Simplifying My Absolute Post

[PoorSkillz]

Groups who want to see Absolute Poker run out of business:
[x] the player(s) who went HU with the cheater
[x] players who paid the tournament entry fee
[x] all Absolute Poker players *
[x] all online poker players *
[ ] all poker players
[ ] administrators of poker forums
[ ] gambling commissioners from tribes who provide "oversight" AND ALSO host the AP network servers
[ ] owners of TV networks, websites, etc. who receive AP advertising dollars
[ ] all Absolute Poker owners
[ ] the cheater


Groups who have the power to see Absolute Poker run out of business:
[ ] the player(s) who went HU with the cheater
[ ] players who paid the tournament entry fee
[ ] all Absolute Poker players
[ ] all online poker players
[ ] all poker players
[ ] administrators of poker forums
[x] gambling commissioners from tribes who provide "oversight" AND ALSO host the AP network servers
[x] owners of TV networks, websites, etc. who receive AP advertising dollars
[x] all Absolute Poker owners
[x] the cheater

What an interesting dilemma we have here.

* I still believe most people don't know how deep the scandal runs if they know of it at all, so I assume that if they did they would want to see them ran out of business.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding Mr. Sklansky,

The problem I have with Mr. Sklansky is NOT that he has different views than I do. The problem I have is that when people argue that his opinion is wrong and gives him reasons why or if they have any other questions regarding what he said in his post, Mr. Sklansky does not respond to them.

Instead, Sklansky creates an entirely new post restating the same exact opinion but "simplifies" it for the masses. The problem isn't that we are not smart enough to understand what you are trying to say Mr. Sklansky. Your opinion is going to be wrong no matter how much you "simplify" it for us, but if you would like to discuss your opinion with us maybe we can understand each other a little better. Until that happens, I ask Mason to please reapply his muzzle to Mr. Sklansky.

[/ QUOTE ]

I simplified my first post not because I thought most people didn't understand it but because some responses did not seem to. I didn't want to waste time debating someone who thought I meant something I didn't.

[highhustla]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Absolute is going to whether this storm no matter what we do. And they are probably going to get rid of the bad apples and eventually run a good site. Driving them out of business might be fun. But if it is mainly innocent idiots who are hurt rather than thieves it isn't that fun. Also making too much of this whole thing when they are now trying to correct it, could be bad for poker in general. That being said I would be all for a probably futile effort to put them out of business if it was clear they have retained their theives and were still trying to rob us. But it is not clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mr. Sklansky,

You seem to be correct that they are going to weather the storm no matter what we do.

Regarding the latter point, however: I believe it is in fact very, very clear--as clear as it ever possibly could be, given the ridiculous opacity of AP's structure--that they have indeed retained the thieves. I believe the only statement we've heard from them is that the thieves can "no longer access" AP. One of them is an owner, ffs. Both of them were in charge of day-to-day operations during the cheating, as far as we know (how does this happen in the first place?). Seif, also an owner, has tried to help stonewall.

We don't have any proof that they are still trying to rob us at the moment, but it's not clear that they AREN'T trying to rob us, either. How can you say that the burden of proof isn't on AP?

[Michaelson]

Regarding the 1-10 scale thing, exactly what do you think AP will find so objectionable about your post?

In the face of very strong sentiments expressed for several weeks now that people who support AP hurt online poker in general, 2+2's big poppa steps in and states categorically that no one should feel any obligation not to avoid AP.

I'm sure Tom Scott is reeling.

As an aside: [ QUOTE ]
You might have helped scoundrel owners but maybe they are gone. (You might also have HURT those owners by making the games tougher.)

[/ QUOTE ]Looks like you didn't know if you were bluffing or value betting with this statement.

[PoorSkillz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regarding Mr. Sklansky,

The problem I have with Mr. Sklansky is NOT that he has different views than I do. The problem I have is that when people argue that his opinion is wrong and gives him reasons why or if they have any other questions regarding what he said in his post, Mr. Sklansky does not respond to them.

Instead, Sklansky creates an entirely new post restating the same exact opinion but "simplifies" it for the masses. The problem isn't that we are not smart enough to understand what you are trying to say Mr. Sklansky. Your opinion is going to be wrong no matter how much you "simplify" it for us, but if you would like to discuss your opinion with us maybe we can understand each other a little better. Until that happens, I ask Mason to please reapply his muzzle to Mr. Sklansky.

[/ QUOTE ]

I simplified my first post not because I thought most people didn't understand it but because some responses did not seem to. I didn't want to waste time debating someone who thought I meant something I didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, Mr. Sklansky, but now that you have simplified your statement and there are still people who disagree with your opinion (as well as parts of your statement), if you ever do want to actually debate the issue here, I (along with many others) will be ready to do so.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I would be all for a probably futile effort to put them out of business if it was clear they have retained their thieves."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's abundantly clear that they have done just that.

Had they not, you can bet we would have heard about the arrests and prosecutions shouted from the rooftops of Costa Rica. Did Barings allow Nick Leeson to chill on a Panama beach and still get paid?

Instead, AP continues to protect, cover and lie for the perpetrators. It has officially named and shamed NOBODY in any of its garbage statements regarding the scandal, except when claiming Scott Tom hasn't been involved with AP for over a year (a proven lie).

Now you know, I hope you will stand by your statement and help to drive these cheating scumbags out of poker forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I do.

Almost everybody has taken the wrong thing away from my post. Because they have focused on my off the cuff remark that you should might as well grab money off the site if you can.

But that wasn't the reason for my post. My post was actually a giant criticism of AP. And it stemmed from private conversations they had that were related to me. Conversations that were supposed to lead to our lawyers going down there. In those conversations they went into some detail about their innocence, their desire to fix things, their plans for the future etc. etc.

When some of the details were retold to me, my eyes glazed over and I retorted something along the lines of "even if all that is true, what do they say about the fact that they had no software that flagged suspicious play or that they didn't realize that the hand histories trumped any computer engineer's opinion about the possibility of seeing hole card's?"

Mason asked me to hold off, temporarily, on posting those words while they were in the middle of setting up the lawyer thing.

In other words I was saying that even if you give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that the remaining management is innocent, they are still such bumblers that you should only play there if your edge appears so great as to overcome the greater risk. You think AP rates those words an "eight"?

I never actually gave much thought to how high the probability is that the site is still infested with crooks. My gut tells me it isn't but I haven't read enough details to have a strong opinion one way or the other. My post was never meant to address that issue or the issue of what the thieves deserve to get as punishment. I was only looking at it from the viewpoint of a struggling poker player and what his best action is.

Absolute probably won't cheat anymore. Even if some of the dishonest owners remain. And there is almost certainly nothing a small group of players can do to punish the guilty. So to not play there if it is profitable, is cutting off your nose to spite your face. On the other hand even if the remaining owners are completely honest, they have proved to be morons. And they apparently don't have software to catch colluders or other cheats. Thus the games have to be extra juicy to justify the greater risk.

If this Clarifying My Simplifying Post that Phil suggested gets me killed, I expect Mat to go through this thread and give a two week ban to all those posters who forced me to write it.

[ikestoys]

[ QUOTE ]

Groups who want to see Absolute Poker run out of business:
[x] the player(s) who went HU with the cheater
[x] players who paid the tournament entry fee
[x] all Absolute Poker players *
[x] all online poker players *

* I still believe most people don't know how deep the scandal runs if they know of it at all, so I assume that if they did they would want to see them ran out of business.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. Most players have left, but a few who have know everything have stayed.

[apefish]

David- that last post was good.
I hope people actually read it.

[PoorSkillz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Groups who want to see Absolute Poker run out of business:
[x] the player(s) who went HU with the cheater
[x] players who paid the tournament entry fee
[x] all Absolute Poker players *
[x] all online poker players *

* I still believe most people don't know how deep the scandal runs if they know of it at all, so I assume that if they did they would want to see them ran out of business.


[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. Most players have left, but a few who have know everything have stayed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I probably shouldn't have used the word "all", there is hardly anything that can be generalized to all people, but even you agree that most people who do KNOW the greater amount of the story have left.

[mother_brain]

[ QUOTE ]
I never actually gave much thought to how high the probability is that the site is still infested with crooks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't thought much about this issue...

[ QUOTE ]
My gut tells me it isn't but I haven't read enough details to have a strong opinion one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't haven't paid enough attention to have any facts about this issue...

[ QUOTE ]
Absolute probably won't cheat anymore. Even if some of the dishonest owners remain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since i haven't thought much about this issue and dont have enough evidence to have a solid conclusion, i conclude that they probably won't cheat anymore...

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand even if the remaining owners are completely honest, they have proved to be morons. And they apparently don't have software to catch colluders or other cheats.

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably won't cheat, but they can't catch other cheaters.

I wonder why your posts always require further simplification.