Mat, David, Mason...where are you?

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not particularly proud that they also help people quit their jobs, or their school, and make 120K a year multitabling 5-10 holdem games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that there'd be fewer of these people if you limited the number of your books that were published?

I know a few years back when a list of the "most influential people in the poker world" was released, Mason argued that he/you should have been higher up the list. It sure seems that you guys think you have a LOT of influence.

So, unless you've tried to limit how far your words reach that I'm unaware of, why are we to believe that you aren't proud of this?

My guess (though i don't know for sure, since I don't own any 2+2 books) is that the number of books published by 2+2 has been increasing, not decreasing, as there are more and more multitablers.

Constantly looking for consistency, but I keep seeming to miss it,

Josh W

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think we were all "looking for a hero" when the bill was still just a possibility, and we just assumed the people who run this forum would try to be that hero. But clearly those people, much to our surprise, really are not all that opposed to this bill, and the fact that the vast majority of the users of this forum are passionately opposed to it makes no difference to them."

I am proud that my writings helps people think. I'm not particularly proud that they also help people quit their jobs, or their school, and make 120K a year multitabling 5-10 holdem games. That being said, the likely upcoming debate regarding distinguishing poker from other games will likely let me emerge as a "hero" yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your sentiment in not being particularly proud of some results of your groundbreaking theory and books. However your efforts have enabled some to have a life and lifestyle that they thoroughly enjoy which would not have been possible otherwise(definitely so in my case). Your "likely emerge as a hero" comment is intriguing, care to elaborate? Such thoughts are genuinely exciting for us.

[Instyle007]

Couldn't agree more.

It is so sad that they do not feel the need to step up to the plate. Not only as people in the gambling business, but players as well.

It's very sad.

[Tarheel]

It's their company. It's their business decision. They're grown men. They're acting like it. A lot of people in this thread are not. Unless you have written and called your local and federal reps, written your newspapers, signed petitions, and voted in the last elections, no matter how unfair this legislation is, you have no reason to harp on anybody except our Congress and yourself.

Now, If somebody went to Mason or Mat or David with an idea of how they could use their influence and/or audience here at 2p2 to help out the cause in some way, i'm sure they would be more than willing to listen. Things could really be a lot worse than they are and this fight is not over yet. This is a huge wakeup call for us all. Let's start thinking of solutions and try to prevent any further damage than has already been done here.

It looks like the PPA is based out of DC. Is there anybody from that area that is willing to go meet with them and find out what the hell is going on? Mason has said that the PPA could come here and explain their direction and inform us of current happenings. If they choose not to have the support of the 2p2 community, we should find out why not. If they would like our support, we should be able to have some dialogue with them. Maybe Fossilman can help facilitate this discussion seeing that he is on the board of the PPA. Anyone willing to step up to the plate?

[jah7_fsu1]

Mr. Sklansky:

[ QUOTE ]
I am proud that my writings helps people think. I'm not particularly proud that they also help people quit their jobs, or their school, and make 120K a year multitabling 5-10 holdem games. That being said, the likely upcoming debate regarding distinguishing poker from other games will likely let me emerge as a "hero" yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I see the merit in your post, what you might not realize is the people who have been brought together to a great place (here) because of what you've presented. Many people are probably making more money and enjoying life more because of you. I haven't been around here long enough to have made to many solid relationships on here, but I've seen people that have. You didn't make me quit school (I'm still in college), however you and this forum allowed me to make money by staying at home instead of having to be at a job where I had to meet someone else's demands. This freedom has allowed me to actually do better in college because I can make more money faster, and do it whenever I want. Please don't forget the positive impacts you've made on people and dwell on some of the negatives that may have happened along the way. People make their own choices still.

[Jbrochu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I am certainly not enough of an expert to have the audacity to say that the great majority of Congressmen are clearly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not an audacious statement. According to reports, most congressmen didn't even read the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo...

You don't need to be an expert to understand that the great majority of Congress voted for this not because they think playing poker on-line is wrong, but because they couldn't afford to vote against the port security bill a month before the election. Why do you think those skunks had to slip it through like this? Most experts predicted that it never would have passed as a stand alone bill.

[iH8poker]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think we were all "looking for a hero" when the bill was still just a possibility, and we just assumed the people who run this forum would try to be that hero. But clearly those people, much to our surprise, really are not all that opposed to this bill, and the fact that the vast majority of the users of this forum are passionately opposed to it makes no difference to them."

I am proud that my writings help people think. I'm not particularly proud that they also help people quit their jobs, or their school, and make 120K a year multitabling 5-10 holdem games. That being said, the likely upcoming debate regarding distinguishing poker from other games will likely let me emerge as a "hero" yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just thinking about writing a post that I had faith that you’d do something to help. Though I don't know you well, I expected you to help me. And I knew you would, based on Raindog's examples of your passion for your beliefs (primarily in logic, as weird as that is).

Further, I fully compliment you on your stand that 5 to 10 tabling is not the thinking game that poker is for you. That's what it is for me to, a thinking game not for profit. However, this bill even hurts the recreational types seeking a challenge (not a predictable buck). One thing that the other side enlightened me on...supposedly; young adults are using student loans to fund poker habits. I don't really believe this occurs often, but I see the possibility for abuse. Also, I know players who declared bankruptcy after accumulating poker debt through credit cards that's equivalent to half my year's salary. Then there are people like Zee Justin. Obviously a very bright guy, but when tempted to cheat/lie/steal with the potential of $100k plus in profits, he took it. I believe this is clearly naivety...and that he could go on to do great things. I think he, like you, cares about the poker community, which I believe to be a higher calling than the HUD community. Poker is an American tradition and the ultimate combination of logic and gut instincts...which really is 'logic undefined'. Dismissing poker as a game of chance, to me, is egregious, yet maybe this bill will have some good consequences for the reasons you pointed out. It is a real problem when someone sacrifices education, puts their family at risk, or their own personal financial sanity at risk due to poker. This is tough to legislate. As a one who has smoked weed on several occasions, there are similar individual risks vs freedom risks that must be balanced. I hope you take the road of someone like www.mpp.org, which seeks sensible marijuana smoking (more or less) and not a view that 'anyone and everyone should play poker'.

I really respect you...though I think some of your writings are confusing...but I guess that's the idea [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Sincerely,
iH8poker

Side note - It always makes me feel a bit uncomfortable when people talk about schemes to get rake back, hunt fish, and semiautomatic play. I see a site like WSEX, who offers rake back to everyone, not just pros, but tries to protect the fish, and they at least seem to care about protecting poker play (The whole WTO argument for a profitless game for them). Yet few really play there, and prefer party and like. I kind of lost faith in some of the poker community when I saw the struggles WSEX had to go through to offer a free & fair playing environment.

[BenA]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a real problem when someone sacrifices education, puts their family at risk, or their own personal financial sanity at risk due to poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sure is. Come to think of it, drunken, dead beat fathers are kind of a problem too. So are tobacco deaths, reckless driving deaths, and school shootings. You know what... you're right. Let's ban anything that can be abused. The first things to go should be gambling, guns, cigarettes, alcohol, credit cards, and fast food. It doesn't matter than any one of these can be responsibily used. I think no one should be able to use them, and we should protect them.

In fact, I don't even think they should regulate the industry. This is a question of morality. We should ban McDonald's because people are getting fat. I think no one should own a gun, because somebody could irresponsibly shoot someone. No one should ever drink in moderation, because somebody else could kill someone in an accident. And no one should ever play poker online, because somebody will hurt their family. And no one should speak out against their government on something they believe in, because somebody else will speak out on something you don't believe in.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

[Xhad]

Why is it that every time someone admits that there are social issues involved with degenerate gamblers, someone has to tear into them immediately? Is it not possible to admit that problem gamblers are a problem without agreeing with this bill?

Sheesh.

[BenA]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that every time someone admits that there are social issues involved with degenerate gamblers, someone has to tear into them immediately?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't believe I was tearing. I was making a kind of sarcastic argument. Of course there is a social problem. That was the point of my response. I wasn't attacking the OP, just pointing out that I don't feel that a minor positive aspect of the bill justifies it. If I offended you, I'm sorry.

Edit: to iH8poker... I did not intend my other post to be an insult. I thought your post was very thoughtful and important. However, I do feel strongly about the point I made.