Yuku free message boards

phatus wrote:

---

I've just been reading some previous posts you've made. It seems like poker has broken your mind or something. You must have lost a disgusting amount of money to go to this amount of time to slate it. I actually feel a bit sorry for you now tbh.

My life is going great...and one reason for that is I don't waste my money, time and life playing sucker's games such as online poker.

If you add any lucid points, I'll respond...if you wish to post inane comments for silly argument, then I suggest this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

power100 wrote:

---

I came across your site awhile ago and noticed that a lot of content is inaccurate especially in regards to sport betting and horse racing. Your information on raked poker may be correct, however it does look dubious, but you are defiantly wrong on the above activities as these are beatable.

Your page on horse racing indicates that there is a 20% take out on all horses. This is true on US horse racing but UK horse racing does not operate a parimutuel system so you always get the price you take barring withdrawals. This means that unless the market is perfectly efficient then it is possible to profit. The exchange market is widely acknowledged as being fairly efficient at off time, margin of error is about 1%, so if the exchange price is regularly being beaten by a better then they will make a long term profit. The same applies to sport betting and your information on the juice is wrong and out of date. Pinnacle and the big Asian books offer 98% payouts and the industry as a whole has become much more competitive in regard to margins.

Also if it was impossible for books to lose money to any better then why would they ban or restrict the stake of some customers? If they always won from such customers this would not make sense as they would be losing out on additional profits. The reason books do this is that they lose money from some customers in the long run and they are thusly monitored then banned. I know this from personal experience as I am on the monitored customer list at my local betting shop and on certain events find my stakes restricted. They do this because if they did not then they would lose loads of money too people wanting to bet on these events. This actually occurred and is why they placed the limits on these events in the first place.

In your page you seem to be stating that books models are perfect but you are disregarding the fact that in general that books are looking for balanced action and as the public will generally bet a certain way they will skew their odds to balance the book thus not giving a true representation of the probabilities. Also pros and syndicates have their own models and do tremendous amounts of research which combined with them always getting the best price ensures they have an edge and make long term profits. I would agree with you that the average person is never going to win at sports betting due to, bookie models being fairly accurate, and their lack of discipline but to say that nobody can win is disingenuous at best. The records of Billy Walters computer syndicate are well documented and I do not see how they can be argued against.

All the information I post is accurate. Last time I looked at the online sports books, they were offering the typical juice I stated in the article - anyone can look that up to verify it. Do they sometimes offer lower juice bets? Well of course they do and they also offer higher juice bets depending on the proposition. On the British horse racing, if you understand odds, their final odds are often very close to parimutuel odds meaning it is as big a sucker's bet as parimutuel wagering. And only an addicted gambler could believe that they are wise enough to figure out temperamental horses and see some subtle difference say 15 minutes before post time, make a bet, and gain a mathematical advantage by making another bet 1 minute before post time...of course sometimes this can occur with non-parimutuel wagering and the addicted gambler thinks he's a genius, but it is just as likely to occur the other way as well and make the "wrong" bet 15 minutes before post time, the horse begins looking rank just before post time, and be stuck with a 20% takeout bet on an almost sure loser...and I say "almost" because rank looking horses do sometimes win, in the same manner that horses warming up great often lose.

Sports betting and horse race betting can't be beat on a handicapping skill basis for the reasons I stated and that is quite clear. Could they be beat "mathematically" through "exchange markets"? Yes, technically it's possible but in my view with the time and effort involved, for the money that might be made and it's not even guaranteed because a bettor could click on one side of a bet and get that in and click on the other side and not get that one in, and then they're up against the juice, and I've been told this happens a lot. But even if some money could be made, a punter might as well work in a fish & chips restaurant and likely earn more money and be assured of a paycheck, with no possibility of losing money.

You are way off base about why books restrict or ban players - it has to do with a number of reasons mostly including possible credit card fraud, getting paid etc. The book to make money still needs to get paid on the "other side" of the bet and if they don't then they lose money. If they get stiffed for say 100,000 pounds on a football bet, but have to payout 90,000 pounds the other way, yes on paper they made a 10,000 pound profit, but in reality they lost 90,000 pounds. This is a major reason players get restricted and banned. Yes, I would agree with a basic premise that if a book, especially a smaller book, is getting too much action on one side and can't layoff the bet and risks going out of business, then of course they might restrict or ban betting. Also, do you think that every losing gambler simply "accepts" their losses? You don't think that some gamblers after losing their shirt, complain to the credit card company or bank that the book took their bet wrong, and that they want that payment stopped, they want their money back, and they want their winnings? Gamblers not in recovery are notorious liars.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, and frankly I enjoyed your commentary even though some was incorrect and we disagree on most parts, I'm not gonna change any views based on individual posts and hearsay. My statements are based on many years of knowledge regarding gambling...I don't profess to know everything, but I do know a lot, and of course statements can get outdated...for example I've already made it clear that if online poker becomes legalized in the US and it becomes rake free with a legitimate RNG, then I would no longer state that online poker can't be beat because then there will be a number of long term winners in that type of gambling.

PiemasterUK wrote:

---

LOL, everybody in this thread is wasting their time. Steve completely ignores the insanely huge mountain of evidence that online poker is not only beatable but quite comfortably so and indeed is beaten by thousands of players. He instead clings to his highly flawed* 'proof' of why it is impossible to beat and makes ever increasing outlandish (many bordering on insane) attempts to explain away every bit of evidence or logic he is presented to the contrary. The only evidence he claims he will accept is an auditted tax return, because he knows full-well that probably nobody will ever spend the money just to prove some crazy guy wrong and even if they did he would just come up with another wacky rationalisation of why it doesn't prove the player is a winner.

He is either comepletely dellusional or, more likely, just desperately trying to sell some copies of his book. That's why he refuses to answer emails, there would be no point as it doesn't generate him any public exposure. I rank this forum alongside holocaust denial and 911 conspiracy websites to be honest. In fact, I guess it's worse from my perspective because I didn't experience the holocaust or 911 first-hand, so I can't say for 100% sure what happened, whereas I have been a professional poker player for over 3 years.

* Flawed is in fact an understatement. It stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever to anybody who knows anything at all about poker.

Good "sales pitch" on your part - You're trying to fool the young and naive, and the addicted, to continue pursuing the hopeless dream of trying to beat online poker...and unfortunately, perhaps sometimes you are successful as it seems you've got this sales pitch down pat. However your "sales pitch" is not true...you know it and I know it, and hopefully others out there will know it as well.

Stephen Katz

<<< indeed is beaten by thousands of players >>>

One final comment on your silly post in which you state "indeed is beaten by thousands of players" - you have no concrete evidence of this statement whatsoever...no clue whatsoever, and in fact based on comments in this thread and on this forum, you or anyone else can't even produce a single proof, not one, let alone "thousands" - it's quite easy to see through your facade of BS.

PiemasterUK wrote:

---

LOL

Yea, maybe it's funny to you - Wonder how "funny" it is to those who get conned out of their money by affiliate commission hucksters who distort and deceive about the possibilities of winning at online poker? Wonder if any affiliate commission hucksters will find it funny when they are served with legal papers for criminal or civil charges of making money off underage people who they enticed and lured to gamble and lose their money...with the hucksters looking at some serious prison time and punitive fines.