Zero Rake Poker Business plan

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]

Part of poker is management of emotions. One reason that a lot of people don't play well in B&M is precisely that they get impatient. What you guys want, because you know this is indeed a problem, is to be free of one of the requirements of playing good poker.

And I know you guys want a lot of hands so you can cherry pick the best hands and ignore the others. If some guy is making a play on you, and your hand is marginal, you want the freedom to toss it and move on since you are being busy at other tables anyway.

That may be good rote poker, but it isn't real poker. Real poker requires you to have the discipline to toss a marginal hand when you are frustrated by not having seen a good hand in an hour.


[/ QUOTE ]


Blah blah blah blah blah. Get a clue. You sound silly. I played "real poker" in casinos for ten years before internet poker's inception. When online poker came around, I made the necessary changes to my game. Mostly it was like going from chess to speed chess. But I did it, and learned how to profitably add tables. However, back in the late 90’s, you were only allowed to play one table. Looks like you got a late start.

If you can't beat a guy playing 12 tables, what makes you think you’ll be able to beat that guy if he was giving you his full attention and looking to mix it up because he has nothing better to do? Online poker is different from live poker, but they are both "real" poker. If you can't beat it, just go play live with the drunks on Friday night at your local B&M room.


[ QUOTE ]
If some guy is making a play on you, and your hand is marginal, you want the freedom to toss it and move on since you are being busy at other tables anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

And these are the guys you don't want at your table?


[ QUOTE ]
Part of poker is management of emotions. One reason that a lot of people don't play well in B&M is precisely that they get impatient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, losing with a set, top two, KK, AA and a flush all at the same time and having to make good decisions on three more tables doesn’t take any emotional management.

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about Party in 2003? Party's software back then made WSEX's software at its worst look flawless,

[/ QUOTE ]

So not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we'll have to disagree on that as well. I thought the disconnects were much worse on Party in 2003 then wsex was when they went 100% rakeback.

[Your Mom]

your idea is as good as your poker game.

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No shiat this is tarded. What you gonna have 30 second commericals between hands or some shiat? Tuff get over your hardon against multitabling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh [censored] off. Some of you are so completely anal (that is, head up your a$$) that you wouldn't know fresh air if it was toxic. I offer you a free goose for thanksgiving and you piss and moan because it wasn't fat enough.

What a crew.

You know. Badgers have been found dead at each other's throats because they were too enraged or stubborn to let go of the other's throat and move away. Some of you guys remind me of that.

"I want Party Poker back the way it was in 2004 or nothing"

Well, nothing is what you stand to get if you all don't get off your dead backsides and make something happen. Get your stupid selfish selves over to the Legislative Forums and work for your right to fleece the fish.

In the meantime I have a plan. Sort of an alternative to the tight nit grinder online poker world of today. But you are NOT invited. Please don't show up on opening day.

Tuff

[/ QUOTE ]

Tuff, I admire your enthusiasm, but I have a serious question for you.
Do you think when a FTSE100 company is forced to drop 85% of it's revenue that it might have had every top legal mind at it's disposal looking at legal ways to offer poker in the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

B.S.

Mitch Garber didn't want to go to jail and neither did the other execs.

Newsflash - if what you people were doing wasn't already illegal then why were your companies set up in every god-forsaken place EXCEPT the United States?

The public officials of these companies became petrified of going to jail. They had already cashed in big from the IPOs so what do they care.

Ruth already wouldn't come back into the US before the law was passed. The law changed nothing but it freaked out the scumbag execs whose names were public. The same ones that are now trying to pay off the DOJ so they don't go to jail.

The private companies still cater to the US. It is still illegal just like before the law was passed the difference is these companies didn't move fast enough to go public.

Please save us the top legal mind fantasy. These companies can exist if their execs are in jail. This comes down to not wanting to be a fugitive and the likelihood of that rising with a new law. But don't be fooled, it was already illegal. These companies are not located in Malta, Gibraltar and CR because of the quality of life.

[fleece_me]

[ QUOTE ]
In the 6 years I have been associated with online poker the number one thing that has always made me chuckle the most is when people say "the overhead to run a poker room is small".

[/ QUOTE ]

Quit pretending like Party Poker isn't run the cheapest way possible. If the self-titled "visionaries" at this former FTSE100 company had not been so pathetically cheap to donate 50 or 100 million (2 months of revenue back in the day) to some lawyer/lobbyists this never would of happened.

This is probably best for eveyrone at Party. The top 3 people make their 400 million each or whatever and in a few years after party gets done paying off the DOJ for non-prosecution guarantee they can come back to the states and all will be well.

This is better for them than the alternative, which was to continue to operate their illegal business until when exactly? It had to end sooner or later and they were money hungry enough to go public first and cash in.

The quicker people understand that Party Poker should of donated millions in Washington to keep these kinds of laws from the passing, the quicker they will understand what it takes to get it overturned.

The founders at PP cared about 2 things. Getting rich and not going to jail (in that order).

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Part of poker is management of emotions. One reason that a lot of people don't play well in B&M is precisely that they get impatient. What you guys want, because you know this is indeed a problem, is to be free of one of the requirements of playing good poker.

And I know you guys want a lot of hands so you can cherry pick the best hands and ignore the others. If some guy is making a play on you, and your hand is marginal, you want the freedom to toss it and move on since you are being busy at other tables anyway.

That may be good rote poker, but it isn't real poker. Real poker requires you to have the discipline to toss a marginal hand when you are frustrated by not having seen a good hand in an hour.


[/ QUOTE ]


Blah blah blah blah blah. Get a clue. You sound silly. I played "real poker" in casinos for ten years before internet poker's inception. When online poker came around, I made the necessary changes to my game. Mostly it was like going from chess to speed chess. But I did it, and learned how to profitably add tables. However, back in the late 90’s, you were only allowed to play one table. Looks like you got a late start.

If you can't beat a guy playing 12 tables, what makes you think you’ll be able to beat that guy if he was giving you his full attention and looking to mix it up because he has nothing better to do? Online poker is different from live poker, but they are both "real" poker. If you can't beat it, just go play live with the drunks on Friday night at your local B&M room.


[ QUOTE ]
If some guy is making a play on you, and your hand is marginal, you want the freedom to toss it and move on since you are being busy at other tables anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

And these are the guys you don't want at your table?


[ QUOTE ]
Part of poker is management of emotions. One reason that a lot of people don't play well in B&M is precisely that they get impatient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, losing with a set, top two, KK, AA and a flush all at the same time and having to make good decisions on three more tables doesn’t take any emotional management.

[/ QUOTE ]



Lots of people who multi-table play the same types of hands that they would at one table.
More tables does not necessarily equal tighter play. +EV situations are still +EV and many people play them that way.

Yes, it's also possible to play 20 tables of full-ring and pretty much just wait and wait and wait for premium cards and then get by with a really minimal profit on each of your 20 tables. But saying that all multi-tablers do that is silly because it just isn't true.

I've played with guys who were playing 60% or more of their hands on multiple tables also.

Tuff - if you really want to try to make ANY kind of headway on this silly non-profit idea then you are going to have to seperate it from your multi-tabling biases because you are really killing any chance for any kind of support you might be able to get.
Work on the non-profit thing now...take care of the multi-tabling thing later...or better yet, just drop it entirely since it's obviously not going away.
It's like screaming about how much you hate commercials in football games and the networks should do something to stop it.
Ummm, the commercials aren't going away no matter how much you yell about it. You'll just sound like an idiot. That's pretty much the same as how you sound about the whole multi-tabling thing. You don't like it when obviously so many other players do.

[Nortonesque]

[ QUOTE ]

I think something like this would make for a good start. Basically a peer-to-peer play-money system where it can be verified that nobody is cheating could be used to get the ball rolling and then if that was proven to work properly a real-money version could be thought about.

I'll have to read some of Ray Bonnert's old "Honest Holdem" posts - I just assumed they were spam, but it sounds like their might actually be some interesting stuff within them. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm looking into some of the p2p frameworks (currently JXTA) with the goal of creating a p2p poker system.

I think the key, rather than worrying about play money and real money, is to disassociate the system from actual payment. So some third party may be exchanging money based on the outcome of a game, but the system knows nothing about it. Then any payment systems (legal, hopefully) will come about organically on what should be a pretty level playing field.

[speedle]

Record another vid plz

[Rzitup]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the 6 years I have been associated with online poker the number one thing that has always made me chuckle the most is when people say "the overhead to run a poker room is small".

[/ QUOTE ]

Quit pretending like Party Poker isn't run the cheapest way possible. If the self-titled "visionaries" at this former FTSE100 company had not been so pathetically cheap to donate 50 or 100 million (2 months of revenue back in the day) to some lawyer/lobbyists this never would of happened.

This is probably best for eveyrone at Party. The top 3 people make their 400 million each or whatever and in a few years after party gets done paying off the DOJ for non-prosecution guarantee they can come back to the states and all will be well.

This is better for them than the alternative, which was to continue to operate their illegal business until when exactly? It had to end sooner or later and they were money hungry enough to go public first and cash in.

The quicker people understand that Party Poker should of donated millions in Washington to keep these kinds of laws from the passing, the quicker they will understand what it takes to get it overturned.

The founders at PP cared about 2 things. Getting rich and not going to jail (in that order).

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ok, don't be mad. Next time just save your fingers and write a few less words. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of people who multi-table play the same types of hands that they would at one table.
More tables does not necessarily equal tighter play. +EV situations are still +EV and many people play them that way.

Yes, it's also possible to play 20 tables of full-ring and pretty much just wait and wait and wait for premium cards and then get by with a really minimal profit on each of your 20 tables. But saying that all multi-tablers do that is silly because it just isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say any of that?