The Fallacy of Online Poker Gambling

[creative]

i cant believe katz graduated from penn state with a FINANCE degree...how the fk do you believe this, he KNOWS the math behind it he just chooses to ignore it and spew [censored]

[Khaos4k]

[ QUOTE ]
Any honest mathematician, statistician, or numbers expert who understands the game of poker, would not dispute the example in this paragraph.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahahahaha. His math is so wrong it's hilarious. I think he screwed up at least 5 times.

[jstill]

lolol

author does realize all live games take rake rite?

a better argument would have been this is why its hard to win money in the long run unless ur opponents are all much worse than you.

Im pretty sure we have what like 10000 people on this site as proof that plenty of people win money in the long run, long run being approaching a million hands, tough to argue with that when ur saying noone could ever win in the long run haha.

[Chaos_ult]

[tarheeljks]

weak propaganda; about as accurate as reefer madness

[Semtex]

author is obv some fish who lost all his money and is now bitter

[ahnuld]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moderator(s) notified In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]Emm... why? Are you so afraid of this viewpoint that you cannot even figure out how to refute it properly and closing the thread is the only option?

[/ QUOTE ]

refutation: not everyone in online poker has the exact same skill level.

but if I closed this atrocity it'd no doubt feed your righteous anger or whatever mix of emotions related to 'oh no gambling is evil' you're feeling, so it's staying open for public mockery.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[CaseS87]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[cowboy2579]

For some reason this actually got me mad enough to write an email. Warning, prolly tl;dr.

Dear Nanny-State Proponent:

The following is a direct quote from an article on your site about on-line poker:

"Here is an example of how the gambling house will always win all the money from all of the players. Five players sit-in on an online poker game each with a $20 bankroll for a total at the web site table of $100. Let’s say the average pot is $10 and the rake is 5% or 50 cents per hand. Let’s say 200 hands are played which does not take that long. After 200 hands, that 50 cents rake per hand totals $100 which is the entire amount that all of the players started with at the web site table. Of course not all of the players go broke at the exact same time and fresh money can come into the game. But sooner or later each gambler will eventually lose their $20 bankroll every time without exception. If bringing in $20 more, that will also eventually be lost. Every amount brought in will eventually be lost through continued play. Those are the facts in a nutshell. Any honest mathematician, statistician, or numbers expert who understands the game of poker, would not dispute the example in this paragraph."

The fact is that any honest mathematician would see right through this oversimplified example. Any claim that the author had to intellectual honesty went right out the window with this statement - especially with the attempt to cast the pallor of dishonesty on anyone disagreeing with the author's example. You should be ashamed of yourself for publishing this crap.

Please don't step on my freedoms - you don't know best and your reasoning is specious. Do us a favor and stick to subjects you know something about. I find it OFFENSIVE that you imply that only DISHONEST people would disagree with you. Next time you want to tell me what to do, step back, take a deep breath and pull the gigantic stick out of your ass.

Sincerely,

Someone who hates your guts

[wpr101]

LOL, I loved reading this article. I would also love to meet this Katz guy in real life and start confrontation with him.