I know raked poker is beatable because i make money from playing online. I don't make anywhere near enough to make $2,000 an insignificant amount though. If i was earning millions i'm still not sure i'd get an audit done as i couldn't be bothered. Like someone else said if you want to arrange for an audit on my poker winnings and pay the $2,000 yourself that would be fine. I have stats for myself on sharkscope that i could show you but there isn't much point as you'd just say i'd got it through collusion or using bots.
FAO Stephen Katz re Online Poker
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 phatus |
||||
|
Posts: 17 (03/05/09 06:40:49) |
|
|||
|
phillysteve |
||||
|
Posts: 330 (03/05/09 09:59:45) |
phatus wrote: Hey, we finally agree on something. LOL And come on now....yes, anyone would have to see if there was collusion or bots being used, or if the earnings were actually from playing poker. This could be done by posting scans of the documentation - the deposits and withdrawals from the gambling websites. Why this should be so easy is that someone legitimately making money playing online poker should have all this documentation anyway - it's not something extra they would need to do. I mean take yourself...you should be keeping accurate track of your profits and losses playing online poker...anyone who isn't doing that of course couldn't get an accurate figure on how they're really doing. I've read where some have said they've deposited say $100 at PS, and never made another deposit and have withdrawn money and have a built up bankroll - that alone wouldn't be sufficient proof of overall winning because they may have lost more money than that at another gambling website...but I have asked some of them to at least post scans of what they stated from PS, and they don't even do that - I mean how hard would it be to at least do that? I think even you would admit there is a lot of BS out there about claims of winning money at online poker. and again...I'd have no problem whatsoever if it were true that say 1% of online poker players were making money at it - I would still call it a sucker's game for 99% of the players. Perhaps some other time on this forum, I'll post about how this viewpoint of mine about asking for proof evolved due to observations out there. But one perhaps last thing for now - I personally, I'm sure, know a lot, a lot, a lot more gamblers and poker players than you...I'd be very sure of that...as stated I've done a lot of gambling and played a lot of poker with a lot of people and I've personally known a number of the type of pros that are illustrated in the movie "Rounders"...the kind that make their living the same way in unraked poker games at various venues. Well...not one of them, not one, has ever stated to me that money could be made playing raked poker, and some of these people are dam good poker players, better than me and I would be sure better than you, and even they tried online poker and said in so many words that it's a sucker's game and it goes beyond just the problem with the rake...IE: you can't get hardly any accurate tells off a computer screen, the tells that really matter such as voice inflection, body language, etc. |
|||
|
phatus |
||||
|
Posts: 18 (03/06/09 02:09:22) |
To be fair you're right that i could be colluding or using bots. But do you really believe that every winning player on sharkscope is colliding or using bots? If what you're saying about those poker players is true that they make money in live unraked games but not online the reason isn't because online is raked. It's because live games are easier to beat. Many people agree that live games are generally softer. Also like you said they don't understand how it's possible to beat the game if they can't get physical tells. A good online player will get 'tells' from players betting patterns. Even Daniel Negreanu says betting patterns are more important than physical tells. |
|||
|
phatus |
||||
|
Posts: 19 (03/06/09 02:22:02) |
Just out of interest what are the typical stakes these live players you know play at? Also what is their average winrate (rough estimate)? I'm sure you've had converstations with them regarding this as every poker player i've ever spoken to loves going on about how much they're making. |
|||
|
phillysteve |
||||
|
Posts: 331 (03/06/09 05:35:12) |
phatus wrote: Come on now....Do you really believe Negreanu on this? I've never heard him state this but admittedly, you likely follow him much closer than me so I'll take your word for it. But I do know that Negreanu pays more credence to tells rather than precise poker odds calculations. Of course a player like Chris Ferguson relies more on the precise odds calculations. And both are of course excellent poker players. But Negreanu is involved with a gambling website in a big time way, and makes a lot of money off it in a big time way, so of course he is going to say something positive regarding online poker. Frankly, as you should know, professional poker players are irrepressible straight-faced liars, and of course the "ability" to do that helps them in their live game in ways you should know. So...If he said that which I'll assume he did on your word, I don't believe for a second that he means it. I'm not saying that betting patterns aren't important, but no way betting patterns are more important than physical tells. Look, it's not my forum here, and even though the forum owner doesn't seem to post anymore, he did want the forum NOT to be one of "betting strategy" so I'm not going to discuss poker "strategies" any further, unless it's in the context of making a point against online poker which I feel this was here....Please remember that I am NOT against poker players or playing poker, and never have been and never will be...I am simply against the exploitation involved in the game. |
|||
|
phillysteve |
||||
|
Posts: 332 (03/06/09 05:46:57) |
phatus wrote: See my last comments in my last post - Sorry, but I'm gonna pass on answering most of this. <<< I'm sure you've had converstations with them regarding this >>> However, I will answer this "No"...I've never had this conversation with a pro and I would never ask. |
|||
|
phatus |
||||
|
Posts: 20 (03/06/09 05:59:27) |
phillysteve wrote: they are if you play online ;op . |
|||
|
phatus |
||||
|
Posts: 21 (03/06/09 06:05:50) |
phillysteve wrote:
|
|||
|
phillysteve |
||||
|
Posts: 333 (03/06/09 15:12:18) |
phatus wrote: I'll answer your questions since you said there is a point to it. I played live unraked poker for many years - I never kept track of my profits, just a guestimation that I've won low 5 figures in dollars...might be a bit less or a bit more. I played in low stakes games, mostly pots of maximum $250 and less, and usually the pots were less than $100 and many times much less than that. I tried "stepping up" a few times and got my ass kicked and wisely decided as Clint Eastwood stated, "A man's got to know his limitations" therefore I stayed with small stakes whereby I was better than most if not usually all of the other players. And you took some of my comments out of context, and I'm tired of repeating myself and having to put my comments back in context, but I will review your reply if you provide one - It had better be something new or different than what's already been posted if you want a reply from me - please don't spin or regurgitate a previous comment. I have something else to add and I'll do it in another post..... |
|||
|
phillysteve |
||||
|
Posts: 334 (03/06/09 15:30:36) |
I haven't posted this in a long time and not sure if I've ever posted it here in this forum:
Any home game players who want to know what a sucker's game is online poker without having to lose money to find out...can do it this way. Say there are 5 of you who regularly play in a home game...each of you have a jar with your name on it, and after each pot take out the rake money that a gambling website would take out and place it in your jar. In most home games, most should know who the better players are...of course the worst players still play because they always hope they'll get lucky that night which can be a money losing addiction, but I'll stay on the topic here...so as stated...after a player wins a pot, take the rake money out of the pot and place it in that player's jar, and do this every time just like a gambling website would do. This might not happen each night, but I guarantee you that even the best player in the game will eventually lose their bankroll and go broke - guaranteed. The better player will usually accumulate more money in their rake jar, and after the experiment is over, that player and all the other players can take the money out of the jar and of course it's their money to keep. However...if it was a gambling website...they also have a "jar" but they don't give you any money back except sometimes for some rakeback, but that rackback is never good enough to save a bankroll...the rakeback will make the bankroll last longer, but sooner or later as stated, even the best player's bankroll will windup "in the jar"...guaranteed.
Last Edited By: phillysteve
03/06/09 15:33:50.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
|
phillysteve |
||||
|
Posts: 335 (03/07/09 00:35:10) |
phillysteve wrote:I'll clarify this further to try to eliminate some spins. Each of the 5 players begin with say $100. Any player is free to reload from their own money, but over the course of the playing sessions, and it could take awhile for the best player, even the best player will windup losing their $100 original bankroll. Due to variance, they'll be the usual fluctuations in winners and losers among the players for each particular session, but every player over some time will eventually lose their original $100 bankroll. Of course the best player will have much more than $100 in their rake jar so actually of course including the rake jar money, that player will be a long term winner, but wouldn't have been a winner if the rake was real. This is the way it works in the real world. In the fantasy world of gambling addiction, or in the BS sales pitches of affiliate commission hucksters, they figure all a player has to be is a percentage better than the other players, than the rake percentage, and those players will be long term winners. However, there is way too much luck involved with poker for even the best players to overcome the accumulative effect of the rake. Stephen Katz
Last Edited By: phillysteve
03/07/09 02:53:10.
Edited 1 times.
|
|||
|
phillysteve |
||||
|
Posts: 336 (03/07/09 03:36:59) |
phillysteve wrote: Another point to eliminate a possible spin - Some may admit I'm right here, and of course I already know I'm right here...but they may say what if there is say a 25% rakeback, and the best player accumulates say $500 in their rake jar before going broke, and with 25% rakeback would get back $125 therefore actually showing a profit of $25 including the $100 bankroll loss. Well, the percentages don't work that way in the long-run. As most gamblers know, there can be wide swings in variance at times, but over the long-run variance basically evens out. So in reality, the best players rake money in the jar will not be greater than $500 or whatever are the rakeback calculations. The player will windup gambling back the rakeback money...and again...at some point in time the $100 bankroll will be gone as well as any rakeback money. Again...as was pointed out in other threads, in say a game like the "Big Game" it could take a very long time for a rake to affect a bankroll - could be years because of the large dollar amounts gambled...but the rake will eventually grind out even a very large bankroll. Those "household name" poker players would all eventually go dead broke from their "Big Game" sessions, playing raked poker at a casino, if it wasn't for other income they receive such as from books, affiliate program commissions, endorsements, and other income derived from poker. Of course they are all technically addicted gamblers, and just like the rest of us but on a much bigger scale, when sitting down at a poker table with a rake, they always figure that in this session they will have the skill or get lucky and win. Addicted gamblers by nature are short-sighted when it comes to gambling...the long term accumulative effect of the rake isn't properly taken into account...and even the "Big Game" when raked at a casino, winds up in the long-run to be a sucker's game for the participants. Even for those who may have a hard time visualizing how the "Big Game" in the long-run is a sucker's game and don't want to believe that...I think it should be easy to visualize how for the vast majority of online poker players, those who play in pots of $1,000 or less, that it doesn't usually take all that long for the rake to grind out a bankroll, especially with the fast pace of online poker. It's not a mystery why nobody here posts audited and documented proof of winning money in the long-run playing online poker - it's simply because that proof doesn't exist because online poker truly is a sucker's game and quite pathetic really...sorry to say. And I fully understand that I'm being a "killjoy" explaining the facts of the situation and the anger that creates when someone is looking at their dreams of being a professional online poker player being shattered - But isn't it better to learn the truth? I tell it like it is, and that's the way it is...online poker is a sucker's game for all the players with the only sharks being the gambling website owners. Anyone reading here on this forum can believe me or anyone else - it's your prerogative and your money. Stephen Katz
Last Edited By: phillysteve
03/07/09 06:30:16.
Edited 2 times.
|
|||
|
essexguy1234 |
||||
|
Posts: 6 (03/07/09 12:32:16) |
Stephen, how does poker differ from trading the markets where you have to pay commissions etc?
|
|||
|
phillysteve |
||||
|
Posts: 337 (03/07/09 14:56:36) |
essexguy1234 wrote: Well you've read my views on poker and you posted the link to my article on day trading so I'll presume you read that, so I think you've got my views on all this. I'd like to read your viewpoint on "how does poker differ from trading the markets where you have to pay commissions etc" because to me I don't see why any comparison of how they differ is useful - But I'll read your reply and change my mind if you present an interesting perspective. |
|||
|
essexguy1234 |
||||
|
Posts: 7 (03/07/09 16:36:52) |
Stephen,
I am not saying that they differ. I think they are very similar. Obviously the financial markets can be considered the biggest casino in the world. Are you saying that it is all luck when making money? I wanted to become a trader in derivatives (options) which is very mathematical as you would know. Are you saying that propriety trading is all luck long-term? I would like to know your views on this with regard to traders at investment banks. |
|||
|
essexguy1234 |
||||
|
Posts: 8 (03/07/09 16:48:07) |
Also I would like you to answer one last question.
You say that you can't win at online poker due to the rake. You say that all players will eventually go broke. You also say that 2% of players win. How can this be? This is not consistent with that you have been saying.... |
|||
|
phillysteve |
||||
|
Posts: 338 (03/08/09 03:43:04) |
essexguy1234 wrote: I really don't have anything to add here other than what's in the article. Please note as well that the forum owner wanted this forum to be about online poker as that was his bad addiction, so I intentionally haven't much discussed other forms of gambling here. I could write a dissertation about the differences/similarities between the different traders as the stock market is an area of expertise for me as my career choice was going to be a stockbroker and perhaps one day owning my own stockbrokerage firm...but it didn't turn out that way - LOL |
|||
|
phillysteve |
||||
|
Posts: 339 (03/08/09 04:35:25) |
essexguy1234 wrote:Here is the bottom line...it's up to you or anyone else to believe it or not...Unraked poker is a game of pure skill in which the best players will win in the long run - some might say that the best player always playing in an unraked poker game with weaker players isn't actually gambling...and I don't disagree with that one bit. However, raked poker turns a pure skill game into a negative expectation gambling game in which the gambling house or website eventually winds up with all the money from all of the players. And yes, I fully understand that in the "Big Game"...raking let's say $20 from a $100,000 pot may seem quite irrelevant...but let's do the math...and let's understand the realities of poker. No matter how good you are, sooner or later some stud comes along who is better than you and can clean you out, and chances are you won't even see it coming...and it doesn't matter how good you are because there are a number of circumstances which can affect your game. Age is obviously a circumstance, and other things as well such as continued use of amphetamines and other drugs to stay alert in long poker sessions such as multi-day tournaments. Trying to become a professional poker player truly is a poor career choice - many of them die at a much younger age than the general population and virtually all of them die dead broke. Getting back to the math...let's take that $20 rake...Let's say a pro in the "Big Game" gets involved in 50 raked pots a day, five days a week...that's a cost of $5,000 a week, approximately $250,000 a year...over ten years this would be 2.5 million dollars...over a course of thirty years playing poker from say age 20 to 50, this would accumulate to 7.5 million dollars in rake - that's a lot of money even to a "Big Game" player. So let's say a "household name" player who has money and is now 50 years old, has gotten older and isn't quite as sharp as he used to be, and suddenly before he fully comprehends it, a guy across the poker table who he thought was a fish, now has his money and suddenly he is dead broke. Well, if he hadn't been playing in raked poker games, he would have had around 7.5 million dollars still in his possession, instead of in the gambling business owner's possession. With the accumulation of the rake, the numbers become staggering even for players in smaller pots, and it gets to a point with variance, and other points that I alluded to here, and there are other factors as well, whereby there is just too much luck involved with poker to overcome this enormous accumulation of rake money taken from a bankroll. You see some if not most of you "sweet and innocent" internet poker players who may have never even touched an actual playing card, don't understand the mentality of gambling house owners and gambling website owners - You don't understand them, you really don't. They aren't normal business people offering products or services to society in return for some profit. They are predators out to get every penny you have...every penny you bring into their house they want..and they have cleverly designed every gambling game they offer, including online poker, to do exactly that - they don't want to share. They don't want 1% or any of their customers making money off their gambling house or website, even though they make rake money...these gambling business owners want 100% of the money that comes into their venue...and they will eventually get it...sooner or later...just a question of when. Stephen Katz |
|||
|
essexguy1234 |
||||
|
Posts: 9 (03/08/09 10:09:34) |
Ok Stephen, thank you for pointing this out. I will think about what you say and read everything you write. By the way, I am not an addicted gambler, although
I can have an addictiive personality, I have plenty of willpower because I realise the destruction caused to our life if we let our addictions get hold of us.
I will keep you updated as to the situation with my friend. He is a very good friend and I am being totally honest when I say that he has been playing online poker for 6 years for a living without a losing month!! Although most of the time he does not earn very good money, he has had a couple of big wins. I will let you know the situation in the months/years ahead, you can have this info purely for your information and we will see what happens. I definately will not lie about it as I really have nothing to gain by doing so, although I hope that he does not go broke as he is a good friend. He does not touch cash games, only tournaments. We will see what happens in the future... |
|||
|
phatus |
||||
|
Posts: 22 (03/09/09 04:39:56) |
phillysteve wrote: so if the best player in the game was winning at a rate of say £10 every 100 hands and he was being charged £5 rake every 100 hands (obviously on average) then surely he would be making £5 per 100 hands. So his bankroll won't disappear due to the rake. He will be gaining £5 for every 100 hands he plays. This is how it's possible to beat the rake. This is about as simply as i can explain it. |
|||
