Loading Content...
 |
Name Fair Enough
PNW Forum Status PNW Amateur
Location Unknown
|
| So-called censorship | 2007 12 23 05:33 am | There have been some expressions of concern regarding possible 'censorship', editing, locking of threads, etc since the return of Master to these pages.There are several points of interest in such discussions, but I feel some are missing some of the more important.First, this is not a democracy. Every person who joins this forum agrees to the terms and conditions of the forum. These terms and conditions are quite explicit in what is and is not acceptable behaviour. PokerNetwork reserve rights to refuse, alter content, etc.People are quite free to create their own forums on their own web sites; the software can be free, easy to setup, and running a forum may only take up 70 or 80 hours of your time each week. If you create your own forum you may set rules and regulations according to your own views on what is acceptable. I am sure there are many eight to fifteen year-olds obsessed with name-calling, puerile smuttiness and toilet humour, and gratuitous swearing that there would be much 'peer support' available for such a new forum.Secondly, and more significantly, and less flippantly, some people seem to confuse "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" with some "right" to say what whatever they wish, and in any manner they wish. This is not the case in any civilised society - especially an online forum society.Along with "rights" come "responsibilities". These responsibilities include codes of decent behaviour, of respect, of not harming others. One can say what one wants, but within the constraints permitted. The same applies in general society. You can stand on a banana box in Federation Square and rave until your heart is content, but you must be prepared to accept the consequences of what you say if you are libellous, slanderous, or use obscenity.Third, "censorship" is not the simple editing, deletion, rejection, etc, of written or spoken ideas. Censorship is a systemic overtly political act, generally applied to further certain political ideals, or to prevent opposing ones. This does not apply here. Only extremely offensive, potentially libellous or illegal comments or posts are affected. I am of the opinion that PNW's administrators are actually too lenient in what they allow to remain posted on this forum. There are so many examples of personal abuse, inappropriate language, unfounded accusations, and general pre-adolescent drivel that it is often, well, mostly, excruciating to read. |
| Vic Champs issues | 2007 07 31 05:43 pm | Perhaps I am just becoming even more curmudgeonly and picky in my dotage, but I have had a couple of 'issues' thus far during the Victorian Championships.1. Control by Crown staff at the opening event was lacking. More than any other event I have played at Crown in the last few years, there were spectators and players wandering around to other tables, participating in discussions, etc. There was a particular group of (slightly and not-so-slightly) intoxicated players and knocked-out players basically running amok through the poker room. Loud, yelling, across room conversations, rushing from table to table, the overall atmosphere was more home game than professionally-run tournament.I brought it to the attention of the dealers on a couple of occasions; once with fair response, but another time the dealer was also involved in the hijinks.The so-called reporters (for online updates and the 'sponsored' Carlton players) did not help. They often seemed more intent on joking and backslapping than quickly taking notes and moving on.The room does not have to be a mausoleum, but I felt last Wednesday went too far towards the casual. I was moved during the event to four different tables, and at each of the first three the spectator and 'mate involvement' level was what I considered excessive. And beyond what Crown usually consider acceptable as well. 2. The Camp Quality charity event. Worthy cause, I'm sure. $50 to the prize pool. $50 to Camp Quality. $20 rake to Crown? Say what???Come on, if this is a charity event, make it a charity event, for god's sake. Don't take a rake for once. Of course it costs to run events, but somewhere here the concept of 'charity' is confused. Charity for everyone except Crown? Who still have to make a buck. Or at least cover costs? (If they announced that the 'entry fee' was to be donated as well, then there's no issue.)3. PokerPro No Limit Holdem event (as described in Crown's schedule and brochure). Nowhere did it say this was a 'shootout' event. During the Melbourne Championships the PokerPro event was billed as a 'shootout' (with only table winners progressing). But it was not described thus this time. A reasonable assumption (at least for the non-psychic amongst us) was that it would be a 'standard' tournament. In fact, it was only after taking one's seat that the shootout format of the event was made known. Yes, I could have kicked up a fuss, and demanded my money back, blah, blah, but after making the time and effort to get there, taking time from work, etc, it would have been something of a wasted effort. (Already pot-committed, eh?)Surely the proofing of the Championship Schedule and other literature should have caught this up. I mean, it's a pretty big difference: a shootout and a freeze-out. At least three of the other players at my table were under the impression it was to be a 'normal' tournament, and were not so happy about the revelation.While poker rides the crest of its popularity wave little annoyances like these can easily slip by. So what, one grumpy low-stakes disgruntled punter? But in a state with legislated monopoly over poker, with literally no other game in town, it's not good enough. Small things. Easy to fix. Professional. [And I still want back those (obviously hugely costly) jugs of iced water players used to get at tournaments... sigh...] |
| Dead or not dead - Opinions on potential ruling sought | 2007 07 17 12:47 am | I encountered the following situation at Crown on Sunday, in their new noon tournament. I have played a few tournaments over the last few years but never quite run into this situation.On the flop, Player A bet. Player B called. I re-raised all-in. While Player A was considering calling me, Player B tossed his cards towards the muck. The dealer politely asked him not to fold out of turn. Eventually Player A folded, I then tossed my cards face down to the dealer, and raked the pot.Unknown to me (presumably after being told off by the dealer), Player B had retrieved his cards. It seems he was mucking (again) just as I was throwing mine in and collecting my loot.However, a couple of players told me that if he had wanted to get nasty (and he didn't, which is just as well), but that if he *had* wanted to make a point, he could have waited a second or two and claimed the pot, as I had mucked my hand.I took up the discussion by saying that I believed he had mucked his cards, and was supported in this belief by the fact the dealer *actually told him not to muck out of turn*. Why would he tell him not to muck out of turn, if he had not, in fact, mucked? Both Player A and myself acted on the belief Player B had mucked. BTW, this was a significant advantage to Player A, and I was not very happy about Player B's actions, even though he had been a pleasant and amiable table companion.True, Player B's cards never *touched* existing mucked or dead cards, but I have always believed that the *action* of tossing one's cards constitutes a muck.Furthermore, if, by some odd rule, he *was* allowed to take them back in this circumstance, then surely the table would be advised of such an action.I posed the question to the table: "If you can take them back at will, what would there be to stop me tossing my cards to the other end of the table? And then saying 'Oops, I want my cards back.'"One person at the table said you could muck 'to arm's length' and still retrieve your cards. I thought this nonsense. This would be 'angle-shooting' even more severe than deliberate string betting, surely? What would there be to stop you doing this any time, out-of-turn, and then grabbing your cards back?I have searched for rules which may apply at Crown's site... no luck.In "Robert's Rules of Poker" Version 10 (http://www.lasvegasvegas.com/poker/chapter3.php), under Dead Hands, Rule 1. states: > Your hand is declared dead if: b) You throw your hand away in a >forward motion causing another player to act behind you (even if> not facing a bet ).This seems pretty clear and explicit in this case. But these are not rules handed down from the mountain on a stone tablet. The people I was discussing this with had more B & M poker experience than I, and were very confident in their belief of the legitimacy of 'muck retrieving', even when you had already made the error of tossing your cards away out of turn.What do PNW'ers think? |
| Man vs machine | 2007 06 13 07:57 pm | Link Phil Laak and Ali Eslami to take on Polaris for $50k.An odd event format has been proposed. I would be surprised if the humans lost. But then, I admit I was surprised by Deep Blue and Kasparov |
| Some thoughts on the long term viability of B & M poker in Australia (long-ish) | 2007 05 10 09:26 pm | I throw open the question as to whether PNWers believe that poker rooms are sustainable in the long-term. I have some serious misgivings and invite other comment.First, I am not discussing home games, or club games. In most states these are legal, or believed to be legal (or at least quasi-legal, and not really worth pursuing to prosecution. Er... well, Adelaide storm troopers excepted).I'm talking about casino poker rooms and permanent 'Pokerdome'-type establishments.Traditionally, Australia does not have a strong card-playing culture. The percentage of the population which has played cards for money has always been quite small, especially compared to the US, or some parts of Europe. Australia does, and always has had, a gambling culture, but that has usually manifested in TAB, lottery, pokies.That said, there was always a core of card players, and when casinos emerged in the 1970s forms of poker were incorporated. There are many on the forum far better versed in this history than I. My point is this though: Until the recent (last five years) 'poker boom' (fuelled, to JK's chagrin, by Texas Holdem) poker was a pretty minor casino activity, and there was no noticeable agitation for the establishment of bigger poker rooms, or rooms independent of the casinos.The casinos themselves did little to really push or promote poker, and here we get to a key point. There is little profit in poker. The very things which we as poker players like about the game (ie, that skill matters, that small margins can be pushed for profit, that rakes must be fairly small for the integrity and viability of the game) are the same things which make it unattractive to casinos or startup operators.In fact, just to survive in a casino poker must have very high rakes. JK never tires of telling us that they are pretty much impossible to beat long-term. Several analyses (by BlueBear and others) have shown that many games with certain rake levels are unbeatable unless the player is impossibly skilled. Casino employees have noted that the profit per square metre from poker is vastly less than that from other table games or machines. You must couple this with some uniquely Australian factors: standards of working conditions, worker's compensation, overtime, award wages (no incentives, bonuses or tips though), and the strongest and strictest regulatory environment in the world. These on-costs for casinos are significant, and are a major reason they cannot offer the incentives and benefits seen in Las Vegas or Moscow.Mind you, as Australians we have and believe in an 'honest' gambling culture. We expect and demand fairness and openness. There is little organised crime involved in gambling in Australia compared to most other places. Personal security is pretty much assured, whether you are at the racetrack, the TAB or the casino.And the regulatory environment of legislated monopolies (casinos, off-track betting, lotteries) supports this culture. But poker doesn't fit. Right now, at the very height of the so-called 'poker boom', even at this peak, only in NSW has there been any move or effort towards non-casino poker rooms. My opinions on these are well known: I believe they operate on extremely shaky legal foundations, literally 'houses of cards', and a collection of minor but well publicised incidents could easily bring them all crashing down.However, if they gain legislative solidity (unlikely, but possible) there remains the question of long term viability. What happens when the boom ends? The current level of general public interest cannot last. As the fish try the free games, and maybe some money ones and then lose to all us smart PNWers, and drift away, what happens then? Can the Pokerdomes of our little world survive on a few hard core players? And when overheads are so much greater here than elsewhere (for the reasons mentioned above) where will the profits come from?As long as poker is trendy and current the casinos will continue to support it, at the very least as an 'image' thing. Like a supermarket 'loss leader' perhaps. But I can easily foresee a backsliding.We must also not forget the impact of 'New Puritanism'. When the US effectively banned internet gambling was there a mass uprising? No. Only a few two-plus-two'ers grumbling. The reactionary forces are so strong in that country that appearing to support gambling (even though millions do it) is tantamount to supporting child molesting. And what happens in the US inevitably follows here. Already most states have effective freezes on expansion of slot machines. New forms of gambling are politically untouchable. (Another reason I do not expect legislation in NSW to properly regulate poker rooms.) It will not take much for our conservative government (or our conservative opposition, if elected) to attack internet gambling. After all, there is no tax revenue in it. And as for the chances of extending legislation to cover poker rooms: forget it.To summarise: Australia does not have an existing long term poker culture. Our regulatory environment ensures that margins are extremely small on poker operations. Casinos can afford to carry poker as a 'prestige' or loss leader activity. Political and cultural attitudes, although currently neutral, could very easily become hostile. I see casinos retaining their monopolies for the indefinite future; they are safe, regulated and already exist in an accepted sphere. The chances of independent commercial card rooms in most states is negligible, and the future of those operations in NSW is clouded at best. |
Top 10 Online Poker Rooms
| Rank | Poker room | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | PokerStars | Download |
| 2 | William Hill | Download |
| 3 | Party Poker | Download |
| 4 | Poker770 | Download |
| 5 | Unibet Poker | Download |
| 6 | Titan Poker | Download |
| 7 | Victor Chandler | Download |
| 8 | Bet365 | Download |
| 9 | PKR | Download |
| 10 | Everest Poker | Download |
Play Poker At PokerStars
Signup to PokerStars via our special PNW links, use our unique PokerStars Marketing Code POKERNETWORK and you will be eligible for a 100% up to $600 deposit bonus - In addition to this, you will be eligible to play in our exclusive freerolls that award seats to events such as the ANZPT and APPT.