Vicky Coren-Mitchell quits PokerStars after casino and sport betting addition - Page 2

David Mitchells wife can't be taken seriously. Really. The guy is hilarious.

David Mitchell is married?!

On November 27 2014 17:35 MARSHALL28 wrote: Poker is equally dangerous to a person with a strong gambling addiction who doesn't understand what EV is as are the other games.

Thats probably way off the % addicts comparison would between poker and casino games would be nowhere near each other. No concrete data i can provide, but it just sounds logical

I don't think it's as black and white as marshall thinks it is. Poker is gambling but it's a form of gambling you can win at if you play better than your opponents. There is at least some genuine hope in that and that's something that draws a lot of players to the game. Playing casino games is different because while you are still gambling, you are guaranteed to lose. That means the decision someone makes when they choose to gamble in casino games is purely to gamble. Often it's not a decision but a compulsion. Sure, there are pure gamblers in poker but I don't think that represents all of the fish in poker.. I think most fish are just genuinely trying to win but they can't figure it out, don't realise how bad they're actually playing or don't know how yet.

What AMAYA is trying to do is tap into the market of players who are willing to gamble with no way to win longterm. That's a completely different position (devoid of hope) than what they used to stand for. It's a corruption of the ethics behind the company. Iirc, PS were developing the casino games before AMAYA bought them out but that was probably just to increase their sale value/prospects. Argueably whoever bought them out would have developed casino games anyway.

On November 27 2014 17:32 cariadon wrote: maybe she was on her way out anyway and decided to exit with a bang

She cancelled her contract immediately after the casino games were introduced and explained her decision in her blog. She was then quoted on different news sites. I don't think she cared for the "bang"

On November 28 2014 04:00 ggplz wrote: I don't think it's as black and white as marshall thinks it is. Poker is gambling but it's a form of gambling you can win at if you play better than your opponents. There is at least some genuine hope in that and that's something that draws a lot of players to the game. Playing casino games is different because while you are still gambling, you are guaranteed to lose. That means the decision someone makes when they choose to gamble in casino games is purely to gamble. Often it's not a decision but a compulsion. Sure, there are pure gamblers in poker but I don't think that represents all of the fish in poker.. I think most fish are just genuinely trying to win but they can't figure it out, don't realise how bad they're actually playing or don't know how yet. What AMAYA is trying to do is tap into the market of players who are willing to gamble with no way to win longterm. That's a completely different position (devoid of hope) than what they used to stand for. It's a corruption of the ethics behind the company. Iirc, PS were developing the casino games before AMAYA bought them out but that was probably just to increase their sale value/prospects. Argueably whoever bought them out would have developed casino games anyway. Show nested quote + On November 27 2014 17:32 cariadon wrote: maybe she was on her way out anyway and decided to exit with a bang She cancelled her contract immediately after the casino games were introduced and explained her decision in her blog. She was then quoted on different news sites. I don't think she cared for the "bang"

I agree with all of this and also that David Mitchell is fking hilarious

On November 27 2014 18:08 TheHuHu3 wrote: I'd like to poker in the ass.

Nice effort. Too bad it went unnoticed

On November 27 2014 17:35 MARSHALL28 wrote: Show nested quote + On November 27 2014 17:32 cariadon wrote: maybe she was on her way out anyway and decided to exit with a bang yeah my exact thought.

nail - head

The biggest form of gambling addiction are slots but she is deluded if she thinks poker isn't as incredibly addicting as table games.

On November 27 2014 17:32 cariadon wrote: maybe she was on her way out anyway and decided to exit with a bang

this x10000

On November 28 2014 15:28 Ryan Neilly wrote: Show nested quote + On November 27 2014 17:35 MARSHALL28 wrote:   On November 27 2014 17:32 cariadon wrote: maybe she was on her way out anyway and decided to exit with a bang yeah my exact thought. nail - head

No, no no. (and rainkhan no also). Unless you have any reason to know she was on the way out now I don't know how you can say that. Marshall I understand because I'm sure he can't imagine anyone giving away 'free' money because of a 'moral' decision. What you have to consider here is that she already has plenty of money and her husband probably has so much with so much income and earning potential that the cash from stars doesn't and probably hasn't made any real difference to her or her future for some time, she probably just liked the money and liked representing the brand. When she doesn't feel comfortable representing the brand and she doesn't need the money what reason is there to not quit?
Ryan why are you just jumping on and agreeing with Marshall for no reason? Oh right yea what else is there to do. Go back and read your reply post#8... Then Marshall comes on and says something and u change your entire tune and just instantly agree with him.. Am I reading it wrong?

She probably just doesn't want to be associated with a casino site, especially when her husband (and herself from being a reporter and now a semi-celebrity being David Mitchells husband) is such a large celebrity and feels how it will look for them is not worth the whatever pokerstars pay her, this is a valid point and might be where the 'self-interest' all you guys are looking for lies. Also there is probably some part that she doesn't feel comfortable representing them. This feels far more plausable to me and for people to just start a witch hunt without offering any kind of proof seems absolutely absurd. Since when has everyone been so skeptical all the time? I think you're all so far off on this one.

On November 28 2014 04:00 ggplz wrote: I don't think it's as black and white as marshall thinks it is. Poker is gambling but it's a form of gambling you can win at if you play better than your opponents. There is at least some genuine hope in that and that's something that draws a lot of players to the game. Playing casino games is different because while you are still gambling, you are guaranteed to lose. That means the decision someone makes when they choose to gamble in casino games is purely to gamble. Often it's not a decision but a compulsion. Sure, there are pure gamblers in poker but I don't think that represents all of the fish in poker.. I think most fish are just genuinely trying to win but they can't figure it out, don't realise how bad they're actually playing or don't know how yet. What AMAYA is trying to do is tap into the market of players who are willing to gamble with no way to win longterm. That's a completely different position (devoid of hope) than what they used to stand for. It's a corruption of the ethics behind the company. Iirc, PS were developing the casino games before AMAYA bought them out but that was probably just to increase their sale value/prospects. Argueably whoever bought them out would have developed casino games anyway. Show nested quote + On November 27 2014 17:32 cariadon wrote: maybe she was on her way out anyway and decided to exit with a bang She cancelled her contract immediately after the casino games were introduced and explained her decision in her blog. She was then quoted on different news sites. I don't think she cared for the "bang"

exactly how I feel as well

keylek_uk better to quit than to publicly get fired. at least this way she ends up looking cool instead of expendable. cmon now buddy.

On November 28 2014 23:23 RaiNKhAN wrote: keylek_uk better to quit than to publicly get fired. at least this way she ends up looking cool instead of expendable. cmon now buddy.

Agree. Also, no one is gonna just leave a sponsorship...unless she has another lined up. This is real life, not a movie

pretty sad that someone is getting shit on for doing what they think is right

On November 29 2014 02:57 PoorUser wrote: pretty sad that someone is getting shit on for doing what they think is right

+1 agreed. This is the world we live in where personal incentive is assumed to be the strongest motivator of any decision. And I've never heard of her before this, I was just commenting on how it seemed from my perspective. I very well could be wrong about her, I don't know anything about her, it just seems pretty fishy with how much tougher the games get each year and how many professionals are forced to move on to other endeavors due to them not being able to win and both going broke/getting embarrassed.

I still disagree with all of you guys who are saying that it's okay because the fish 'could potentially have an edge'.

The reality is the fish have a smaller edge in poker than they do in a lot of casino games. MUCH smaller. Obviously the degree smaller is dependent on the type of game they are sitting in though. For example, in games like 500nl Zoom...not even decent 200nl zoom regs have much of a chance of winning, the skill gap is that great.

If you guys really believed what you were saying, you wouldn't be poker pros because there wouldn't be any money for you to win.

On November 28 2014 22:37 KeyleK_uk wrote: Ryan why are you just jumping on and agreeing with Marshall for no reason? Oh right yea what else is there to do. Go back and read your reply post#8... Then Marshall comes on and says something and u change your entire tune and just instantly agree with him.. Am I reading it wrong?

I also thought the exact same thing. However, I try my hardest to refrain from posting w/ anything to do with that guy.

His 180 turn around =



And c'mon, why would she be getting fired? I'm under the impression she's a highly marketable figure in that segment. And as if she gives a shit about the sponsorship.

I do agree w/ Marshall that fish could very well lose their money slower at slots, but that's a whole other discussion.

Good on her for standing up for what she thinks is right.

i do agree that poker is worse for fish than other games.

however, lots of respect for this woman

On November 29 2014 02:57 PoorUser wrote: pretty sad that someone is getting shit on for doing what they think is right

The shitting on her and speculation is uncalled for, but genuinely debating the legitimacy of the position she's taking is warranted. I mean she's taking a not so subtle shit on Pokerstars itself by making this sort of grandstanding statement.

I would think if it was studied you might find some difference between those who play slots type casino games and those who play online poker, but realistically at the end of the day online poker can be just as compulsive and addictive for people as anything else. I mean, the mere fact that the gamblers "know" the game "should be beatable" if they just "play it the right way" is a very powerful mental anchor for a compulsive addiction. It almost makes it worse than something where there can be no logical expectation of winning.

I don't like her statement because it implies in some way that poker isn't destructive and addictive for people and also that it's somehow a more moral way to make a living compared to other forms of gambling. And that's just not true, but obviously she's entitled to her opinion and it does have some merit. I just disagree with it entirely.

On November 28 2014 23:23 RaiNKhAN wrote: keylek_uk better to quit than to publicly get fired. at least this way she ends up looking cool instead of expendable. cmon now buddy.

RaiNKhAN there must be alot of pokerstars pro's to go before Vicky Coren, and that in my opinion is a fact. For example who is worth more to them, Baal or Vicky Coren? Is Baal about to get axed? I guess we'll see (hint, the answer is Vicky Coren, first two time EPT winner, well spoken, very 'english'(which may not be a good thing but they probably like it), and married to a very famous celebrity, and a woman in poker who is not of the degen variety). CMON now buddy, think about it, the timing as well. Yes, if she was about to go then I agree that she might well do this, but what possible evidence do you have of this being the case, APART from her quitting because of the claimed addition of casino games..

If we see a mass firing of half pokerstars pro's in the next cpl of weeks I will be inclined to agree that I was wrong in this matter, if we don't then I have no choice but to conclude that I was right in this matter, does that seem reasonable? All I am saying is that its very unlikely that vicky coren would be anywhere near the first pokerstars pro to be fired.

I think all of you that have just jumped on her really need to take a step back and look at the way you view everything, it must be horrible judging people entirely on such a small amount of evidence. This is absolutely the opposite of innocent until proven guilty, or giving people the benefit of the doubt, which I think in general is important, especially as all evidence points to the contrary at the moment.

Marshall, I understand completely you were pretty much just saying 'I wonder if this is the case too' not "THIS MULTIPLIED BY 1 BIRRIONx5 Nail heads, THIS IS DEFINITELY THE CASE aka ryan and RaiNKhAN"

On November 29 2014 09:16 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On November 29 2014 02:57 PoorUser wrote: pretty sad that someone is getting shit on for doing what they think is right The shitting on her and speculation is uncalled for, but genuinely debating the legitimacy of the position she's taking is warranted. I mean she's taking a not so subtle shit on Pokerstars itself by making this sort of grandstanding statement. I would think if it was studied you might find some difference between those who play slots type casino games and those who play online poker, but realistically at the end of the day online poker can be just as compulsive and addictive for people as anything else. I mean, the mere fact that the gamblers "know" the game "should be beatable" if they just "play it the right way" is a very powerful mental anchor for a compulsive addiction. It almost makes it worse than something where there can be no logical expectation of winning. I don't like her statement because it implies in some way that poker isn't destructive and addictive for people and also that it's somehow a more moral way to make a living compared to other forms of gambling. And that's just not true, but obviously she's entitled to her opinion and it does have some merit. I just disagree with it entirely.

I agree with this also.