NYTimes featured article on online poker - Page 2

thedarknight · #11 06-11-2006, 11:54 PM

well more researched than other mainstream media reports on poker. the writer mentions poker tracker, 1/10 people usually winning in order to beat the rake, how the better players control tilt and read books, etc. I wasn't expecting the article to even mention such things.

palman · #12 06-12-2006, 12:47 AM

Most of us are winners. It'd be great if all the money we won came from rich folks with disposable income, but it doesn't. I'm a degenerate gambler who happens to be talented enough to win, but I'd be up hundreds of thousands more if I wasn't a degenerate. Most people aren't "lucky" enough to have my talent.

suzzer99 · #13 06-12-2006, 01:40 AM

Hogan drew a king-high flush and bet all $300. When his opponent called the bet and showed his ace-high flush, Hogan felt an impotent rage that broke on his forehead and coursed through his body. Tilt. He cursed, shut down the program in disgust and vowed never to play online again. Four days later, however, he felt the traces of an urge as visceral as the need to eat.

LOOOOOOOOOL

NewUser2006 · #14 06-12-2006, 09:17 AM

Very unbiased article.

doc_1982 · #15 06-12-2006, 09:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hogan drew a king-high flush and bet all $300. When his opponent called the bet and showed his ace-high flush, Hogan felt an impotent rage that broke on his forehead and coursed through his body. Tilt. He cried, then whimpered about playing "perfect poker for 3 days".

[/ QUOTE ]

Bakes · #16 06-12-2006, 09:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hogan drew a king-high flush and bet all $300. When his opponent called the bet and showed his ace-high flush, Hogan felt an impotent rage that broke on his forehead and coursed through his body. Tilt. He cried, then whimpered about playing "perfect poker for 3 days".

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

kleinstadt1 · #17 06-12-2006, 08:20 PM

I didn't read it that the Times was trying to blame online poker at all. If you keep in mind that the article was a part of a series on American debt, then it makes a little more sense. I think the Times is trying to make the point that there are all kinds of new ways for Americans to get themselves in debt, and online poker is one of them.

But seriously, how can you donk off thousands of dollars and not pick up a single book? I thought online poker was populated with people who read SSHE, etc., but either don't understand the concepts or apply them poorly. I guess I'm glad I'm wrong.

sweetjazz · #18 06-12-2006, 10:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To summarize the article: kid robs bank.
kid says it was online poker's fault.
ny times buys the kids story.
liberal bastards.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a very poor summary of the article.

NickMPK · #19 06-12-2006, 11:52 PM

I thought this was a very good article. I didn't think it blamed online poker for the bank robbery ... it barely mentioned the bank robbery. It did blame online poker for a lot of debt, and this I think is absolutely true. The article correctly points out that most players lose money playing poker, and that most of them lose it not to winning players, but to the rake.

I don't exactly know how people on this board expect online poker to be portrayed in the media. To the vast majority of people, it is viewed as a blight on society, and with good reason. The only people who benefit financially are those affiliated with the sites and a small number of skilled and disciplined players.

And I think it is important for people who are winning money playing poker to understand who they are winning from ... real people and not just computer-generated avatar graphics. Why should society and the media encourage people to play online poker? Especially those who are skilled enough to play professionally. Such people are usually very bright and talented, and yet online poker allows them to use these talents in a way that contributes nothing to society.

John Shiznit · #20 06-13-2006, 12:12 AM

i kind of disagree with you.
for some people poker is a way to make a fortune or get a shot in life. make some money at poker donate some to charity. people are going to gamble irregardless of you playing. its a free country. poker is a good diversion.

without online poker some people would be stuck working crappy corporate jobs probably not really contributing much to society there either.

most people dont contribute anything great to society. they just marginally lower the cost of labor (i.e. someone else can do their job at an extremely extemely slightly higher cost)