Feds target online poker sites - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Feds target online poker sites

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Feds target online poker sites

Postby Dan Lambskin » Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:42 am

Madison wrote:
GiantsFan14 wrote:
GiantsFan14 wrote:if poker isn't gambling, then your basically saying gambling is only games that rely on pure chance.


I'm saying if the predominant factor of something is chance, then it is gambling. If the predominant factor is skill, then it is not gambling. Poker is predominantly skill based, so it is not gambling and should not be treated the same way games of chance are treated by the law.



question: if you dont think poker should be treated as gambling, how do you think it should be handled from a tax perspective? you'd still be obligated to claim the income and pay taxes on it, yet you wouldnt be able to claim any losses to offset it. or would you expect to claim them as a business expense?
Image
Dan Lambskin
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeLucky Ladders ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 10225
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Feds target online poker sites

Postby GiantsFan14 » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Madison wrote:I've got AA and you've got Ax suited clubs. Flop brings 2 clubs. Odds are about 67/33 in my favor to win the hand. If I can get all of your chips in the pot right now, I'll win 2 out of 3 times (over the long run). However, if I wait to get your chips into the pot after the turn card, my odds go to roughly 80/20. Obviously the 80/20 is significantly better than the 67/33 and adds up to a ton of money I either won or saved depending on the turn card.


why stop there? why not wait till you have a full house and he has a flush and is drawing dead?because that's not how poker works. you can't just wait around for the nuts before putting your money in the pot. in your case if i have the Ax suited, i'm far more likely to get all my money in the pot on the flop than after i whiff on the turn. by letting me see a cheap turn you'd just be giving me a chance to draw out on you for free. you're trying to make things more simple than they really are.

honestly mad, i think it's kind of funny how you attributed my talk of luck to the fact that i'm on a losing streak when it seems pretty obvious to me that you don't comprehend how huge of a factor variance is most likely because you've never been through a horrible streak of bad variance. the amount of variance in poker is mind-blowing and it's something that people on the good side of variance refuse to believe because they want to think that they're winning purely on skill.

yes you can play to reduce variance, but reduced variance will undoubtedly lead to a smaller winrate. if you're trying to play optimally, you should be making the most +EV decision which a lot of the time it will be a high variance play, but it's the play that's the most profitable over the long term.

one of my good friends and housemates is an incredibly good poker player. he's been a professional for years now and has put an enormous amount of time into doing a ton of math and learning how to play optimally. he makes coaching videos for a big time coaching site and also coaches players one on one. i can guarantee his understanding of the game is a ton deeper than either mine or yours and he's the one who taught me about how incredibly high variance of a game poker is.

i agree with you on a lot of stuff mad, but you're just flat wrong about this. your understanding of the game probably isn't as good as you think it is and because of that you probably wouldn't comprehend the amount of variance in the game unless you've been through it. if that variance tool can't convince you, i'm not sure what can other than going through it yourself. the fact that you can have 20 people all with a very good 2 ptbb winrate and over 300,000 hands one can lose money, a few will win very little money, a couple will win A TON of money and everyone else will probably land in between is just insane. these are simulations of people playing exactly the same and purely based on luck some are winning 10s of thousands of dollars while others are losing money and probably quitting the game. if that doesn't convince you, then nothing i can say will.
Image
25
@FBC_GiantsFan14 on Twitter
GiantsFan14
Baseball Scribe
Baseball Scribe

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 14131
(Past Year: 452)
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: BUSTER HATH ARRIVED

Re: Feds target online poker sites

Postby kimchi_chigae » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:34 pm

Who's your friend, GF?
Free WR!
kimchi_chigae Beginner
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 14875
(Past Year: 211)
Joined: 27 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Osaka Jail

Re: Feds target online poker sites

Postby GiantsFan14 » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:52 pm

kimchi_chigae wrote:Who's your friend, GF?


nobody famous.
Image
25
@FBC_GiantsFan14 on Twitter
GiantsFan14
Baseball Scribe
Baseball Scribe

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 14131
(Past Year: 452)
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: BUSTER HATH ARRIVED

Re: Feds target online poker sites

Postby kimchi_chigae » Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:03 pm

GiantsFan14 wrote:
kimchi_chigae wrote:Who's your friend, GF?


nobody famous.


I was just curious. Which site does he work for?
Free WR!
kimchi_chigae Beginner
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 14875
(Past Year: 211)
Joined: 27 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Osaka Jail

Re: Feds target online poker sites

Postby GiantsFan14 » Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:04 pm

kimchi_chigae wrote:I was just curious. Which site does he work for?


cardrunners.
Image
25
@FBC_GiantsFan14 on Twitter
GiantsFan14
Baseball Scribe
Baseball Scribe

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 14131
(Past Year: 452)
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: BUSTER HATH ARRIVED

Re: Feds target online poker sites

Postby Madison » Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:27 pm

Dan Lambskin wrote:
Madison wrote:
GiantsFan14 wrote:


I'm saying if the predominant factor of something is chance, then it is gambling. If the predominant factor is skill, then it is not gambling. Poker is predominantly skill based, so it is not gambling and should not be treated the same way games of chance are treated by the law.



question: if you dont think poker should be treated as gambling, how do you think it should be handled from a tax perspective? you'd still be obligated to claim the income and pay taxes on it, yet you wouldnt be able to claim any losses to offset it. or would you expect to claim them as a business expense?


Yep, losses and expenses would be a business expense. At least that's how I (and hundreds of thousands of others) have been filing and paying our taxes. You should see the state tax laws in some places, they are nuts and make no sense at all.

GiantsFan14 wrote:why stop there? why not wait till you have a full house and he has a flush and is drawing dead?because that's not how poker works. you can't just wait around for the nuts before putting your money in the pot. in your case if i have the Ax suited, i'm far more likely to get all my money in the pot on the flop than after i whiff on the turn. by letting me see a cheap turn you'd just be giving me a chance to draw out on you for free. you're trying to make things more simple than they really are.

honestly mad, i think it's kind of funny how you attributed my talk of luck to the fact that i'm on a losing streak when it seems pretty obvious to me that you don't comprehend how huge of a factor variance is most likely because you've never been through a horrible streak of bad variance. the amount of variance in poker is mind-blowing and it's something that people on the good side of variance refuse to believe because they want to think that they're winning purely on skill.

yes you can play to reduce variance, but reduced variance will undoubtedly lead to a smaller winrate. if you're trying to play optimally, you should be making the most +EV decision which a lot of the time it will be a high variance play, but it's the play that's the most profitable over the long term.

one of my good friends and housemates is an incredibly good poker player. he's been a professional for years now and has put an enormous amount of time into doing a ton of math and learning how to play optimally. he makes coaching videos for a big time coaching site and also coaches players one on one. i can guarantee his understanding of the game is a ton deeper than either mine or yours and he's the one who taught me about how incredibly high variance of a game poker is.

i agree with you on a lot of stuff mad, but you're just flat wrong about this. your understanding of the game probably isn't as good as you think it is and because of that you probably wouldn't comprehend the amount of variance in the game unless you've been through it. if that variance tool can't convince you, i'm not sure what can other than going through it yourself. the fact that you can have 20 people all with a very good 2 ptbb winrate and over 300,000 hands one can lose money, a few will win very little money, a couple will win A TON of money and everyone else will probably land in between is just insane. these are simulations of people playing exactly the same and purely based on luck some are winning 10s of thousands of dollars while others are losing money and probably quitting the game. if that doesn't convince you, then nothing i can say will.


Who said "cheap" card? If I bet the pot, it is a -EV play for you to call since you're getting 2-1 on a 3-1 draw, but nowadays everyone thinks of the "implied" odds if they hit, so they call anyway. There's really no reason to go for your entire stack on the flop in that spot, but I watch people attempt it all the time, and those types of players have far greater swings (up and down) than those who don't do it. You shove on the flop, I call of course, but my typical play is to bet the pot, you call, and after you miss the turn, the pot is large enough to warrant you calling off your stack to see the river. Now you might be a good enough player to not fall into the trap, but that type of play has been quite profitable on my end, with much smaller risk.

You're right, I've not gone through a crazy swing on the low side. My worst run was around 100,000 hands at Absolute and I chalked that up to my mind not being all there (life sucks, but sometimes life goes for your throat). When all was said and done though, I still finished up. I'm well over the 3 million hand mark you mentioned before, I've played more hands than that at Pokerstars alone. You're probably right that I underestimate variance and I admit that I believe the player has more control over variance than you do. That's also a mindset though, which is different for each player based on their expectations. What I mean by that is when someone sits down at a cash game, what is their goal? Obviously we all sit down with the goal being to make money, but are we going for every chip on the table regardless of the risk, or are we simply going to make as much as we can as smartly as we can? So yeah, as far as cash games, I won't be hitting the monster swings upward (without changing my game of course, but we are all tweaking our games all the time), but I won't hit the monster swings downward either, and I will continue to be quite profitable at it.

I read what you wrote about your housemate earlier in the thread. Sounds like you have a wealth of knowledge at your fingertips, and I have no doubts your friend knows more than us. I don't work for any poker related companies in any way, not sponsored by one, haven't written any books (although I have considered doing just that, specifically on how to avoid the big swings down - and I had the idea over a year ago, this conversation didn't spur me to think of that :-b ), never been on television, or anything. I'm no one special, but I am a very long term winning poker player.

It's not that I don't comprehend what variance can do, I just believe players have a lot more control over the situations where variance comes into play than you do. And that's where I believe the biggest difference is with the best players in the world, and everyone else. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying I'm one of the best players in the world, I am far, far away from that, I'm not anywhere close. What I mean is would you consider Tom "Durrr" Dwan one of the best players in the world? I don't. He's a very high risk high reward player, and is quite successful at it (even with the monster swings up and down), but he is not anywhere close to the league someone like Phil Ivey is in. The biggest difference in those two players? Phil Ivey controls variance on a much higher level. So while a computer simulation (or millions of simulations) might show Dwan as the "better" player because his highs are higher, it couldn't be further from the truth. Computer simulations are wonderful things, I enjoy checking them out, studying them, and playing with them. The problem is the amount of variables involved. I'm sure the link you gave me is quite accurate as to the possibilities of what can happen, I have no doubts about that, but I do believe the players control how, when, and how much (as in bet amount) those numbers come into play, which gives them a whole lot more control over it than you think they have. So while (as you said):

" the fact that you can have 20 people all with a very good 2 ptbb winrate and over 300,000 hands one can lose money, a few will win very little money, a couple will win A TON of money and everyone else will probably land in between"

This may be true overall, I believe it to be the skill level of each player determining which path has their name on it.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Feds target online poker sites

Postby GiantsFan14 » Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:33 pm

Madison wrote:This may be true overall, I believe it to be the skill level of each player determining which path has their name on it.


really? are you not comprehending the point of that tool? all of the players have the exact same skill and yet the variance is that huge between them.
Image
25
@FBC_GiantsFan14 on Twitter
GiantsFan14
Baseball Scribe
Baseball Scribe

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 14131
(Past Year: 452)
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: BUSTER HATH ARRIVED

Re: Feds target online poker sites

Postby GiantsFan14 » Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:41 pm

Madison wrote:Who said "cheap" card? If I bet the pot, it is a -EV play for you to call since you're getting 2-1 on a 3-1 draw, but nowadays everyone thinks of the "implied" odds if they hit, so they call anyway. There's really no reason to go for your entire stack on the flop in that spot, but I watch people attempt it all the time, and those types of players have far greater swings (up and down) than those who don't do it. You shove on the flop, I call of course, but my typical play is to bet the pot, you call, and after you miss the turn, the pot is large enough to warrant you calling off your stack to see the river. Now you might be a good enough player to not fall into the trap, but that type of play has been quite profitable on my end, with much smaller risk.


lol are you kidding me with this? what other option is there? do you think people open shove that flop or something and by just betting your somehow taking a lower variance route? what exactly is the high variance play on that flop? what exactly is "going for your entire stack on the flop"?

you have no control over what i do, all you can do is bet the flop and i'll either call or i'll shove in which case you call. there is no low variance or high variance route.
Image
25
@FBC_GiantsFan14 on Twitter
GiantsFan14
Baseball Scribe
Baseball Scribe

User avatar
EditorCafeholicResponse TeamCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 14131
(Past Year: 452)
Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: BUSTER HATH ARRIVED

Re: Feds target online poker sites

Postby bigh0rt » Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:42 pm

You've used two different ideologies to support your case here, Mad. The first being that poker should not be considered gambling because it is a game based on skill and ability more so on luck. It has been argued that while this may be true, it would not or should not disqualify poker from being lumped in with other similar gambling games. You've also argued that poker is different and should be considered so because you are actively wagering throughout, while with sports betting, horse racing, etc. you place your wager beforehand and once things get underway, they are out of your control. It has been argued that this, while also true, should not disqualify poker from being lumped in with other similar gambling games.

I guess what I'm getting at here is, you're stating a lot of truth here (some of which seem to be up for debate with GF as far as variance/luck/skill are concerned), but none of what you're saying seem to be relevant to classifying poker as non-gambling compared to other gambling activities. You're wagering money with the intent on turning it into more money due to something that is largely out of your hands, even if you are Phil Ivey. I believe it was ayebatter who compared it to the stock market, which really in my mind only separates itself from gambling in that when you're putting your money out there you're literally buying a company and own something; you're making a purchase.

I don't think it's a bad thing. I enjoy poker. I played it last weekend at Mohegan Sun. I play cash games and tournaments with friends and co-workers. When it first became big on the internet in the early 2000's I played there quite a bit too. I can't imagine not considering it gambling, though, regardless of ability being able to make you win more often than you lose, nor having perceived control during the act of the wager.
Image
bigh0rt
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 24805
(Past Year: 370)
Joined: 3 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Crowding The Plate

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: unioreimi and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Monday, Jul. 28
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

San Diego at Atlanta
(12:10 pm)
Milwaukee at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Philadelphia at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Washington at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Arizona at Cincinnati
(7:10 pm)
Toronto at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Colorado at Chi Cubs
(8:05 pm)
NY Yankees at Texas
(8:05 pm)
Oakland at Houston
(8:10 pm)
Pittsburgh at San Francisco
(10:15 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact