds. All things considered, it's less than a 100% penalty, and, of course, nobody's going to jail - which remains true in AC-land, obv. What an awesome deterrent.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
This would be way more relevant were it not for the fact that since the overall drop a week later stands at 3%, the European population at AP didn't drop by any appreciable amount, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does it make? They were already playing there. For whatever reasons, they already chose that product to the other ones despite the fact that the other ones were options. You should expect them to value the difference between using AP vs. the next site to roughly the same degree Americans value the difference. Why would they leave at a higher rate? They're already choosing to play there.

In short, Europeans would be less likely to play at AP in the first place if there wasn't something they really liked about it (relative to Americans who are more likely to be playing there because they consider it just the best of their few options).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has being caught cheating not cost Absolute money? Hiring auditors, paying lawyers to craft statements, paying players back, loss of traffic, flying 2+2ers to CR (I stopped following a few days ago, is this going to happen?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Being caught cheating cost AP money because they have to pay people back? *What*?

[/ QUOTE ]

How does "hiring auditors," "paying lawyers," "loss of traffic," and "flying 2+2ers to CR" refer to paying people back?? Those things clearly seem like additional expenses to me.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This would be way more relevant were it not for the fact that since the overall drop a week later stands at 3%, the European population at AP didn't drop by any appreciable amount, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

What difference does it make? They were already playing there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and they kept on playing through the scandal despite having plenty of other options, some of them regulated and traded on the London Stock Exchange. Which brings me back to my original point: the market does not care about the scandal.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Has being caught cheating not cost Absolute money? Hiring auditors, paying lawyers to craft statements, paying players back, loss of traffic, flying 2+2ers to CR (I stopped following a few days ago, is this going to happen?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Being caught cheating cost AP money because they have to pay people back? *What*?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
How does "hiring auditors," "paying lawyers," "loss of traffic," and "flying 2+2ers to CR" refer to paying people back?? Those things clearly seem like additional expenses to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bolded the relevant parts for you

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which brings me back to my original point: the market does not care about the scandal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what the scandal is about, but could anyone give me an estimate of how many bb/100 it has cost the average player? It would have to be a pretty huge scandal for it to have an actual effect on the player base.

Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How does "hiring auditors," "paying lawyers," "loss of traffic," and "flying 2+2ers to CR" refer to paying people back?? Those things clearly seem like additional expenses to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bolded the relevant parts for you

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I don't get it. How does these actions comprise "paying people back"?