CA Online Poker Initiative!!

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]


Laws should not be in the business of protecting people from themselves, it's that simple.
.
.
Wrong world. The world where everthing is completely rational is one over.
.
besides, I am not protecting them from themselves, I am protecting them from you.
.
.


You aren't protecting them from the pros. If your thingy passes by the grace of god alone, then the fish will be in more trouble since they will have to batle pros focusing on only 1 table. They will have a tougher time beating the pros if they run into them.
.
.
I can scarcely accept that you actualy believe what you just wrote.
.
.
While your system would mean them running into pros less, you are still giving pros a biger advantage per game.
.
.
Then you guys should be ecstatic over this.
.
.

And you have finally admitted that all this is opinion, so unless you are a facist (which is fne if you are), but unless you are, you should probably retract this abomination to our sensibilites.
.
.

Take a deep breath.
.
.

KK

[/ QUOTE ]

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I finally arrived at the conclusion that multiple tables favored the skilled knowledgible player too much over the novices and casual rec players.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it is true.

T
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Whatever you say.

You know, Tony, as I said in an earlier post, I do like some of what you did with that proposal. I have not bashed you or insulted you, even though I disagree with much of what you wrote.

But you have got to realize that responses like the one you made to my question are asinine. Those who have said that all you are trying to do is legislate your opinions are correct. Instead of telling us that the ability to play multiple tables favors the "skilled" players over the "fish" and leaving it at, "Because I said so," how about explaining your thinking?

As I wrote earlier, there are plenty of skilled and novice players at online poker rooms. There are plenty of multi-tablers and single-tablers. There are plenty of people who use software tools and there are plenty of people who don't (and by the way, I don't use them, but I have no problem with those who do). The UIGEA aside, there are many poker rooms that have done just fine. The "skilled" players aren't ruining the industry.

Poker is a competition where people try to take other people's money. Coming up with rules to try to help the "weaker" players overcome the "skilled" players hurts the integrity of the game.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
I finally arrived at the conclusion that multiple tables favored the skilled knowledgible player too much over the novices and casual rec players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to add that your logic in this statement is flawed.

The ability to multi-table does not give anyone an advantage over anyone. In fact, it may be to a player's disadvantage to multi-table, as it is harder to concentrate on any given table.

"Skilled" players may shy away from poker rooms that do not allow multi-tabling, thus increasing the concentration of "fish" and "casual" players at the room (ex: the old Pacific Poker), but the ability to multi-table does not in itself give a "skilled" player an advantage.

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I finally arrived at the conclusion that multiple tables favored the skilled knowledgible player too much over the novices and casual rec players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to add that your logic in this statement is flawed.

The ability to multi-table does not give anyone an advantage over anyone. In fact, it may be to a player's disadvantage to multi-table, as it is harder to concentrate on any given table.

"Skilled" players may shy away from poker rooms that do not allow multi-tabling, thus increasing the concentration of "fish" and "casual" players at the room (ex: the old Pacific Poker), but the ability to multi-table does not in itself give a "skilled" player an advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try this.

If unskilled players play several tables, they lose their alloted poker money faster. This is not good fo the site

If skilled players play several tables, they get more exposure to the recreational players and take their money faster. And the novice/rec player keeps running into skilled players because the sharks are each on many tables. Hence the novice/rec loses too fast. This is bad for the site.

Better?

Tuff
.

[Tuff_Fish]

Now, try this.

I actually never thought of this til now. How about restrictions on multitabling on the lower limit tables, and allowing multitabling on the higher limits, say $3/6 and above?

It is the novice/rec player we are worried about. Let em be safe at the lower limits.



Just a thought.

Tuff
.

[Case Closed]

fish money is not a finite resource, let's just put it at that.

[aislephive]

Tony, you are very good at avoiding posts that you can not answer without looking stupid.

And god, every time I read a post of yours in this thread about trying to "protect average joe from the shark infested waters" I just get so tilted. You're one of the most stubborn and irrational people I've ever come across.

The entire concept behind poker is that you are competing against other individuals for cash. Anybody who plays is aware of this and assumes the risk and responsibility involved. A very small percent of casual / recreational players have lost significant amounts online. Most people who are "fish" are just wealthy people or are just gambling and the money isn't a big deal to them. I mean, think about it. Pre-legislation, how hard was it to be a winning player at stakes up to $5/10 nl, at any site? All it takes is a little intelligence and work ethic to be a winning player.

You make it out to be like the fish are being thrown out into a pack of wolves where they stand no chance and get eaten alive, when in reality they have a very reasonable chance at winning any time assume they're not playing like morons.

People are hustled for money all the time in almost everything, poker is no different. This is not a perfect world, people are greedy, so be it.

The bottom line, is let people do what the [censored] they want, stop trying to be some dictator acting like you know what's best for everybody. If you actually seriously want support behind this, then I think the responses in this thread are enough to tell you that nobody agrees with you and you will have very few supporters (and they're probably all guys with < 100 posts).

[kartinken]

[ QUOTE ]
Tony, you are very good at avoiding posts that you can not answer without looking stupid.

And god, every time I read a post of yours in this thread about trying to "protect average joe from the shark infested waters" I just get so tilted. You're one of the most stubborn and irrational people I've ever come across.

The entire concept behind poker is that you are competing against other individuals for cash. Anybody who plays is aware of this and assumes the risk and responsibility involved. A very small percent of casual / recreational players have lost significant amounts online. Most people who are "fish" are just wealthy people or are just gambling and the money isn't a big deal to them. I mean, think about it. Pre-legislation, how hard was it to be a winning player at stakes up to $5/10 nl, at any site? All it takes is a little intelligence and work ethic to be a winning player.

You make it out to be like the fish are being thrown out into a pack of wolves where they stand no chance and get eaten alive, when in reality they have a very reasonable chance at winning any time assume they're not playing like morons.

People are hustled for money all the time in almost everything, poker is no different. This is not a perfect world, people are greedy, so be it.

The bottom line, is let people do what the [censored] they want, stop trying to be some dictator acting like you know what's best for everybody. If you actually seriously want support behind this, then I think the responses in this thread are enough to tell you that nobody agrees with you and you will have very few supporters (and they're probably all guys with < 100 posts).

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, I've posted less than 100 times and I doubt it's clearer to anyone how selfish and idiotic this thing is...

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]
Tony, you are very good at avoiding posts that you can not answer without looking stupid.

And god, every time I read a post of yours in this thread about trying to "protect average joe from the shark infested waters" I just get so tilted. You're one of the most stubborn and irrational people I've ever come across. .
.
why thank you,
.
.
The entire concept behind poker is that you are competing against other individuals for cash. Anybody who plays is aware of this and assumes the risk and responsibility involved.
.
.
.
That doesn't mean the casual player should have to face 5 TAG professional players at every table if he wants to have an hour or two of poker.
.
.

A very small percent of casual / recreational players have lost significant amounts online. Most people who are "fish" are just wealthy people or are just gambling and the money isn't a big deal to them. I mean, think about it. Pre-legislation, how hard was it to be a winning player at stakes up to $5/10 nl, at any site? All it takes is a little intelligence and work ethic to be a winning player.
.
.
So, what about my idea of multitablers restricted to $3/6 and above? If you can multitable $5/10 and be a consistant winner, sounds like a trip to the bank vault every month.

.
.

You make it out to be like the fish are being thrown out into a pack of wolves where they stand no chance and get eaten alive, when in reality they have a very reasonable chance at winning any time assume they're not playing like morons.
.
.
The average player (in the world, not on 2+2) has much less chance if there are several 2+2 type TAGS at every table. Deny this and you are the one sounding irrational.
.
.


People are hustled for money all the time in almost everything, poker is no different. This is not a perfect world, people are greedy, so be it.
.
.
Poker shouldn't be set up as a hustle. Let the players compete, but make the field reasonably level. There are a lot more Joe's out there than 2+2ers. If you are spread out all over the place and limited to one table, then if Joe ain't perceptive enough to figure out one of the players at the table is really good, then have at it. In reality, a lot of Joes may feel like taking a shot at you if you are pushing the table around. Profit.
.
.

The bottom line, is let people do what the [censored] they want, stop trying to be some dictator acting like you know what's best for everybody. If you actually seriously want support behind this, then I think the responses in this thread are enough to tell you that 2+2ers dont agree with you and you will have very few supporters here (and they're probably all guys with < 100 posts).

[/ QUOTE ]

[Tuff_Fish]

[ QUOTE ]

.
.
Hey, I've posted less than 100 times and I doubt it's clearer to anyone how selfish and idiotic this thing is...
.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is selfishness here, but it ain't on my part. You guys want fish on a platter handed to you.
.
.