My First, And Perhaps Only, Statement About Absolute

[NoLimitLeagues]

lets say the online site with the best tables was co-owned by Bin Laden and Dick Cheney, most of the players were Al Qaeda Donkeys. your +EV would be substantially bigger than any other site and all other variables, such as software, # of players, etc... was avg or above avg.

If Bin Laden made money off of your rake, would you play there? i would love to hear a yes or no, with a short explanation of why.

[bap2086]

[ QUOTE ]
lets say the online site with the best tables was co-owned by Bin Laden and Dick Cheney, most of the players were Al Qaeda Donkeys. your +EV would be substantially bigger than any other site and all other variables, such as software, # of players, etc... was avg or above avg.

If Bin Laden made money off of your rake, would you play there? i would love to hear a yes or no, with a short explanation of why.

[/ QUOTE ]

most grinders would id say, recreational players would be more likely to boycott.

[fartman77]

[ QUOTE ]
"Sklansky and mason should use their influence to help punish AP for their wrongdoing rather than endorse it."

We can't do that. AP paid us a half a million bucks to endorse it. Then they sent me an extra half a million after they read my post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe this 100%

[MarvinMartian]

I feel that building toward a better future for everyone is in my personal best interests. Pretty sure I'm seriously deluded though, but this is what I believe anyway. American mentality is one of the worst to do with supporting the well being of everyone. They hate the idea of paying for other peoples health care, don't want restriction on living and care about personal fiscal details etc etc. I think it's a selfish, short sighted and a terrible world to have to live in that this mentality creates for these people. I was just thinking the other day, when someone smiles at you or says "good morning" as you pass by, it really makes me think about what is important. I'm cynical and feel pretty used by alot of people, but, optimism is a path to a better world. I don't see how stilted, pessimistic although quite clearly, lucrative processes are building a better life for everyone. Water resources are dwindling and world wars could break out over water rather than oil. Eventually everyone will have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but seeing as we can do better than that, why don't we?

Also it's important you know I don't have any anti-American bigotry. I am only stating what I think is factual and supporting my discussion. The "American" analogy also is not a reflection of how everyone percieves themself or acts or even thinks but rather the whole system defines that this is how the society and individuals are operating every day.

[David Sklansky]

Take all this stuff to the SMP forum.

For the last time I meant for my OP to basically make the point that regardless of the specifics of the case, how it pans out, who will be punished, and who will get away with it, we should not forget that even the supposedly innocent owners denied cheating after looking at obvious hand histories. So they were either morons or lying. (If they were lying they might or might not have been in on it.)

We should also not forget that the site was too incompetant to have collusion software.

The post didn't contain my opinion on who is guilty and who isn't because all the information is not yet in.

The part about recommending that you should still (carefully) play there if the games are juicy, since a boycott is just cutting off your nose to spite your face, was just a throwaway line of no real consequence. I didn't expect that people would equate that subject with whether we should use medical devices develped by the Nazis in concentration camps.

[mistere45]

[ 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 ]

that wasn't the question... the question was if someone I hate has to get 200k for me to get an extra 5k. Because I don't live to spite other people, I'd take the 5k.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. You didnt explain that you isolated this question with no regards to the context of the question (AP scandal). And that you chose C because you so nobly refuse to give in to spite. An inteligent person would realize the context the question was asked in, and answer accordingly. Coincendently, you are a big advocate of playing on Absolute poker and making any profit you can. Nothing to do with spite there.

[LuckyMux]

EDITED: back to the subject...

Mr Sklansky,

Forgive me if you have already been asked this, but it's the $64,000 (maybe $7 million) question:

Will you ever play at AP from now on?

(Talking of EV; you do realise that tens of millions of fresh new fish will never even TRY online poker as long as AP is still in business. Bigger picture, yes?)

[burningyen]

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive me if you have already been asked this, but it's the $64,000 (maybe $7 million) question:

Will you ever play at AP from now on?

[/ QUOTE ]
I did ask him how much $ it would take (relative to his current hourly rate) for him to play at AP/UB. I guess he doesn't find the question very interesting.

[indianaV8]

I think Sklansky is right. This is EV +/- choice no morals involved. It's not about tolerating cheating, but it's about if you decide to play over there, what's the risk, and what's the reward.

Think of poker some decades ago, you could be robbed and killed in front of the casino. Does this make all poker players of this time immoral?

I thought that 2+2 has higher % of winning players, that is players that play poker to win money (at least some day), and are not recreational fishes, playing poker for fun and socialization.

Of coruse I will play at absolute, and of course I will tell all the fishes in my neibourhood to go play there, and of course to (the very few) winning players I know I'll tell them about the scandal, so they can go and play elsewhere.

Poker, no matter if you play it for paying your bills or just for fun, is competitive game, and the money, apart from any utility, is the way to determine the best player.

I take cheaters as part of the challenge. Just figuring out the risk of such thigns is already a very challenging scientific problem.

[MarvinMartian]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Sklansky is right. This is EV +/- choice no morals involved. It's not about tolerating cheating, but it's about if you decide to play over there, what's the risk, and what's the reward.

Think of poker some decades ago, you could be robbed and killed in front of the casino. Does this make all poker players of this time immoral?

I thought that 2+2 has higher % of winning players, that is players that play poker to win money (at least some day), and are not recreational fishes, playing poker for fun and socialization.

Of coruse I will play at absolute, and of course I will tell all the fishes in my neibourhood to go play there, and of course to (the very few) winning players I know I'll tell them about the scandal, so they can go and play elsewhere.

Poker, no matter if you play it for paying your bills or just for fun, is competitive game, and the money, apart from any utility, is the way to determine the best player.

I take cheaters as part of the challenge. Just figuring out the risk of such thigns is already a very challenging scientific problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are no scientist.