I need some clarification on this, because there are entertainment sites that do online poker for entertainment purposes. Then there are online poker sites that you pay for your chips to play, and can get cash for your winnings above your stake (actual gambling) Then there are sites that are initally free but you pay to play by purchasing online chips.
Its a pretty generalized poll for something that has many different versions. For the ones on this side of entertainment nope they shouldn't be regulated. However those that are pure gambling, yes they should be regulated to control fraud and rip offs.
If you're not playing for money, your own money, then you're not really playing poker.
And the question isn't about whether they should be regulated. The poll is related to the subject of the article from the NYT about legislation to make it legal for a New York resident to play online poker. Not gamble. Play poker.
Why should it be a surprise, in conservative Genesee County, that the vote would be negative. they claim they want smaller government that stays out of their business. Yet, they have no problem imposing their moral code on others. Note the small c - this is not a condemnation of any political party.
A true conservative doesn't tell other people how to live their lives, respects individual liberty. I'm always shocked when people who call themselves conservative take any other position.
Howard, I agree. I'm always iintrigued when I read a poll that requires a black or whte answer. In this case, the "no" vote. How do these people see themselves/ I know, for example, that there are some issues where I am very conservative. This isn't one of them.
At first, you wrote "If you're not playing for money, your own money, then you're not really playing poker."
I read that as, 'If you're playing poker, then you are playing for money'.
Then you go on to say the question is about (not gambling, but playing poker). If I'm understanding your 1st definition of 'playing poker', then it seems that playing poker MUST involve gambling (which your last 2 sentences ("Not gamble. Play poker.") TRY to seperate
Where did it come up that is was conservatives against this..This is a bill sponsored by a a republican...I would assume it would be more liberal democrats who are against this..As we all know Coumo is the one who signed agreement with the indians not to compete with them in certain parts of the state.One only has to look at Batavia Downs......Of course on line poker should be legal..You can bet on horses on line..It only make sense that you should be able to play poker on line..
In response to Kyle, there are sites where you can play poker for valueless poker chips. You might win prizes and even cash, but you're not risking anything, which totally changes how both you (and more importantly) the other people play. It becomes more a game of chance than of skill.
Where there's real money involved, if you're a real poker player, you're going to generally try and put your best effort forward when in a game, and if the other players are doing the same, it's a challenging a game of skill. Chance is still a factor, but long-term, skill is the overriding factor in winning and losing.
Gambling is playing slots or the lottery. It's all pure chance. Poker, as Scott said, is a game of skill, where chance is minimized to the degree of skill you bring to the game.
The pot went not to the luckiest among them but to the most deft — the player who could guess his opponents’ intentions and disguise his own, make calculated decisions on when to hold and fold, and quickly decide how much to wager. That, anyhow, is how one federal judge saw it from his chambers in the Federal District Court in Brooklyn.
But again like our NYS Safe Act. There is alot of room here for NYS to go overboard and stop even the Online Poker Games that arent involving actual cash. I mean come on now, it not like we haven't seen NYS Govt abuse the grey area in other legislation. Thats why I asked for the clarification.
Mark, both parties sponsored bills.
"The main sponsor of that proposal, State Senator John J. Bonacic, a Republican whose district includes the Catskills, said allowing people to play poker online could be a source of additional revenue for the state..
Still, there is little evidence so far of a groundswell of support for online poker in New York. J. Gary Pretlow, a Democratic assemblyman from Mount Vernon who sponsored a companion bill to Senator Bonacic’s legislation, said he had heard “from one citizen in favor of online poker” and added that he intended “to hold off even looking at this with any kind of seriousness until after” the new casino licenses were sorted out"
I stressed that this is not meant to be political, but a way of thinking. For example, in this case, I think it should be okay. for the reasons stated by Sen. Bonacic. As I noted, I reference my perception of the conservative (small c ) way of thinking here in Genesee Co.
"Oh come on, I was just building on your use of wager."
Sorry Jason, you lost me !
"No one has given a reason for their no vote."
I didn't vote; I'm ambivalent about this. If folks want it, it's fine by me, but I don't think I'd ever partake. The off-shore games that used to run had poor reputations concerning rigging and other swindles before they were taken down. Plus, it simply doesn't sound like any fun. There's the chemistry of a group of people sitting around a card table that's an added dimension to the game. I think that chemistry would be absent on-line.
There was one site -- Full Tilt -- that was swindling people, and some of the biggest names in poker were involved (mainly, they were taking as profits players bankrolls; I don't believe, before the site closed, the typical player couldn't cash out).
One of the reasons PokerStars is still around, and has actually become the business trusted by the U.S. Attorney to acquire Full Tilt and pay off members, is it was run honestly.
I still have $100 in my PokerStars account. They've offered a couple of times to send it back to me, but I've always declined. Someday I'll be able to play with that bankroll again (I've never put a dime of my own money into online Poker, FWIW. I won some free rolls on the Bicycle Casino's old site, rolled that over to PokerStars, built it up to about a grand, cashed out all but $100, built it back up to $500 and then stopped playing often enough to stay sharp).
Online Poker lacks some of that personal interaction. It's harder to pick up tells, but it's a great way to practice strategy. And the observant player can still pick up reads on players and exploit them (statistically speaking, I'm a long-term winner online, but I've never been tested at high levels; off-line, barely break even; online and off, strictly a tournament player).
If online poker were legal today, I can't imagine having the time to play, but I think I should have the option. I think it's ludicrous that adults tell other adults how to live their lives.
" It's harder to pick up tells, but it's a great way to practice strategy. "
Great point. I've only played in 'friendly' games. I want to buy into casino card room game sometime -- play a little Texas Hold'em -- but it's a tad intimidating, and I don't like casino ambiance to begin with.
Scott - I recommend trying a $1/$2 No Limit table at the Seneca casino in Niagara Falls, NY. If you play tight there it's usually easy to win money. A lot of the tourists stay in hands well after they should have folded, so there is the occasional bad beat, but like I said, play tight and you'll be rewarded.
Bad beats is what keeps me out of cash games, especially no limit.
If my bankroll is X, chances are with a tournament I'll get a few hours entertainment at minimum for my bankroll, even if I don't finish in the money. A cash game can burn your bankroll in two or three hands, if not one, just because some donkey couldn't fold his Jack-6 preflop ("I always play jacks," he says smirking and he pulls your chips toward his belly). There are fewer donkeys in tournaments, and if you play tight the first couple of levels, the donkeys are usually gone by the time you get involved in a pot (though don't mind doubling through a donkey or two if I happen to get a good hand and it holds up ... that's the best of all possible worlds in a tournament, early chips).
Why are so many people
Why are so many people concerned with what people do in the privacy of their homes?
That's what I'm wondering.
That's what I'm wondering. Baffled by the results.
I need some clarification on
I need some clarification on this, because there are entertainment sites that do online poker for entertainment purposes. Then there are online poker sites that you pay for your chips to play, and can get cash for your winnings above your stake (actual gambling) Then there are sites that are initally free but you pay to play by purchasing online chips.
Its a pretty generalized poll for something that has many different versions. For the ones on this side of entertainment nope they shouldn't be regulated. However those that are pure gambling, yes they should be regulated to control fraud and rip offs.
If you're not playing for
If you're not playing for money, your own money, then you're not really playing poker.
And the question isn't about whether they should be regulated. The poll is related to the subject of the article from the NYT about legislation to make it legal for a New York resident to play online poker. Not gamble. Play poker.
I can not see why anyone
I can not see why anyone would care if you played online or not. Seems the same as going to the local track to me.
Why should it be a surprise,
Why should it be a surprise, in conservative Genesee County, that the vote would be negative. they claim they want smaller government that stays out of their business. Yet, they have no problem imposing their moral code on others. Note the small c - this is not a condemnation of any political party.
A true conservative doesn't
A true conservative doesn't tell other people how to live their lives, respects individual liberty. I'm always shocked when people who call themselves conservative take any other position.
Howard, I agree. I'm always
Howard, I agree. I'm always iintrigued when I read a poll that requires a black or whte answer. In this case, the "no" vote. How do these people see themselves/ I know, for example, that there are some issues where I am very conservative. This isn't one of them.
Howard, I'm a little confused
Howard, I'm a little confused by your comment.
At first, you wrote "If you're not playing for money, your own money, then you're not really playing poker."
I read that as, 'If you're playing poker, then you are playing for money'.
Then you go on to say the question is about (not gambling, but playing poker). If I'm understanding your 1st definition of 'playing poker', then it seems that playing poker MUST involve gambling (which your last 2 sentences ("Not gamble. Play poker.") TRY to seperate
Care to reconcile the difference?
Where did it come up that is
Where did it come up that is was conservatives against this..This is a bill sponsored by a a republican...I would assume it would be more liberal democrats who are against this..As we all know Coumo is the one who signed agreement with the indians not to compete with them in certain parts of the state.One only has to look at Batavia Downs......Of course on line poker should be legal..You can bet on horses on line..It only make sense that you should be able to play poker on line..
"Care to reconcile the
"Care to reconcile the difference?"
Ed, any poker player will tell you that poker is a game of skill, not gambling.
See Scott's comment. In
See Scott's comment.
In response to Kyle, there are sites where you can play poker for valueless poker chips. You might win prizes and even cash, but you're not risking anything, which totally changes how both you (and more importantly) the other people play. It becomes more a game of chance than of skill.
Where there's real money involved, if you're a real poker player, you're going to generally try and put your best effort forward when in a game, and if the other players are doing the same, it's a challenging a game of skill. Chance is still a factor, but long-term, skill is the overriding factor in winning and losing.
Gambling is playing slots or the lottery. It's all pure chance. Poker, as Scott said, is a game of skill, where chance is minimized to the degree of skill you bring to the game.
I have to give you that one
I have to give you that one Howard as that very issue is being tried in federal courts as we speak.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/nyregion/poker-is-more-a-game-of-skil…
Here is exactly what the Judge ruled...
The pot went not to the luckiest among them but to the most deft — the player who could guess his opponents’ intentions and disguise his own, make calculated decisions on when to hold and fold, and quickly decide how much to wager. That, anyhow, is how one federal judge saw it from his chambers in the Federal District Court in Brooklyn.
But again like our NYS Safe Act. There is alot of room here for NYS to go overboard and stop even the Online Poker Games that arent involving actual cash. I mean come on now, it not like we haven't seen NYS Govt abuse the grey area in other legislation. Thats why I asked for the clarification.
I'd wager that judge is quite
I'd wager that judge is quite adept at the poker table.
Mark, both parties sponsored
Mark, both parties sponsored bills.
"The main sponsor of that proposal, State Senator John J. Bonacic, a Republican whose district includes the Catskills, said allowing people to play poker online could be a source of additional revenue for the state..
Still, there is little evidence so far of a groundswell of support for online poker in New York. J. Gary Pretlow, a Democratic assemblyman from Mount Vernon who sponsored a companion bill to Senator Bonacic’s legislation, said he had heard “from one citizen in favor of online poker” and added that he intended “to hold off even looking at this with any kind of seriousness until after” the new casino licenses were sorted out"
I stressed that this is not meant to be political, but a way of thinking. For example, in this case, I think it should be okay. for the reasons stated by Sen. Bonacic. As I noted, I reference my perception of the conservative (small c ) way of thinking here in Genesee Co.
Scott, are you suggesting
Scott, are you suggesting online gambling with your post?
"Scott, are you suggesting
"Scott, are you suggesting online gambling with your post?"
Jason, I was simply addressing the nature of poker.
Oh come on, I was just
Oh come on, I was just building on your use of wager...
No one has given a reason for
No one has given a reason for their no vote. I for one am genuinely curious what the reason is for being against it.
"Oh come on, I was just
"Oh come on, I was just building on your use of wager."
Sorry Jason, you lost me !
"No one has given a reason for their no vote."
I didn't vote; I'm ambivalent about this. If folks want it, it's fine by me, but I don't think I'd ever partake. The off-shore games that used to run had poor reputations concerning rigging and other swindles before they were taken down. Plus, it simply doesn't sound like any fun. There's the chemistry of a group of people sitting around a card table that's an added dimension to the game. I think that chemistry would be absent on-line.
I am, however, fond of "Batavia Bets".
There was one site -- Full
There was one site -- Full Tilt -- that was swindling people, and some of the biggest names in poker were involved (mainly, they were taking as profits players bankrolls; I don't believe, before the site closed, the typical player couldn't cash out).
One of the reasons PokerStars is still around, and has actually become the business trusted by the U.S. Attorney to acquire Full Tilt and pay off members, is it was run honestly.
I still have $100 in my PokerStars account. They've offered a couple of times to send it back to me, but I've always declined. Someday I'll be able to play with that bankroll again (I've never put a dime of my own money into online Poker, FWIW. I won some free rolls on the Bicycle Casino's old site, rolled that over to PokerStars, built it up to about a grand, cashed out all but $100, built it back up to $500 and then stopped playing often enough to stay sharp).
Online Poker lacks some of that personal interaction. It's harder to pick up tells, but it's a great way to practice strategy. And the observant player can still pick up reads on players and exploit them (statistically speaking, I'm a long-term winner online, but I've never been tested at high levels; off-line, barely break even; online and off, strictly a tournament player).
If online poker were legal today, I can't imagine having the time to play, but I think I should have the option. I think it's ludicrous that adults tell other adults how to live their lives.
" It's harder to pick up
" It's harder to pick up tells, but it's a great way to practice strategy. "
Great point. I've only played in 'friendly' games. I want to buy into casino card room game sometime -- play a little Texas Hold'em -- but it's a tad intimidating, and I don't like casino ambiance to begin with.
Scott - I recommend trying a
Scott - I recommend trying a $1/$2 No Limit table at the Seneca casino in Niagara Falls, NY. If you play tight there it's usually easy to win money. A lot of the tourists stay in hands well after they should have folded, so there is the occasional bad beat, but like I said, play tight and you'll be rewarded.
"I recommend trying a $1/$2
"I recommend trying a $1/$2 No Limit table at the Seneca casino in Niagara Falls, NY"
Good thought. I may give it a shot. Thanks, Jason.
Bad beats is what keeps me
Bad beats is what keeps me out of cash games, especially no limit.
If my bankroll is X, chances are with a tournament I'll get a few hours entertainment at minimum for my bankroll, even if I don't finish in the money. A cash game can burn your bankroll in two or three hands, if not one, just because some donkey couldn't fold his Jack-6 preflop ("I always play jacks," he says smirking and he pulls your chips toward his belly). There are fewer donkeys in tournaments, and if you play tight the first couple of levels, the donkeys are usually gone by the time you get involved in a pot (though don't mind doubling through a donkey or two if I happen to get a good hand and it holds up ... that's the best of all possible worlds in a tournament, early chips).
Totally Agree Howard!
Totally Agree Howard!
". . .some donkey couldn't
". . .some donkey couldn't fold his Jack-6 preflop ("I always play jacks," he says smirking and he pulls your chips toward his belly)"
Hey. You don't need to make it personal!
I should have added ...
I should have added ... "while you muck your two queens after he rivered a 4 of spades to make an inside straight.
Heheh. Such are the costs of
Heheh. Such are the costs of a game of imperfect information.