Mr. Gatorade’s Lies cost me over 70k at Full Tilt

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
heh. even in a government regulated world, i have no doubt that you would be able to find sites online that were unregulated. i guess if that floats your boat, i (and, presumably, most others) don't really have any particular gain out of forcing you to play on a regulated site.

that said, i think it is fair to assume that your position is a minority one. given a choice between a regulated operator and an un-regulated operator, i'm going to go for the regulated one - because FTP's continued shonky service is a perfect example of the pitfalls of the regulated one.

presumably, a regulated system is also likely to be taxed - perhaps a percentage of the rake, I don't know. keep in mind that the current system is also "taxed" by shonky operators creating impediments to cashing out and confiscating accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Josem: I think we're in agreement for the most part as long as government regulation is much more focused on policing the operators and not the players.

I want all the freedom offered by the internet and I do not want the government involved in curtailing existing freedoms even if that means some of my opponents will be able to do things they can't do in a live game.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
heh. even in a government regulated world, i have no doubt that you would be able to find sites online that were unregulated. i guess if that floats your boat, i (and, presumably, most others) don't really have any particular gain out of forcing you to play on a regulated site.

that said, i think it is fair to assume that your position is a minority one. given a choice between a regulated operator and an un-regulated operator, i'm going to go for the regulated one - because FTP's continued shonky service is a perfect example of the pitfalls of the regulated one.

presumably, a regulated system is also likely to be taxed - perhaps a percentage of the rake, I don't know. keep in mind that the current system is also "taxed" by shonky operators creating impediments to cashing out and confiscating accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Josem: I think we're in agreement for the most part as long as government regulation is much more focused on policing the operators and not the players.

I want all the freedom offered by the internet and I do not want the government involved in curtailing existing freedoms even if that means some of my opponents will be able to do things they can't do in a live game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The freedom you speak of, I guess, is the freedom to cheat or be cheated, right? I mean, we are discussing the ability to obtain a fair and bot free game of poker on the internet, right?

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
heh. even in a government regulated world, i have no doubt that you would be able to find sites online that were unregulated. i guess if that floats your boat, i (and, presumably, most others) don't really have any particular gain out of forcing you to play on a regulated site.

that said, i think it is fair to assume that your position is a minority one. given a choice between a regulated operator and an un-regulated operator, i'm going to go for the regulated one - because FTP's continued shonky service is a perfect example of the pitfalls of the regulated one.

presumably, a regulated system is also likely to be taxed - perhaps a percentage of the rake, I don't know. keep in mind that the current system is also "taxed" by shonky operators creating impediments to cashing out and confiscating accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Josem: I think we're in agreement for the most part as long as government regulation is much more focused on policing the operators and not the players.

I want all the freedom offered by the internet and I do not want the government involved in curtailing existing freedoms even if that means some of my opponents will be able to do things they can't do in a live game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The freedom you speak of, I guess, is the freedom to cheat or be cheated, right? I mean, we are discussing the ability to obtain a fair and bot free game of poker on the internet, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you define tracking as cheating then yes I want that freedom even if it's called cheating. I used to flame those who went beyond tracking into the areas of autofolders or full robots but I don't anymore because I now believe that strategy will end up biting me in the ass.

I detest those who want to take tracking away from me much the same way I'm sure botters detest those who want to take bots away from them. It would be nice if the online game worked exactly the way I wanted it to but it does not and never will.

I can be a hypocrite or I can say "to each his own"

Yes there are online players who engage in more "freedom" than I do (colluding, botting, etc.) but one day I finally came to the realization that to really stop them (for real) we would need government level big brother conditions (it was a very sobering day for me) at which point I also realized those same conditions would have the power to prevent me from tracking - and that was a real "ass-biting" moment for me.

I am now officially against anything or anybody who wants to police online players for any reason (with the possible exceptions of denial of service, hacked accounts or terrorism related activities)

I am pro player-freedom even if that means some players will engage in more freedom than I prefer.

[jack21221]

[ QUOTE ]
I am now officially against anything or anybody who wants to police online players for any reason (with the possible exceptions of denial of service, hacked accounts or terrorism related activities)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet, in the current environment, players have no freedom at all. Sites can seize money and you have no recourse. We're going in circles here... Your solution is apparently to get hundreds of thousands of online poker players to boycott all online poker until the sites start changing their Terms of Service.

That ain't gonna happen.

My solution is to legalize online poker for US players, so the US players could use the court system to get back at the sites who confiscate money unjustly.

That may happen.

See my logic?

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
heh. even in a government regulated world, i have no doubt that you would be able to find sites online that were unregulated. i guess if that floats your boat, i (and, presumably, most others) don't really have any particular gain out of forcing you to play on a regulated site.

that said, i think it is fair to assume that your position is a minority one. given a choice between a regulated operator and an un-regulated operator, i'm going to go for the regulated one - because FTP's continued shonky service is a perfect example of the pitfalls of the regulated one.

presumably, a regulated system is also likely to be taxed - perhaps a percentage of the rake, I don't know. keep in mind that the current system is also "taxed" by shonky operators creating impediments to cashing out and confiscating accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Josem: I think we're in agreement for the most part as long as government regulation is much more focused on policing the operators and not the players.

I want all the freedom offered by the internet and I do not want the government involved in curtailing existing freedoms even if that means some of my opponents will be able to do things they can't do in a live game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The freedom you speak of, I guess, is the freedom to cheat or be cheated, right? I mean, we are discussing the ability to obtain a fair and bot free game of poker on the internet, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you define tracking as cheating then yes I want that freedom even if it's called cheating. I used to flame those who went beyond tracking into the areas of autofolders or full robots but I don't anymore because I now believe that strategy will end up biting me in the ass.

I detest those who want to take tracking away from me much the same way I'm sure botters detest those who want to take bots away from them. It would be nice if the online game worked exactly the way I wanted it to but it does not and never will.

I can be a hypocrite or I can say "to each his own"

Yes there are online players who engage in more "freedom" than I do (colluding, botting, etc.) but one day I finally came to the realization that to really stop them (for real) we would need government level big brother conditions (it was a very sobering day for me) at which point I also realized those same conditions would have the power to prevent me from tracking - and that was a real "ass-biting" moment for me.

I am now officially against anything or anybody who wants to police online players for any reason (with the possible exceptions of denial of service, hacked accounts or terrorism related activities)

I am pro player-freedom even if that means some players will engage in more freedom than I prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is perhaps the dumbest thing ever said. Anyone who equates the ability to defraud others out of money with freedom is too intellectually dishonest for me to waste time on.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
This is perhaps the dumbest thing ever said. Anyone who equates the ability to defraud others out of money with freedom is too intellectually dishonest for me to waste time on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously. You have clearly read either Atlas Shrugged or The Road to Serfdom too many times.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
heh. even in a government regulated world, i have no doubt that you would be able to find sites online that were unregulated. i guess if that floats your boat, i (and, presumably, most others) don't really have any particular gain out of forcing you to play on a regulated site.

that said, i think it is fair to assume that your position is a minority one. given a choice between a regulated operator and an un-regulated operator, i'm going to go for the regulated one - because FTP's continued shonky service is a perfect example of the pitfalls of the regulated one.

presumably, a regulated system is also likely to be taxed - perhaps a percentage of the rake, I don't know. keep in mind that the current system is also "taxed" by shonky operators creating impediments to cashing out and confiscating accounts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Josem: I think we're in agreement for the most part as long as government regulation is much more focused on policing the operators and not the players.

I want all the freedom offered by the internet and I do not want the government involved in curtailing existing freedoms even if that means some of my opponents will be able to do things they can't do in a live game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The freedom you speak of, I guess, is the freedom to cheat or be cheated, right? I mean, we are discussing the ability to obtain a fair and bot free game of poker on the internet, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you define tracking as cheating then yes I want that freedom even if it's called cheating. I used to flame those who went beyond tracking into the areas of autofolders or full robots but I don't anymore because I now believe that strategy will end up biting me in the ass.

I detest those who want to take tracking away from me much the same way I'm sure botters detest those who want to take bots away from them. It would be nice if the online game worked exactly the way I wanted it to but it does not and never will.

I can be a hypocrite or I can say "to each his own"

Yes there are online players who engage in more "freedom" than I do (colluding, botting, etc.) but one day I finally came to the realization that to really stop them (for real) we would need government level big brother conditions (it was a very sobering day for me) at which point I also realized those same conditions would have the power to prevent me from tracking - and that was a real "ass-biting" moment for me.

I am now officially against anything or anybody who wants to police online players for any reason (with the possible exceptions of denial of service, hacked accounts or terrorism related activities)

I am pro player-freedom even if that means some players will engage in more freedom than I prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is perhaps the dumbest thing ever said. Anyone who equates the ability to defraud others out of money with freedom is too intellectually dishonest for me to waste time on.

[/ QUOTE ]

"defraud" ? you say. Consider for a moment what would happen if regulation brought changes to the game where some idealist in charge believed that the online game is supposed to mimic the live game in everyway possible:

a) only 1 table at 1 site at any given moment.
b) no software tools of any kind period.
c) no chatting. no email. no phone.
d) etc.

These conditions appear totally absurd to any experienced online player yet if they existed they really would be very much like the live game and in these conditions my tracking software would be as you say "defrauding" others.

I am challenging the mindset that would suggest that powerful government regulation would not involve policing players way beyond what any of us want.

I am not so naive to believe that my life is guaranteed to improve just because the government gets involved; I do not want the online game to be something that relegates my tracking software to "fraud" status let alone something identical to the live game and I find myself wondering what the game (at the player end) will look like after government involvement.

So excuse me for taking issue with those who get overly excited about the idea of the government policing online poker players. It's a very BAD idea. Let the government police the operators and not the players.

If you believe that government regulation of players will give you everything you want from the online game then I'll let that mindset speak for itself.

[Dankenstein]

Do you know anything about Artificial intelligence programming mr gatorade ??? It seems to me that programming something that can play profitably at that level would be incredibly difficult. Most bots are made for the lower limits where players don't pick up on their predictability as easily.

[R*R]

Maybe someone has asked this. I don't know. So I assume Mr. Gatorade lost money to OP. Has fulltilt paid you for your losses or wtf do they do with the 70,000? This is one of the sickest things I have ever heard. Fulltilt tells us how wonderful their detection systms are and confiscate a huge amount of money without a neutal independent third party review or a court proceedings of some kind. I mean lets just presume for now that this guy is innocent... then some internal investiation followed by emails "we are taking your 70,000" is just not good enough. Unbelievably scary. Maybe some kind of poker alliance should start looking at some kind player protection as it seems that this has not happened yet.

[R*R]

Oh one last thought. Where has OP gone. He has not posted since June 11, 2007. I mean you had 70,000 grand taken... 70,000 fking grand and there has been no follow up posted? I think if most people lost 70,000 they would be fighting this thing to the near death and keeping us posted unless there is some legal reason they are not able to. Like wtf, any updates. I can't imagine anyone would just lie down and drop this thing. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]