FAO Stephen Katz re Online Poker

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
phillysteve		#101	[-]
Posts: 354 (03/12/09 07:49:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phatus wrote: phillysteve wrote: <<< The money this top 1% - 5% of players makes would EASILY cover any rake if they had to pay it. >>> The correct answer is those 1% - 5% of winning players at unraked poker, would be losers if there was a rake because of the accumulative effect of the rake. You quite simply don't understand what you're saying. How much rake do you think these winning players are getting charged. They would have to be paying an incredibly large amount of rake to not make money if 95% plus players are losing. I don't even know why i'm arguing with you because you're obviously never ever going to understand. It's very obvious why you're unable to make money from poker. The reason people make money from raked poker online is because they find people like you to play against. Think and believe whatever you like - I'll believe the obvious, logical facts...one day you'll know I'm right. Everyone's "best bet" is to stay away from online poker...online poker truly is a pathetic waste of money, time and life.
phatus		#102	[-]
Posts: 32 (03/12/09 08:33:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: phatus wrote: phillysteve wrote: <<< The money this top 1% - 5% of players makes would EASILY cover any rake if they had to pay it. >>> The correct answer is those 1% - 5% of winning players at unraked poker, would be losers if there was a rake because of the accumulative effect of the rake. You quite simply don't understand what you're saying. How much rake do you think these winning players are getting charged. They would have to be paying an incredibly large amount of rake to not make money if 95% plus players are losing. I don't even know why i'm arguing with you because you're obviously never ever going to understand. It's very obvious why you're unable to make money from poker. The reason people make money from raked poker online is because they find people like you to play against. Think and believe whatever you like - I'll believe the obvious, logical facts...one day you'll know I'm right. Everyone's "best bet" is to stay away from online poker...online poker truly is a pathetic waste of money, time and life. how much money did you lose at online poker before coming to this conclusion?
phatus		#103	[-]
Posts: 33 (03/12/09 09:06:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	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.
phillysteve		#104	[-]
Posts: 355 (03/12/09 10:18:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	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 Last Edited By: phillysteve 03/12/09 10:23:14. Edited 2 times.
power100	Sports betting	#105	[-]
Posts: 1 (05/07/09 15:58:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	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.
phillysteve		#106	[-]
Posts: 365 (05/08/09 20:12:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	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. Last Edited By: phillysteve 05/09/09 18:51:08. Edited 2 times.
PiemasterUK		#107	[-]
Posts: 23 (09/21/09 23:07:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	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.
phillysteve		#108	[-]
Posts: 368 (09/22/09 08:01:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	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 Last Edited By: phillysteve 09/22/09 08:05:35. Edited 1 times.
phillysteve		#109	[-]
Posts: 369 (09/22/09 08:18:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	<<< whereas I have been a professional poker player for over 3 years >>> There is money to be made at online poker, but the money is made by joining poker website affiliate commission programs and suckering others into playing. There is no money to be made by players playing online poker, and that fact is crystal clear. Players will lose a small fortune or a large fortune, depending on how much they play. PS: We're still waiting for the proof. You have more excuses for not providing it than grains of sand on the earth. LOL
phillysteve		#110	[-]
Posts: 370 (09/22/09 22:07:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	<<< 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		#111	[-]
Posts: 24 (09/22/09 22:35:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	LOL
phillysteve		#112	[-]
Posts: 371 (09/23/09 04:48:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	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.
phillysteve		#113	[-]
Posts: 372 (09/27/09 23:11:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	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. Ah...a few more comments...why not? <<< That's why he refuses to answer emails >>> I responded to the email which started this thread. I don't refuse to answer emails - I direct them here for public discussion...what is wrong with that? <<< 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, >>> If anything, this illustrates how ignorant you are, either intentionally or unintentionally...and how it is you who ignores the facts and doesn't want to know the truth. So you're not 100% sure what happened in the Holocaust? You're not 100% sure what happened on 9/11? I am 100% sure what happened with both events...repeat, 100% sure...You ought to read more about history instead of the latest fraudulent article on "How to Win at Online Poker."
phatus		#114	[-]
Posts: 34 (09/28/09 02:03:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: <<< 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, >>> If anything, this illustrates how ignorant you are, either intentionally or unintentionally...and how it is you who ignores the facts and doesn't want to know the truth. So you're not 100% sure what happened in the Holocaust? You're not 100% sure what happened on 9/11? I am 100% sure what happened with both events...repeat, 100% sure...You ought to read more about history instead of the latest fraudulent article on "How to Win at Online Poker." How can you be 100% sure what happened? All you know is what the media tell you.
lolololol	poker economy	#115	[-]
Posts: 1 (11/17/09 02:51:40) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hey Steve, here's something to think about for you: Your one and only argument to prove that raked poker is unbeatable is the fact that the house will always get all the money from all the players right ? Well, this is theoretically true if every single player played until there was no more money to be brought to the table, however, the reality is not that static. A winning player depends on the continuous arrival of new losing players, or on a losing player redepositing more money. And the fact is there is always more people depositing, so the good players don't have to worry about that. In other words, there is a food chain, a whole poker economy. In your example of the 5 players that have $100 stacks, each player will continue to play until he thinks he is not a favorite anymore. The winning players will stop playing once all the losing players are broke, and wait for other players to bring more money at the table. Can you understand that ?
phatus		#116	[-]
Posts: 35 (11/17/09 03:53:16) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	lolololol wrote: Can you understand that ? If you knew Steve you would know that he most certainly can't understand that. )
phillysteve		#117	[-]
Posts: 380 (11/17/09 05:26:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	lolololol wrote: Hey Steve, here's something to think about for you: Your one and only argument to prove that raked poker is unbeatable is the fact that the house will always get all the money from all the players right ? Well, this is theoretically true if every single player played until there was no more money to be brought to the table, however, the reality is not that static. A winning player depends on the continuous arrival of new losing players, or on a losing player redepositing more money. And the fact is there is always more people depositing, so the good players don't have to worry about that. In other words, there is a food chain, a whole poker economy. In your example of the 5 players that have $100 stacks, each player will continue to play until he thinks he is not a favorite anymore. The winning players will stop playing once all the losing players are broke, and wait for other players to bring more money at the table. Can you understand that ? Your "food chain" idea is just plain wrong - the only sharks in the "food chain" are the gambling websites. Even most of the affiliate commission hucksters eventually lose back most if not all and more of their commission money to the gambling websites. But this has already been discussed in detail here on various threads. So come up with something new, or some documented audited proof of just one long term online poker winner. Your internet buddy Phatus couldn't come up with any audited documented proof of just one long term online poker winner, and of course neither will you. But it'll be funny to read your lame excuses for not providing the proof...can't wait to read them. LOL LOL LOL in advance.
phillysteve		#118	[-]
Posts: 381 (11/17/09 05:29:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phatus wrote: phillysteve wrote: <<< 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, >>> If anything, this illustrates how ignorant you are, either intentionally or unintentionally...and how it is you who ignores the facts and doesn't want to know the truth. So you're not 100% sure what happened in the Holocaust? You're not 100% sure what happened on 9/11? I am 100% sure what happened with both events...repeat, 100% sure...You ought to read more about history instead of the latest fraudulent article on "How to Win at Online Poker." How can you be 100% sure what happened? All you know is what the media tell you. Phatus - You still trying to 100% figure out what happened on 9/11 and the Holocaust?
phatus		#119	[-]
Posts: 36 (11/17/09 05:47:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phillysteve wrote: phatus wrote: phillysteve wrote: <<< 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, >>> If anything, this illustrates how ignorant you are, either intentionally or unintentionally...and how it is you who ignores the facts and doesn't want to know the truth. So you're not 100% sure what happened in the Holocaust? You're not 100% sure what happened on 9/11? I am 100% sure what happened with both events...repeat, 100% sure...You ought to read more about history instead of the latest fraudulent article on "How to Win at Online Poker." How can you be 100% sure what happened? All you know is what the media tell you. Phatus - You still trying to 100% figure out what happened on 9/11 and the Holocaust? Phillysteve - Are you still 100% believing everything the government tells you?
phillysteve		#120	[-]
Posts: 383 (11/17/09 06:08:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	phatus wrote: phillysteve wrote: phatus wrote: phillysteve wrote: <<< 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, >>> If anything, this illustrates how ignorant you are, either intentionally or unintentionally...and how it is you who ignores the facts and doesn't want to know the truth. So you're not 100% sure what happened in the Holocaust? You're not 100% sure what happened on 9/11? I am 100% sure what happened with both events...repeat, 100% sure...You ought to read more about history instead of the latest fraudulent article on "How to Win at Online Poker." How can you be 100% sure what happened? All you know is what the media tell you. Phatus - You still trying to 100% figure out what happened on 9/11 and the Holocaust? Phillysteve - Are you still 100% believing everything the government tells you? <<< Phillysteve - Are you still 100% believing everything the government tells you? >>> Of course not. So what exactly are your beliefs about 9/11 or the Holocaust that are contrary to any "popular" well known beliefs, in which you feel these particular beliefs are fiction rather than fact?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

FAO Stephen Katz re Online Poker

Quick Reply