Tuesday, 5 July 2005 - 10:16 PM BST

"Party Poker just had a public offering with the company's estimated net worth being Five Billion Dollars - this represents money that was fleeced and continues to be fleeced from gamblers."

Like those Tesco bastards, who keep posting massive profits representing money that was fleeced and continues to be fleeced from shoppers.

Wednesday, 6 July 2005 - 1:56 PM BST

I sincerely believe that you are trying to reason with someone who does not have the capacity for reason (as far as the subject matter is concerned).

Therefore I judge that your time and effort will be utterly wasted if you pursue this dialogue.

I have a lot of respect for anyone who actively battles with their addiction and this guy's no exception, even though we all know that in this instance he's wrong. I agree with your point that he has to maintain his position to prevent himself from giving in to his addiction.

If this is correct and you pursue the debate, then you risk being responsible for returning him to his worst. I wouldn't want that responsibility on my conscience, or even the risk of it.

The debate may draw more traffic to his site too, it certainly has done so thus far. This could conceivably lead to some prospective online players being put off.

My advice would be to leave him alone and hope that he doesn't find favour with a wide audience.

Wednesday, 6 July 2005 - 5:01 PM BST

Regardless of who is right or wrong in your debate. Two things do need to be pointed out.

1) So many people refer to poker as being a Zer-sum game. It is not, unless you know of games with no rake or table charge.

2) It is possible to have a 2-year winning streak. In fact an infinite long winning streak is possible in the set of all winning streaks. The set of winning streaks forms a Gaussian distribution with the likes of 1-day, 2-day streaks right in the middle and longer ones tending towards the periphery.

I'm not doubting your skill but I'm not doubting his arguments either. His arguments do fail to point out that bad players lose their $20 quicker than good players and so over time a good player will be a few cents above the average winning amount.

Wednesday, 6 July 2005 - 5:40 PM BST

I'm sure he did once know the difference between poker on the one hand and roulette, craps and blackjack on the other, but if he did then he's either forgotten it or actively disavows it. I'm puzzled by his emphasis on the rake, as if were the same as the house edge in casino games and made the economy of poker the same as that for those games, when the ways that good and experienced players have of making money at poker are so many and various that there's just no comparison. Even if it weren't just a matter of the dynamics of the game itself, where the skill is in using so many forms of knowledge to stay on the right side of the odds and ensure your opponent is gettting the worst of it - and saving your money when the reverse is true - then there'd still be game selection (your 7-stud high-low example), accumulated knowledge of other players etc etc. I couldn't be more certain that when I sit down at a cash table at Gutshot or the Vic, the last thing that determines whether or not I come out in profit that evening is the table charge.

Wednesday, 6 July 2005 - 11:12 PM BST

Nevis,

I think you are nailed on right. It would be awful if anyone encouraged him to get back into gambling and I should just drop this now.

However he's telling a lie about an industry and in theory could be taken to court, though I doubt he has enough impact to appear on the online sites' radars.

DY

Friday, 8 July 2005 - 3:20 PM BST

I knew the name rang a distant bell.

Stephen Katz was one of Bill Bryson's high-school acquaintances and former travelling companions that he writes about amusingly in his book Neither here Nor there.

Perhaps Bryson invented the name "Stephen Katz" to protect his real travelling companion from being hurt, or more to the point to protect Bryson himself from being sued.

I wonder if our former gambling buddy should look into suing Bryson for character defamation? Lets face it, Bryson could afford it and our man gets to settle some of his (presumably enormous) gambling debts.

Friday, 5 August 2005 - 11:18 AM BST

Well, he has a point.

He's wrong, of course, that no-one can win. Strong players can hardly lose if they manage their money well, don't tilt, and have good game selection skills.
But, he's right about 99% of the gambling public. Your view that "lots" win is biased by being around REAL poker players all the time.

And he's right that the executives and shareholders are making the real money.

Who's his audience? Winning players who know they can win? No - he doesn't care about those. His aim is to discourage the average member of the public doing their brains for the benefit of the site's shareholders, or at least let them know they have no chance. So what if he believes that no-one can win - if he mentioned winners it would dilute his admirable message to the rank and file.