FAO Stephen Katz re Online Poker

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
phatus		#41	[-]
Posts: 11 (03/04/09 07:51:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: My request for proof should be quite simple and easy to do...if it existed. If unraked online poker ever comes to the US, which I've posted before I believe there's a good chance it will, then you'll see what I'm talking about in regard to poker's popularity in the US, as then there would be a marked increase in the amount of online poker players. If it's so easy to do why don't you hire someone to do an audit on Alex? You don't have to bet any money. Just hire someone to do the audit. Like you say it's easy enough to do so why don't YOU do it. You believe there's a good chance of unraked online poker. Exactly who's going to fund this venture? I'm genuinely interested to know who would go to the hassle and expense of setting up an online poker site where they wouldn't be able to make money. You do realise that poker sites are businesses and their source of income is rake?
Phil		#42	[-]
Posts: 12 (03/04/09 07:52:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	RE phillysteve: You said: You keep conjuring up new excuses not to post the proof, and it's quite obvious why. You bring up "the bet" again? I'm not going to do that firstly because I have no reason to trust some anonymous poster on the internet and I don't care if you say you're trustworthy or not...and I'm not going to worry about figuring out any scam angle if there is one...I'm just not going to do it and you already knew that before you posted it that I wasn't going to do it...not for a dollar or a million dollars - So stop being silly. Why do you need "a bet" to post the proof? Just post the dam thing with the audit information and scans of the documents...this should be easy, VERY EASY to do except...and it's a big "except" (LOL) because we both know the proof doesn't exist. So stop being silly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not conjuring up any excuses. You refuse to post your proof. You have no grasp of even basic maths but yet you say you've somehow worked out that raked poker is impossible to beat. How did you work this out when your grasp of maths is to put it kindly very bad. Can we have some proof, after all you are the only person in the world claiming this to be true, while there are thousands of winning poker players with every hand they've played independently tracked online. Some are out there now aged 20 with a house (no mortgage) a car and millions in the bank. Whatever I post will be unacceptable to you if it disproves your theory. You've already been pointed to winning players stats but they are bots or colluding according to you. People don't generally get their poker results audited and even if they did it would be the 'wrong' auditor to satisfy you. Out of interest which auditor would be acceptable to you and what documents would you like them to audit? On the subject of the bet. Where's the risk. Raked poker can't be beaten....right so you'll win. It's not even a bet because you're 100% correct...right. Why not escrow the money with someone you both trust, a Lawyer maybe. Then you could have the audited documentation you require, it would prove you right and everyone wrong and you'd have some money to help problem gamblers. That's all providing that just because you keep repeating something with nothing to back it up makes it true.
phatus		#43	[-]
Posts: 12 (03/04/09 07:57:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: A certified audit from a reputable accounting firm would probably run around $2,000 - for players claiming to be making seemingly unlimited amounts of money playing online poker, two dimes should be peanuts to them? So lets say you had just made $100K last year playing online poker. Would you be willing to pay $2K to prove to some random person on the internet that you're telling the truth? Genuinely interested to know your answer to this question. I'm still not quite sure why Alex's pokertracker stats aren't proof enough for you. Is it because you think he's using a bot or colluding. If that was the case why would he draw attention to himself by posting a blog of his results.
Phil		#44	[-]
Posts: 13 (03/04/09 07:58:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: I am sure that I understand poker, as well as other gambling game rules, strategies and odds quite well...although sometimes I get confused about what Mike Matusow is doing. LOL You mentioned "expectation" - Online poker players should have a negative expectation because in reality that is the truth. So lets see your maths or math as you Americans call it. How did you work out that raked poker cannot be beaten? If your making the claim you must have at some point worked it out, so will you show us the maths behind your claim? It doesn't even need to be audited because maths can't lie.
phillysteve		#45	[-]
Posts: 322 (03/04/09 07:59:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Phil wrote: RE phillysteve: You said: You keep conjuring up new excuses not to post the proof, and it's quite obvious why. You bring up "the bet" again? I'm not going to do that firstly because I have no reason to trust some anonymous poster on the internet and I don't care if you say you're trustworthy or not...and I'm not going to worry about figuring out any scam angle if there is one...I'm just not going to do it and you already knew that before you posted it that I wasn't going to do it...not for a dollar or a million dollars - So stop being silly. Why do you need "a bet" to post the proof? Just post the dam thing with the audit information and scans of the documents...this should be easy, VERY EASY to do except...and it's a big "except" (LOL) because we both know the proof doesn't exist. So stop being silly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not conjuring up any excuses. You refuse to post your proof. You have no grasp of even basic maths but yet you say you've somehow worked out that raked poker is impossible to beat. How did you work this out when your grasp of maths is to put it kindly very bad. Can we have some proof, after all you are the only person in the world claiming this to be true, while there are thousands of winning poker players with every hand they've played independently tracked online. Some are out there now aged 20 with a house (no mortgage) a car and millions in the bank. Whatever I post will be unacceptable to you if it disproves your theory. You've already been pointed to winning players stats but they are bots or colluding according to you. People don't generally get their poker results audited and even if they did it would be the 'wrong' auditor to satisfy you. Out of interest which auditor would be acceptable to you and what documents would you like them to audit? On the subject of the bet. Where's the risk. Raked poker can't be beaten....right so you'll win. It's not even a bet because you're 100% correct...right. Why not escrow the money with someone you both trust, a Lawyer maybe. Then you could have the audited documentation you require, it would prove you right and everyone wrong and you'd have some money to help problem gamblers. That's all providing that just because you keep repeating something with nothing to back it up makes it true. Most teachers in the US will know that Penn State University has an excellent school of business. I graduated from Penn State with a degree in Finance - Ya gotta know a little bit of math, just a little bit (LOL) to get that degree. LOL
phillysteve		#46	[-]
Posts: 323 (03/04/09 08:11:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phatus wrote: phillysteve wrote: A certified audit from a reputable accounting firm would probably run around $2,000 - for players claiming to be making seemingly unlimited amounts of money playing online poker, two dimes should be peanuts to them? So lets say you had just made $100K last year playing online poker. Would you be willing to pay $2K to prove to some random person on the internet that you're telling the truth? Genuinely interested to know your answer to this question. I'm still not quite sure why Alex's pokertracker stats aren't proof enough for you. Is it because you think he's using a bot or colluding. If that was the case why would he draw attention to himself by posting a blog of his results. If I was motivated enough to prove that person wrong, then yes I would pay the $2,000. What's the big deal, that would be one nice poker pot, right? You guys may not believe me and that's okay, but I enjoyed the conversation even if the feeling from you won't be mutual. You see, I tell other gamblers in recovery, especially those struggling with the addiction, that they shouldn't be afraid of "action" because gamblers like action, and writing the book, posting in forums, and doing other things as well provides me this action and keeps me away from gambling. So action is good when done in healthy ways, and in my view, an important part of a successful recovery from gambling addiction is to keep busy in constructive ways rather than in harmful destructive ways such as online poker. Stephen Katz
phatus		#47	[-]
Posts: 13 (03/04/09 08:15:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: Most teachers in the US will know that Penn State University has an excellent school of business. I graduated from Penn State with a degree in Finance - Ya gotta know a little bit of math, just a little bit (LOL) to get that degree. LOL Okay so you're apparently great at maths. Please prove how you worked out that raked poker cannot be beaten?
Phil		#48	[-]
Posts: 14 (03/04/09 08:18:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: Most teachers in the US will know that Penn State University has an excellent school of business. I graduated from Penn State with a degree in Finance - Ya gotta know a little bit of math, just a little bit (LOL) to get that degree. LOL Trust me if you had a clue about maths and the difference between short term variance and long term edge you would never have posted the following comments: A good poker player could beatup on a bad player all night, then go all-in with A-A and get beat and lose their entire bankroll - How do you explain the "math" behind that? but there is way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to beat these type of players against the long term accumulative effect of the rake. As you know even a 2-7os hand can beat an A-A hand, even on the river. K-K can beat A-A, etc. So anyway, lets see your maths that led you to the conclusion that raked poker is unbeatable. You must have it to hand if you make the same claim again and again.
phatus		#49	[-]
Posts: 14 (03/04/09 08:26:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: If I was motivated enough to prove that person wrong, then yes I would pay the $2,000. What's the big deal, that would be one nice poker pot, right? You guys may not believe me and that's okay, but I enjoyed the conversation even if the feeling from you won't be mutual. You see, I tell other gamblers in recovery, especially those struggling with the addiction, that they shouldn't be afraid of "action" because gamblers like action, and writing the book, posting in forums, and doing other things as well provides me this action and keeps me away from gambling. So action is good when done in healthy ways, and in my view, an important part of a successful recovery from gambling addiction is to keep busy in constructive ways rather than in harmful destructive ways such as online poker. Stephen Katz Wow so after spending a year earning $100K you'd quite happily give 2% of that away to prove someone that you've never met is wrong. I can understand why you had such a bad gambling problem if you have such little regard for money. It's good that you have kicked your habit and it's great if you're helping other people kick their habit as well but you really are without a shadow of a doubt wrong about raked poker being unbeatable. I can obviously never get you to change your mind and that's probably for the best because if you thought it was beatable then you might decide to start playing again which would no doubt be very bad for you going by some of the comments you've made.
Phil		#50	[-]
Posts: 15 (03/04/09 08:41:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phatus wrote: It's good that you have kicked your habit and it's great if you're helping other people kick their habit as well but you really are without a shadow of a doubt wrong about raked poker being unbeatable. I can obviously never get you to change your mind and that's probably for the best because if you thought it was beatable then you might decide to start playing again which would no doubt be very bad for you going by some of the comments you've made. I think the top and bottom of it is that he doesn't want to believe it's beatable, because if it is he'd have to admit he ruined his life over something that other people can make good money from. Anyway he's never going to be convinced. He has come to his conclusions without even working out if they're mathematically true or not. So no amount of convincing is going to change his mind because he doesn't even know whether what he's saying is true or not. Anyone can just keep saying something over and over. I'm going to leave him to it. He is obviously someone that's so convinced of something, even though he hasn't bothered working out if he's right or not, that even if he saw a winning player win over the long term sat in front of him he still wouldn't believe it.
phillysteve		#51	[-]
Posts: 325 (03/04/09 11:40:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Phil wrote: phatus wrote: It's good that you have kicked your habit and it's great if you're helping other people kick their habit as well but you really are without a shadow of a doubt wrong about raked poker being unbeatable. I can obviously never get you to change your mind and that's probably for the best because if you thought it was beatable then you might decide to start playing again which would no doubt be very bad for you going by some of the comments you've made. I think the top and bottom of it is that he doesn't want to believe it's beatable, because if it is he'd have to admit he ruined his life over something that other people can make good money from. Anyway he's never going to be convinced. He has come to his conclusions without even working out if they're mathematically true or not. So no amount of convincing is going to change his mind because he doesn't even know whether what he's saying is true or not. Anyone can just keep saying something over and over. I'm going to leave him to it. He is obviously someone that's so convinced of something, even though he hasn't bothered working out if he's right or not, that even if he saw a winning player win over the long term sat in front of him he still wouldn't believe it. Well, I've clearly identified myself - You have not. I don't know if you're an addicted gambler or an affiliate commission huckster although it's likely both. I state something, in writing, on the forum, and a few posts later you conveniently forget what was posted, or you try to spin it like a con artist, but you fool nobody but yourself and maybe a few others - typical behavior for an addicted gambler who thinks they're so clever trying to con other gamblers into signing up on their affiliate commission program - when the bottom line is you'll wind up gambling all the commission monies right back to the gambling websites, including a lot more of your own money and assets if you likely haven't done that already. You know I'm right, but the addiction doesn't want you to believe the obvious facts, and these facts are obvious. One day hopefully soon you'll want to beat this addiction, stop preying on naive people because you hurt them and yourself as well, and get yourself into a good recovery program...and I wish you the very best in doing so. However, it is a tough addiction - arguably the toughest. Stephen Katz
essexguy1234		#52	[-]
Posts: 4 (03/04/09 13:12:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Stephen, I also have a degree in Finance. You are saying that due to the math, you can not escape going broke due to the rake. You also say that this is the same with the stock market. If this is true you would win the Nobel Prize in Economics. As I have studied this intensely, I am extremely unaware of this. I have friends from Harvard Business School who are also unaware of this. The Professors are unaware, the traders are unaware, and the whole world is unaware. Why don't you tell the world and win the Nobel Prize in Economics? If you answer this one question I promise I will value your opinion and keep an open mind as to what you say. Last Edited By: essexguy1234 03/04/09 13:20:16. Edited 1 times.
phillysteve		#53	[-]
Posts: 326 (03/04/09 14:57:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	essexguy1234 wrote: Stephen, I also have a degree in Finance. You are saying that due to the math, you can not escape going broke due to the rake. You also say that this is the same with the stock market. If this is true you would win the Nobel Prize in Economics. As I have studied this intensely, I am extremely unaware of this. I have friends from Harvard Business School who are also unaware of this. The Professors are unaware, the traders are unaware, and the whole world is unaware. Why don't you tell the world and win the Nobel Prize in Economics? If you answer this one question I promise I will value your opinion and keep an open mind as to what you say. <<< You also say that this is the same with the stock market. >>> I've never stated that - It would be silly to say that, and it's even sillier for someone to believe anyone would say that.. BTW - Nobody needs to win a Nobel Prize to see the hypocrisy in bodaciously bragging about winning all this money playing online poker, but unwilling to properly prove it. Basically, your 2-7os bluff regarding your claim was called, and by not presenting the simple and easy proof, you mucked your hand.
essexguy1234		#54	[-]
Posts: 5 (03/04/09 15:57:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You're a funny guy. You mentioned 'Day Trading' which is in your book. The piece is on your web site. I will provide the link here: http://www.gamblingfactsandfictions.com/id27.htm You mention to avoid trading things like derivatives (options) etc. There is no dount that commissions (like the rake in poker) is an expense that makes this a negative sum game. How on earth you make the claim (without managing to back it up) that no matter what the players ability is, or their game selection to give them a big edge over their players, they will definately fail is beyond me. As you can't deny what you said about day trading, why don't you educate the whole world and win the Nobel Prize in Economics? This was the final nail in the coffin.
phillysteve		#55	[-]
Posts: 327 (03/04/09 17:39:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	essexguy1234 wrote: You're a funny guy. You mentioned 'Day Trading' which is in your book. The piece is on your web site. I will provide the link here: http://www.gamblingfactsandfictions.com/id27.htm You mention to avoid trading things like derivatives (options) etc. There is no dount that commissions (like the rake in poker) is an expense that makes this a negative sum game. How on earth you make the claim (without managing to back it up) that no matter what the players ability is, or their game selection to give them a big edge over their players, they will definately fail is beyond me. As you can't deny what you said about day trading, why don't you educate the whole world and win the Nobel Prize in Economics? This was the final nail in the coffin. You didn't mention "day trading" before. Investing in the stock market and day trading are two different things as the article points out. Since you seem to have a fancy for the "Nobel Prize" why not tell us more about yourself? <<< I also have a degree in Finance >>> It's unusual that someone would mention this and not name their school. Tell us more about yourself and your school, then we can nominate you for the "Nobel Prize" of online poker. LOL And while you're at it...don't forget to post the proof of your claims about winning at online poker. Oh sorry I forgot, your dog ate it. LOL Last Edited By: phillysteve 03/04/09 19:25:23. Edited 1 times.
Phil		#56	[-]
Posts: 16 (03/04/09 19:54:41) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: You didn't mention "day trading" before. Investing in the stock market and day trading are two different things as the article points out. Since you seem to have a fancy for the "Nobel Prize" why not tell us more about yourself? <<< I also have a degree in Finance >>> It's unusual that someone would mention this and not name their school. Tell us more about yourself and your school, then we can nominate you for the "Nobel Prize" of online poker. LOL And while you're at it...don't forget to post the proof of your claims about winning at online poker. Oh sorry I forgot, your dog ate it. LOL Oh dear Steve. You really are not keen on backing up your claims are you. You claims have so many floors in them (the biggest being you haven't even done the maths behind it), it would be like me saying to an astronaut that the earth is flat. I would have no evidence, but I'd just keep repeating the earth is flat, any evidence the astronaut presented I would say was spin. That's how mad your claims are to someone that has a clue about the maths behind poker. Make no mistake the maths is not spin as you like to put it. The whole problem of whether raked poker can be beaten is a maths problem, unfortunately you forgot/were unable to do the maths. Anyway I'm going to give up now. There is no point going over the same points over and over when you have no real grasp of what anyone's talking about anyway. Good look with your crusade, I'm sure you might manage to convince a few people with very low IQ's and/or a lack of maths education. Just remember though, in the real world repeating something over and over, when you haven't even looked at the fundamentals behind your claim doesn't make the claim true.
phillysteve		#57	[-]
Posts: 328 (03/04/09 22:31:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Phil wrote: phillysteve wrote: You didn't mention "day trading" before. Investing in the stock market and day trading are two different things as the article points out. Since you seem to have a fancy for the "Nobel Prize" why not tell us more about yourself? <<< I also have a degree in Finance >>> It's unusual that someone would mention this and not name their school. Tell us more about yourself and your school, then we can nominate you for the "Nobel Prize" of online poker. LOL And while you're at it...don't forget to post the proof of your claims about winning at online poker. Oh sorry I forgot, your dog ate it. LOL Oh dear Steve. You really are not keen on backing up your claims are you. You claims have so many floors in them (the biggest being you haven't even done the maths behind it), it would be like me saying to an astronaut that the earth is flat. I would have no evidence, but I'd just keep repeating the earth is flat, any evidence the astronaut presented I would say was spin. That's how mad your claims are to someone that has a clue about the maths behind poker. Make no mistake the maths is not spin as you like to put it. The whole problem of whether raked poker can be beaten is a maths problem, unfortunately you forgot/were unable to do the maths. Anyway I'm going to give up now. There is no point going over the same points over and over when you have no real grasp of what anyone's talking about anyway. Good look with your crusade, I'm sure you might manage to convince a few people with very low IQ's and/or a lack of maths education. Just remember though, in the real world repeating something over and over, when you haven't even looked at the fundamentals behind your claim doesn't make the claim true. Essexguy who has a fancy for the Nobel Prize, should know that Nobel Prize winners sometimes win through scientific observation - Well my "scientific observation" is the fact that there have been millions of online poker players, and not a single one to the best of my knowledge, has posted audited and documented proof of their winnings...despite the fact that many out there claiming to be "winning" at something else and trying to sell the system, often post audited and documented proof to show that they aren't lying or exaggerating about their claims. All I asked for is simple and easy documented proof...the same kind the others readily provide...yet you make countless excuses not to post it. I understand the math in poker I'm sure as well as you - learning math in poker is child's play...it's learning "tells" and knowing player tendencies is where the real skill comes in and you should know that...but I don't need math to disprove what you say...through scientific observation anyone can observe millions of online poker players, and yet no audited and documented proof of winnings, which except to an addicted gambler or affiliate commission huckster, that alone would be enough to prove my points. You just mucked your 2-7os bluff...but affiliate commission hucksters will keep trying to convince naive underage gamblers who frequent poker forums, of the false promise of winning money at online poker...and affiliate commission hucksters will cleverly entice and lure kids into playing online poker until they are dead broke and in debt, possibly stealing to get money for the next online poker tournament - Unfortunately all that happens much too often to the insatiable delight of gambling website owners. Stephen Katz Last Edited By: phillysteve 03/04/09 22:36:46. Edited 1 times.
phatus		#58	[-]
Posts: 15 (03/05/09 02:31:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: I don't know if you're an addicted gambler or an affiliate commission huckster although it's likely both. I personally don't play any other games involving money except for poker because poker is the only game i know of that's beatable. I've only been to a casino twice and never played anything there except for poker. If i was an affiliate for a poker site i'm not doing a very good job because i haven't once mentioned a poker site that players should play at.
phatus		#59	[-]
Posts: 16 (03/05/09 02:54:30) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: I don't need math to disprove what you say...through scientific observation anyone can observe millions of online poker players, and yet no audited and documented proof of winnings, which except to an addicted gambler or affiliate commission huckster, that alone would be enough to prove my points. You've already stated it would cost $2,000 to get an audit. Nobody is going to pay this when it doesn't benefit them in the slightest. Even if someone had an audit done you would then say that they could still be colluding or using bots to attain there winnings so it's impossible to meet your demands of proof. Anyone with a bit of sense would understand that sites like sharkscope are living proof that players make money at poker. I can't understand why it's so difficult for you to see this. It's like you've been brainwashed or something. I like the way you say you don't need math to disprove your claims. Answer me this question. Are you even able to prove your theory with math? You must be able to otherwise it makes no sense what you're saying. So why don't you just put an end to this debate once and for all and blow us away with the maths you've done to prove it isn't possible to win at raked poker. The reason you don't want to do this is because you can't because you're wrong. Please attempt to prove me wrong but i know you can't.
phillysteve		#60	[-]
Posts: 329 (03/05/09 06:12:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phatus wrote: phillysteve wrote: I don't need math to disprove what you say...through scientific observation anyone can observe millions of online poker players, and yet no audited and documented proof of winnings, which except to an addicted gambler or affiliate commission huckster, that alone would be enough to prove my points. You've already stated it would cost $2,000 to get an audit. Nobody is going to pay this when it doesn't benefit them in the slightest. Even if someone had an audit done you would then say that they could still be colluding or using bots to attain there winnings so it's impossible to meet your demands of proof. Anyone with a bit of sense would understand that sites like sharkscope are living proof that players make money at poker. I can't understand why it's so difficult for you to see this. It's like you've been brainwashed or something. I like the way you say you don't need math to disprove your claims. Answer me this question. Are you even able to prove your theory with math? You must be able to otherwise it makes no sense what you're saying. So why don't you just put an end to this debate once and for all and blow us away with the maths you've done to prove it isn't possible to win at raked poker. The reason you don't want to do this is because you can't because you're wrong. Please attempt to prove me wrong but i know you can't. Your math is fuzzy math...I've already stated why there has never been a mathematical winning formula devised for poker because the best hand doesn't automatically win...I saw on TV, Matusow bluffed out when he had Q-Q preflop he folded with by far the best hand. Your silly example of 3% or whatever it was...you're just picking random numbers out of the air and applying it to a "sales pitch" - Your math is inane as far as what determines winning poker realistically. Of course addicted gamblers live in a fantasy world when it comes to gambling and too often fall for BS math like you're presenting...and that's what your "math" is...BS. I was presuming that either you or others recently posting are affiliate commission members...if you're not, then those comments about affiliate commission members wouldn't apply to you. It's amazing to me that you're not "getting" the request for proof or perhaps you don't want to get it. I've seen various "sales pitches" from affiliate members - I know you couldn't possibly believe that if an affiliate commission member had audited and documented proof of their claims of winning all this money playing online popker, that a paltry $2,000 spent to display this proof, would entice and lure in players to signup with them and their commissions earned would far surpass the $2,000 spent...that this affiliate commission member wouldn't be running over to an accountant to get this done. Let's say you did this and proved to the world that you were the genius who finally figured out how to beat raked online poker - You would have players in droves signing up on your affiliate links so that you could guide them and support them to earn big money like you are earning. This is so crystal clear why affiliate commission members would be highly motivated to display audited and documented proof of their claims - a child could understand this but for obvious reasons, you and others don't wish to understand this simple, easy to understand marketing concept. Last Edited By: phillysteve 03/05/09 06:18:41. Edited 1 times.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

FAO Stephen Katz re Online Poker

Quick Reply