#287769 - 14/10/2006 10:20
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
The problem is that the money you win comes from recreational players who are net losers at the game. They need to be able to buy in again, or you're going to be left playing against other net winners and you'll be in a very nasty survival-of-the-fittest proposition.
Oh, believe me- I get this point completely. But if things really get that serious to where the pools really are drying up, then I'm probably done anyway.
Quote:
The good news is that most modestly-winning players are pretty bad themselves
Dum, de dum, de dum- oh are you talking about me? LOL- yup, you sure are. 
Quote:
The really horrible fish are actually tougher (especially if they are aggressive), since they play completely irrationally you can't logically deduce how they are playing and what they hold -- the game becomes a pretty boring hand-holding contest.
Yeah, I know this all too well- remember I play the 4/180s! I've figured out how to beat the really weak players in this one (overbet with the nuts, give em rop, etc.) but I can't wait to move up deal with a little tougher competition because it will be more mentally stimulating. Unfortunatly the jump to 20/180s is pretty steep, but I just found out that Stars is going to be doing 10/180s so that is the clear next move for me. At any rate, I'm looking foward to improving my game at the higher levels.
But anyway, it doesn't look like the games are drying up any time soon. I don't mind taking on a few sharks and improving my game- just more of a mental challenge for me, and really that's why I play anyway. I'd probably have to stop if I became a long time loser, but if I can maintain some kind of reasonable BR, the games getting tougher will just make it a little more fun for me.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287770 - 14/10/2006 10:25
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that he helps lend legitimacy to Scientology completely obliterates any legitimacy he may have had otherwise, IMO.
How does he do this, exactly? This is like saying that because Christian Scientists say that quantum theory "proves" the existance of a supernatural deity, then scientists working on quantum theory help lend credibility to Christian Science. This is ad hominem nonsense.
He co-founded the Scientology anti-psychiatry and recruit organization "Citizens Commission on Human Rights", and still works with them. While his stated viewpoint is that psychiatry is misused or overused, Scientology and the CCHR both favor the obliteration of the entire science of psychiatry, in favor of Scientology dogma, which is patent nonsense.
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I find his arguments uncompelling and internally inconsistent.
This is a valid arguement. Can you give a specific example or two?
The biggest one for me is his opposition to psychiatric medicine while being a proponent of illegal drugs legalization. It's almost as if he wants to legalize heroin in favor of outlawing Prozac.
His reasoning behind that is the notion that the psychiatric community at large is engaged in drug pushing against the benefit and desire of its patients, which I believe to be absurd. While I'll admit that drug prescriptions for ADD probably outweigh the need for them, that's as much the fault of the parents as it is the doctors (though the doctors are certainly not without fault). In almost every other case, the patients agree to the drugs they are taking, and can stop any time they wish. They are not compelled by any legal force to continue taking them. One might make the argument that the psychiatrists are using their influence as authority figures to press their patients, but I don't believe that to be true in the vast majority of cases.
Then there's the implied notion that severely mentally ill people would be better off living their lives with rampant schizophrenia, for example. Even ignoring the fact that many (though not most) of those people constitute a potential danger to the public with unchecked schizophrenia, the notion that these people would want to live that way is completely absurd. I've known a decent number of schizophrenics in my life, and, by and large, they are scared all of the time and desperately want to be helped. As such, the implication that psychiatrists are harming those patients I find patently absurd.
Also, his implication that severely mentally ill people shouldn't be considered legally incompetent is complete nonsense to me.
I'm sure I could go on and on. I'm sure I could name a number of stances of his that I agree with, the legalization of drugs being a good example. My problem mostly lies in the fact that I find his reasoning consistently faulty on many levels, and, as such, trusting him as an authority is something that I won't do, and will encourage others not to do. If you want to read his arguments and then really think about what he's saying and draw your own conclusions, that's fine, but please don't take his word for it, as I think his word is worthless.
While I understand why you believed that my prior argument about him in relation to Scientology was ad hominem, and was probably stated in rather emotive language, it was not intended as such. It was simply evidence to support my claim that his credibility is suspect.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287771 - 14/10/2006 16:54
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Aside from the fact that I am a sucky typist (who has to do waaay too much typing in the course of his work day) one reason I have not posted here much recently is that I feel like I have become a bit of a "seagull", BBS-wise.
All that being said, I just want to say, Bitt-wise:
What he said.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287772 - 14/10/2006 19:33
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
Dum, de dum, de dum- oh are you talking about me? LOL- yup, you sure are.
No! Sorry if it came across that way. I have no idea how strong your game is, after all. If you're a 2+2 regular, you're well along the path to having a really strong game.
My point was just that the weak-tight players, who are usually modest winners, are the second most profitable opponent to play against.
Sorry if that came out all wrong.
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287773 - 14/10/2006 20:13
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
The biggest one for me is his opposition to psychiatric medicine while being a proponent of illegal drugs legalization. It's almost as if he wants to legalize heroin in favor of outlawing Prozac.
I can understand how it may come across that way. I can't speak for Szasz, of course, but I don't see this as a contradiction the way you do. In my mind, both Prozac and heroin should be readily available for those that want them, while forcing someone to take either against their will is obviously wrong. I don't think Szasz is trying to outlaw Prozac, he is trying to outlaw forcing others to take Prozac against their will.
Quote:
In almost every other case, the patients agree to the drugs they are taking, and can stop any time they wish.
Szasz is referring to involuntary "therapy". He states repeatedly in his work that he has no issue with people seeking the advice of experts and then voluntarily following their prescribed treatment. Szasz is talking about court-ordered "therapy", and court-ordered hospitalization of mental patients, where they are drugged or otherwise "treated" against their will.
Quote:
I've known a decent number of schizophrenics in my life, and, by and large, they are scared all of the time and desperately want to be helped. As such, the implication that psychiatrists are harming those patients I find patently absurd.
Of course I agree with this, but I think it is a misinterpretation of what he's saying. Nobody, including Szasz, would argue that it is wrong to help somone who wants help and voluntarily submits to something they believe will help them.
To understand what Szasz is talking about in these contexts, you need to think about "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest", not one's relationship with their voluntarily chosen therapist. Szasz is talking about how we treat people like those played by Jack Nicholson. It's hard to imagine how one could convince themselves that these people really want the "help" that is being "offered" them.
Quote:
Also, his implication that severely mentally ill people shouldn't be considered legally incompetent is complete nonsense to me.
Again, I don't think this is what he's saying. Szasz explicitly deals with the issue of legal incompetence in many of his books, and he clearly recognizes that some people are not capable of making choices for themselves. This is where his whole discussion of "unwilling vs. unable" fits; he definitely recognizes that some are unable.
Rather, I believe he is saying that our society labels irritating people as "mentally ill", then uses this stigma to persecute them. Again, "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest" comes to mind. Szasz would argue (and has), that people depicted by the character Randle Patrick McMurphy are not "mentally ill", but deviant. To the extent they break the law, they should be dealt with by the criminal justice system. To the extent they are simply annoying, they should be left alone. Szasz argues that drugging these people stupid with thorazine or lobotomizing them is what our society does instead of burning people at the stake. Again, he is NOT talking about you and me, who go see a therapist for help with what he calls "problems with living." Szasz is talking about coerced "treatment", dealt out as punishment by the courts. Before you say this is a thing of the past, consider how many drug offenses are dealt with by the courts these days, where sentencing someone to treatment is very fasionable.
On the subject of voluntary relationship with one's therapist, Szasz often says only that this is what happens when people need to appeal to an authority to "get the drugs they want." In other words, most of the people on Prozac or Ritalin want to be, but they need to get a permission slip in order to do so. This also harms the medical doctor/patient relationship in cases where the patient must lie or overstate their symptoms to "get the drugs they want", if those drugs happen to be Vicodin.
Szasz argues that sentencing someone to "treatment" harms BOTH the legitimacy of the law (since we are not really enforcing the law in the criminal justice system and the offenders have broken the law) and a person's relationship with a therapist (because it is not voluntary). It hurts both; justice and therapy both lose. Either the law should be enforced or it shouldn't. We should be honest with ourselves and do what we say we're going to do. Either put drug offenders in prison (enforce the law), or legalize (admit it shouldn't be a criminal matter). That's what he's saying, IMHO.
Edited by TigerJimmy (14/10/2006 20:55)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287774 - 14/10/2006 20:59
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
I can't wait to move up deal with a little tougher competition because it will be more mentally stimulating.
You might want to consider cash games. What (theoretically) makes no-limit difficult is the prospect of being faced with very large bets on later streets. This doesn't happen in tournaments (except in the early rounds of very large live tournaments) because the blinds are so large in proportion to the stacks. Play a 200x BB cash game if you want a mental challenge, and stay in after you've doubled a couple of times. When you and your opponent each have 800+ BB in front of you, "mentally stimulating" doesn't begin to describe it! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287775 - 15/10/2006 01:05
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Given his relationship to Scientology, I believe you are underselling what he ends up promoting, even if what he says is something different. People often dress up their stated opinions to make them more palatable before going on to the next level, and I personally believe that's what he's doing. I have no proof positive of that, but that's what I think is happening. Quote:
Szasz is talking about coerced "treatment", dealt out as punishment by the courts. Before you say this is a thing of the past, consider how many drug offenses are dealt with by the courts these days, where sentencing someone to treatment is very fasionable.
Let's examine the premise of this coerced treatment.
The first version of that I can think of is "treatment" as punishment for a drug-related offense. That ranges from drunk driving education to methadone. While I have no documentation, I seriously doubt that such a sentencee wouldn't be able to refuse such treatment in favor of a prison sentence. That's hardly coerced in my opinion.
The second version is institutionalization. I can understand the argument against, but I think the days of putting people like McMurphy in asylums is long gone. In fact, I'm sure it was long gone with when Cuckoo's Nest was written in 1962, and certainly by the time the film was made in 1975. In addition, unanesthetized ECT (with the physical grand mal seizures as depicted in Cuckoo's Nest and many other fictional media) is extraordinarily uncommon. The times I have visited mental health institutions, the people there either wanted to be there or obviously needed to be there, if not both. (You and I may potentially differ about the level at which need arises.)
The third version is forceful encouragement by a doctor. I think that this, as much of the rest of Szasz's arguments, much less common than he would have you believe. Where it does exist, I agree that it is a problem. There is definitely pushing by the pharmaceutical companies, but they have zero direct influence over either doctors or patients. If people are swayed by them, it's no different than effective advertisement.
In short, I believe that the types of cases that you describe are despicable, but also much more rare and less legal than you imply.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287776 - 15/10/2006 02:13
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Hey Jeff (and anyone else on these boards who wants to play), contact me if you want a Full Tilt account that will pay you a bonus for playing. I don't offer this personally, and I don't benefit in any way, but I can get you hooked up with my guy...
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287777 - 15/10/2006 02:30
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Since you're enjoying HORSE, I thought I'd recommend a couple of books. You've probably already heard of these from 2+2, but on the off chance that others here are interested...
HORSE is a game that stands for
Holdem
Omaha/8 (a high/low split with an 8-low qualifier)
Razz (7-Stud played for low)
7-Stud (high only)
Eight-or-Better (high/low split 7-stud with an 8-low qualifier)
The game is played in rotation, with one "round" of each game. In a 10-handed game, there are 10 hands dealt of each game, then the next game is played, etc. HORSE rewards the all-round player, rather than the single-game specialist. In fact, a single-game expert might be a net loser in these "mixed games" if he isn't close to break-even in his non-specialty games. The fish like HORSE because its more like playing in a home game with all the variety. The really big games (like the big $4000/$8000 game at the Bellagio) are usually played as some kind of mixed game, from what I understand.
You may want to pick up "High/Low Split Poker for Advanced Players" by Ray Zee. It covers both High/Low 7-Stud and Omaha/8.
You're definitely right about people not understanding even the basics of Razz. The best thing in print on Razz, by the way, is the second half of "Sklansky on Poker", which is devoted to Razz.
The one game that some HORSE players seem to play fairly well (besides Holdem) is 7-Stud. I think this is because it's an old game and was pretty popular before the NL Holdem craze. Sklansky, Malmouth & Zee's "7-Card Stud for Advanced Players" is a great book for this game. I enjoy stud, but I find it nearly impossible to track the dead cards and multi-table. Mason Malmouth has said that while he finds Holdem to be the most complex poker form, Stud is more fatiguing for him to play because of the need to memorize all those dead cards and adjust drawing odds appropriately.
Ed Miller is working on a Small Stakes NL Holdem book. I can't wait until that comes out!
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287778 - 15/10/2006 03:40
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
Quote:
Given his relationship to Scientology, I believe you are underselling what he ends up promoting, even if what he says is something different. People often dress up their stated opinions to make them more palatable before going on to the next level, and I personally believe that's what he's doing. I have no proof positive of that, but that's what I think is happening.
Well, I have no idea what anyone actually intends, including Szasz. Isn't it a foundation of the scientific method and rationality that a person's claim should be evaluated based what they actually say rather than who they are or what their motivation is? I can't comment on what Szasz or anyone else's hidden agenda might be, but I can certainly read "what he says" and see if it stands up to rational and moral scrutiny.
Quote:
In short, I believe that the types of cases that you describe are despicable, but also much more rare and less legal than you imply.
I'm happy that we agree they are despicable. Unfortunately, I think they still happen, and are happening more often, not less. The fact that they occur at all is a problem, and I think many of the more extreme statements Szasz makes refer to this extreme situation and need to be understood in that context.
According to the New York Office of Mental Health (OMH),
Quote:
Of the 134 individuals in OMH psychiatric centers receiving ECT in 2000, 35 (26%) were court ordered. The number of court ordered ECT procedures has increased by 52% since 1998, when 23 individuals received court ordered ECT.
Whether they are anesthetized or not is surely a minor point compared to giving someone a series of "brain seizures" against their will!
I disagree that putting people in asylums against their will is a long gone practice. We've changed their name to "treatment centers", but we still do it. By saying that someone has the option of prison time or being a "patient" in an asylum called a "treatment center", surely you are not saying that this "treatment" is voluntary? It may be expedient, but if it were truly voluntary, couldn't one just go home instead of spending the tax payer's money?
ECT is a particularly extreme example. Courts forcing people to take drugs, through a process called Involuntary Outpatient Commitment is much more common. From that report:
Quote:
We argue that outpatient commitment is needed because many individuals with severe psychiatric illnesses lack awareness of their illness.
HUH?!?!?!??? WTF was that????
And,
Quote:
In the United States, individuals with medical illnesses such as active tuberculosis who refuse to take medication are regularly hospitalized involuntarily and treated. In New York City alone, an average of 100 such involuntarily hospitalizations take place each year, and many more such patients agree to take medication only after being threatened with involuntary treatment (46). We do not suggest that severe mental illness is analogous to a communicable disease; however, the rationale is similar: medically needed treatment should be provided in the best interest of both the individual and society.
The "rationale" is NOT similar. Treating someone for tuberculosis prevents infection in OTHERS. Tuberculosis is also demonstrably caused by a pathogen that the administered medicine targets. No pathogen has ever been discovered for the so-called "mental illnesses". Being depressed is not like having tuberculosis. Thinking they are the same is a result of literalization of a metaphor.
Quote:
We argue that the real liberty question regarding individuals with severe psychiatric disorders is whether they are in fact free when ill.
If someone doesn't even know they are "ill", this statement is just ridiculous.
All of this stuff is a slippery slope, and its all related. These kind of abuses will occur any time that individual liberty is not the highest possible priority. We used to "treat" homosexual people against their will. It is finally (becoming) common sense that this is inhumane. I would submit that many of the persecuted homosexual peole "lack[ed] awareness of their illness."
It is just not OK to say that individual liberty is great, except for in these few cases. Too often, those few cases are just reflections of current fashion and what I've called heresies. Civil liberties exist to protect these small persecuted groups. The majority has no need of protection from itself. Again, its the homos, druggies, crazies, and gambling degenerates that need the protection from the moral busybodies and the bullying majority.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287780 - 15/10/2006 11:05
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
You might want to consider cash games.
Cash games just bore me, I'm afraid. I think tournaments are exciting simply because the dynamics are constantly shifting with the stack sizes and such. There is a goal that you're driving toward, and playing one feels like a "story" almost. Cash games have their moments, but I just find them tiresome.
Except for HORSE- the changing games keeps me interested because whatever game I'm playing, I'm always looking foward to the next one. Actually, I'm always looking foward to O8, which has become the most fun variant of poker for me. Not my best, but I really enjoy it a lot. I don't play it outside of HORSE though.
Quote:
What (theoretically) makes no-limit difficult is the prospect of being faced with very large bets on later streets. This doesn't happen in tournaments (except in the early rounds of very large live tournaments) because the blinds are so large in proportion to the stacks.
Yeah, it's pretty clear that mose MMTers don't get deep stack play AT ALL. I sure didn't when I started playing, and the Harrington books really don't give a great grasp of how to play deep. I got the new NL book by Sklansky and Miller and that helped immensly. I playd some NL Cash games and destroyed them, but like I said before, found it kind of boring.
My solution has been to play the Stars Deepstack tourny whenver I can. With 30 min blinds and starting 250BB deep, you get to play deep for quite a while.
Quote:
Play a 200x BB cash game if you want a mental challenge, and stay in after you've doubled a couple of times. When you and your opponent each have 800+ BB in front of you, "mentally stimulating" doesn't begin to describe it!
Now THIS I have not experienced. That DOES sound fun. I've played on a few of UBs NO MAX tables where I could buy in for 500BB, but this was all at super low limits where the competition was horrible. Not very mentally stimulation
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287781 - 15/10/2006 11:07
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
contact me if you want a Full Tilt account that will pay you a bonus for playing.
I already have a FT account, so probably I wouldn't be able to qualify. Plus I hardly ever play there. I only signed up so I'd have more options for $10 tournies, but with Stars introducing 10/180s that probably isn't going to be much of a need in the future.
Thanks for the offer though.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287782 - 15/10/2006 11:25
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
You may want to pick up "High/Low Split Poker for Advanced Players" by Ray Zee. It covers both High/Low 7-Stud and Omaha/8.
This is actually the next book on my list. I was all set to buy it when news of the ban broke and party pulled out. When Party pulled and I wasn't certain if Stars was going to stick around (no Stars = no HORSE, since Full Tilt only has HORSE tournies, and very few of them), I put the purchase on hold. Now I think I'll go ahead and buy it. I understand H/L split games well enough to beat the .50/1, but I'm playing overbankrolled and I'd really like to understand the games better so I can move up.
Quote:
The one game that some HORSE players seem to play fairly well (besides Holdem) is 7-Stud.
This is true. In fact, they play this better than HE, amazingly enough. HE always feels like the table goes on super tilt for a moment, like "ZOMG- I can play THIS GAME! Let's build a MONSTER POT!!!!" LOL.
Quote:
Sklansky, Malmouth & Zee's "7-Card Stud for Advanced Players" is a great book for this game.
This is a good book information wise, but IMHO, the is the least well written (that I've read). the writing style feels like a brain dump. I'll bet it could benifit from a re-write with Ed Miller invovled. That being said, reading it shows just how wrong most of the Stud advice out there is. There are a few simple ideas people give you on how to play this game, and that just doesn't work for something so complex. The match up section in the back really helped me understand conceptully how to look at starting hands and play hands like a pair with an ace against a probable pair of Kings. I'd have NEVER played that hand the way I do now before reading that book. I just needed to read it a couple times to understand it
Quote:
I enjoy stud, but I find it nearly impossible to track the dead cards and multi-table.
I like stud a LOT more than HE. I also don't multitable cash games though. I DO multitable tournaments.
Quote:
Ed Miller is working on a Small Stakes NL Holdem book. I can't wait until that comes out!
Talk about a guy who found his calling. This guy can write poker books like nobody's business. 2+2 sure made a +EV move when they brought him on board. SSHE is just awesome, and was so clear about counting outs and oods that it helped my NL game.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287783 - 25/02/2007 00:17
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: TigerJimmy]
|
veteran
Registered: 08/05/2000
Posts: 1429
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
So TigerJimmy, are you still playing on line? Has the ban completely changed the profile of people that now play? I'd think that a lot of the "fish" are just gone...
I've been watching "Poker After Dark" and have a serious itch to play. I tried several sites, but couldn't get any cash deposited. I don't want to go through hell and back to get some money into a site. Any recommendations?
- Thanx
- Jon
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287784 - 25/02/2007 04:49
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: jbauer]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/02/2002
Posts: 1049
|
I'm playing on Full Tilt. The games are tougher, but still quite beatable. You can always find a game with at least one horrific player, and until $5/$10NL ($1000 buy-in) most of the tight players have absolutely no clue how to play after the flop. Much of my profit has been coming from tight opponents who try to play well but pay off too much or fold too much after the flop. I've calculated that my preflop semi-bluff resteals ("squeezes") are making me about $60/hour (tight players trying to play well tend to be particularly vulnerable to squeezes). Another good tactic in these games is to "float" the weak-tighties on the flop (calling in position), and then take the pot from them on the turn. This is another great way to exploit tight but poor-playing opponents. The only defense is a balanced turn strategy, and most of them don't have one.
Full Tilt accepts deposits from credit cards, but most credit card companies will not authorize a deposit for "gambling". However, almost all check cards do not have this restriction.
I made a deposit a week ago to take advantage of a bonus (I generally don't make deposits, just withdrawals) on my Wells Fargo check card and it went through without a hitch.
Withdrawals are currently by check, until some other payment processing company steps forward. Getting a paper check works just fine for me, though.
Best,
Jim
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#287785 - 25/02/2007 18:10
Re: Online Poker Ban in US
[Re: jbauer]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
There are plenty of fish still around. I've been playing on both poker stars and full tilt. I don't put anything in or take any out, but the games are stil good enough to be fun. If I had to pick just one site, it'd be stars, but that's only because of their 180 person sit n goes. For anything else, even regular tournaments, full tilt is better IMHO.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index