My First, And Perhaps Only, Statement About Absolute - Page 12

ComeOnNine · #**111** 11-13-2007, 07:43 AM

well said

2hi4me2cu · #**112** 11-13-2007, 07:51 AM

I have alot of respect of the knowledge the OP has in terms of poker.

Ive also read some of his literature.

I do however disagree with a large portion of his post, suggesting as poker players we cant be trusted, or would cheat if given the oppertunity knowing we would get away with it.

Even if playing at AP is profitable because all the best players left, the whole saga and web of lies makes me, as a consumer / online player - uncomfortable.

Poker is a game of small margins, as theres so much choice in where you play, why increase that margin playing on a site you KNOW has been breached?

I also hope your post encouraging people to go back isnt influenced by them giving you money.

-Thanx

Sodom · #**113** 11-13-2007, 08:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm never buying another one of your books, David Sklansky

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

Every professional player should do as Sklansky describe it. Be careful, you might be cheated where ever you play. Don't mix moral with profession, take advantage. If you think you will do good at AP right now, play there. That's fine with me. A professional should make decisions based on this rational ethos.

However..

Sklansky is not just a professional poker player. He is an authoritative poker author and it is in this roll he are famous and it is also in this roll his statement will be evaluated. Here we have an author who have no problem to advice people to play at a pokersite who have cheated players if they think they will do good there.

However, he could have choose another angel. Sklansky could have pick up the opportunity, as a famous an authoritative poker author, to give voice for a general point of view which would benefit online poker in the long run. That point would of course have to deal with values which are not limited to the interest a single player have in the short run. If onlinepoker have legal problem in USA today, it will not be easier in the future if famous poker personalities show a total nihilistic view in respond to the biggest cheating scandal in online pokers history.

I will never again buy a book from David Sklansky. And that is a moral statement.

nortino · #**114** 11-13-2007, 08:56 AM

I like David's use. Of punctuation. Because it makes his pearls, of wisdom, much. Easier to, read.

mistere45 · #**115** 11-13-2007, 06:22 PM

Wow Ikestoys. Your post is rather telling. For an increase in monetary gain of a mere 5k, you are willing to overlook a cheater/lier/fraudster gaining 40 times that amount - 200k. This sounds likes a radically capitalistic view, in which the only motivation is monetary gain. How is this morally different than accepting 5k from AP to cover up, or look the other way? It is no wonder that corporations in our soceity are allowed to get away with whatever they wish for profit. Because so many live only for monetary profit, and not for enrichment of life as a whole. "As long as I get mine, why should I care how they got theirs". Just a sad way to view the world.

mistere45 · #**116** 11-13-2007, 06:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Think of someone you hate. You have a choice between:

A. You getting $50k and that person getting $10k
B. You getting $25k and that person getting $0

If you choose B then you are a moron.

I don't get why everyone is hating on this OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

C. You getting $55k and that person getting $200k. Whats the right answer now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ikestoys:
[ QUOTE ]

C

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

I don't blame you though. Just makes AP's decision to ignore the whole situation and hope it goes away over time seem like a possibly successful strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ganjasaurus Rex · #**117** 11-13-2007, 06:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wow Ikestoys. Your post is rather telling. For an increase in monetary gain of a mere 5k, you are willing to overlook a cheater/lier/fraudster gaining 40 times that amount - 200k. This sounds likes a radically capitalistic view, in which the only motivation is monetary gain. How is this morally different than accepting 5k from AP to cover up, or look the other way? It is no wonder that corporations in our soceity are allowed to get away with whatever they wish for profit. Because so many live only for monetary profit, and not for enrichment of life as a whole. "As long as I get mine, why should I care how they got theirs". Just a sad way to view the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
One has to wonder if he really believes that, or if he is just saying it because it sounds clever to give the "+EV" answer. Ironically, in the long run, it may not even be the +EV answer to allow cheaters to go unobstructed, since this type of tolerance can ruin online poker and hurt the future bottom line of folks who did nothing to prevent repeats of this situation.

Dan Druff · #**118** 11-13-2007, 06:42 PM

I haven't even noticed the games at AP becoming better since this whole mess occurred.

Mainly just a bunch of propped-up 30-60 games every time I look -- at least on the limit side.

mistere45 · #**119** 11-13-2007, 06:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow Ikestoys. Your post is rather telling. For an increase in monetary gain of a mere 5k, you are willing to overlook a cheater/lier/fraudster gaining 40 times that amount - 200k. This sounds likes a radically capitalistic view, in which the only motivation is monetary gain. How is this morally different than accepting 5k from AP to cover up, or look the other way? It is no wonder that corporations in our soceity are allowed to get away with whatever they wish for profit. Because so many live only for monetary profit, and not for enrichment of life as a whole. "As long as I get mine, why should I care how they got theirs". Just a sad way to view the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
One has to wonder if he really believes that, or if he is just saying it because it sounds clever to give the "+EV" answer. Ironically, in the long run, it may not even be the +EV answer to allow cheaters to go unobstructed, since this type of tolerance can ruin online poker and hurt the future bottom line of folks who did nothing to prevent repeats of this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Using the prohibition analogy, i think the alcohol industry is making more profit now that it is a legal venture, and the criminal element has been cleaned-up.

David Sklansky · #**120** 11-13-2007, 07:21 PM

"I will never again buy a book from David Sklansky. And that is a moral statement."

Why not take it further and say you will never READ another book by me?

You won't of course. Even if there was some mechanism whereby I got my royalty whenever someone read my book and there was no way of avoiding that.

If I was a child killer and my book was about butterfly collecting, you might indeed never read my book about your hobby. Even more so if there was some chance it would stop future killings.

But none of that is the case here. Whether you are talking about reading poker books or playing poker online. Learning poker concepts is a worthwile endeavor. Playing it fulltime, especially online where there is no social interaction, is just a way for smart people to get rich without contributing much. It is not a subject for high falootin philosophising.