Vicky Coren-Mitchell quits PokerStars after casino and sport betting addition - Page 3

All I was saying was that her argument doesn't hold water. There wouldn't be thousands of people who have decided "I'm going to risk going homeless or whatever on the fact that I am so confident I can beat these games" if the games didn't have enough losing players to support them (Okay I'll submit to the fact that some people have other stuff to fall back on, but many don't).

I wasn't trying to say whether she needed the job or not, and I don't even know how 'winning' of a player she is. I just know that I see a lot of people dropping and I see them dropping faster than I did in previous years. Maybe her sponsorship has nothing to do with being a winning player at all, maybe it doesn't. Regardless, I can assume it'd be pretty embarrassing if I was sponsored to play and I couldn't win anymore. I might even make some random decision to exit stage left and leave with what appears to most as a reasonable excuse when the reality is that the reason she's quitting still makes ZERO sense.

If you guys know you can beat the games it means you know some people MUST lose. The people who must lose are the ones who have inferior skill sets. You are banking on the fact that it's just as likely that they have as much of a chance at winning at blackjack against the house than they do at the poker table against you... The only difference is, you don't have enough money to withstand the swings of blackjack so therefore you must assume your percentage edge is higher meaning you think the fish have little to no chance of winning.

You guys wanna have your cake and eat it too. just admit it.

On November 28 2014 03:25 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + 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 realize this is kind of rude, sorry, but I would think I shouldn't need to point out to people the difference between opinion and argument on this forum.

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.

Sorry, I'm probably being rude again, but c'mon you guys have to put up a stronger fight than just writing stuff off pure emotions if you are going to make a case.

So poker isn't the same as pit games if you're a fish because in poker the fish have a 'chance' to win? They actually have a chance to win in pit games too. Very few people would ever play if they never won.

You assume every fish understands the fact that having an edge is possible, but this is far from the truth.

If every fish knew what you know about how poker works, they WOULD NOT PLAY out of anything other than compulsion. Do you still play? Do you still win? If you quit, why'd you quit? Games got too tough, right? If you are smart enough to understand you don't have an edge and quit, you don't fall into the category of people that this girl is saying she is fighting for. She says she's fighting for the people who will be hurt by gambling addiction because they can not have an edge. All I'm arguing is that they have less of an edge in poker as it is!!

You said most fish are 'trying to win'. Of course they are trying to win! You think people playing pit games aren't trying to win? The only ones who aren't are the ones that know they have zero edge.

The fact that they can't figure out why they can't win even though they *might* understand the concept that it's possible to win if they have an edge doesn't make it any 'better' morally.

I'm really the only one that sees this as complete bullshit?

Marshall, i'm not entirely sure at what you're getting at?

i agree poker gambling is almost as bad for the 'punters' as actual hard gambling. The point is that she can credibly support a 'skill game' to the public but cannot support just gambling, her public image etc.

its not emotions, I just happen to have known who she is and what she stands for, for many years. I thought she was awful at poker ten years ago and figured she couldn't beat the games then apart from live mtts (which she'd probably have crushed to be fair because she's somewhat solid if not actually good) so its nothing to do with winning/losing.. she's a minor celebrity not a 'pro-poker player' and never has been.

It feels to me like you're arguing a different point, you're arguing whether less people are winning now than before and whether fish can win at poker or not... Both of which I agree with you on but I don't see how its relevant to this case on any level.

EDIT: I think i got it, you're saying that because fish can't win and can't see what they're doing its exactly the same as hard gambling so the idea that she's quitting because hard gambling got introduced to the site would be absolute bullshit as its the same thing anyway.. Well I think you're wrong in that sense, if I said I played poker for a living(which believe it or not I do) some people actually believe me, if I Said ye i play roulette for a living no-one would believe me. I do believe that in reality poker is 'almost' as bad as hard gambling (the only reason its not is alot of punters don't play because they know it requires patience/skill and they're not interested in that they just want to... punt on something else so don't play) but I also believe that in the eye of society and people in general poker is NOT as bad as roulette/blackjack etc and her position of not wanting to represent a site that offers casino games sounds absolutely plausable.. She's not a cash game player, she hasn't made a living off of poker for so long that it doesn't even matter, she goes on panel shows, writes columns etcetc.

i also admit that theres alot of fish that have a greater chance of winning playing pit games etc etc (prob all fish to be fair and most semi-bad regs as they're not actually gonna win vs us good players and then theres rake considerations etc) but I know people who play poker and enjoy it and lose some money but put them on a roulette table and they can lose 3 months worth of poker money in 5 minutes etc.. Its not the same thing, alot of people can just sit there and 'play' poker to some level and win some, lose more but will just absolutely punt off all their money at pit games, so even though they theoretically the rake+better players have a higher % edge on them than some casino games they will actually lose money FAR FAR FAR quicker at pit games in general.

Also poker has a social element to it, and its an actual game unlike pit games which are just dumb luck. I think its easy to see why this is plausable and far more unlikely to say that she was going to get the boot from pokerstars anytime soon, as I said before I would think they would be likely to get rid of half of their pro's before vicky coren for many reasons (1st 2xEPT winner, A WOMAN, well spoken, known by alot of people outside of the poker world in the Uk at least, married to David Mitchell, oh and did I mention she's a woman?) I feel the only way you guys are correct is if a ton of pokerstars guys get the boot in next few weeks, would you agree with that or?

keylek youre writing a lot and associating my posts with a group of people when all i did was instantly quote cariadon. i had no idea that people agreed with me. i felt from the overwhelming support that 2+2 showed her on the thread there that it was a unanimous support of her stance

but good god youre writing a lot here lol

You're right, im just rambling on and on, sorry. The condemnation when the evidence seemed to clearly support her really got to me for no great reason and I wanted to make myself clear (by making every point 11 times lol) . I havent read twoplustwo about it, i think i will but wont do any essays there

keylek its all good. i wish the uk the best in all future sporting events and stuff

i think everyone in this thread is right

1. yes she thinks shes doing whats right and it's good for poker players/gamblers that she did this
2. as marshall points out there is definitely some conflicting moral issues with her stance, whether or not poker is okay compared to casino games because there is a chance to win long term for an elite few is totally up for debate and there is no real answer
3. as rainkhan and others point out there is obviously an upside for her doing this, this isn't her randomly being a martyr even though shes trying to paint it that way

pokerstars raising rake and adding casino games should be very scary though. as far as i know stars is the only site at the moment that isn't doing things actively to fuck over regs in one way or another (no rakeback, player segregation, outright banning them, limiting cashouts one way or another)..and as time goes by things are going to get worse and worse. why? because winning players are parasitic. while a reg might think "but i paid 150k in rake last year....how dare u..." the site doesn't see it that way. there are only depositing players, and withdrawing players. In the past they didn't care or see it like this on stars obviously because it was so huge/growing and there were so many fish/small winrate regs that their business model didnt require them to fuck regs over. the higher the # of withdrawing players compared to depositing players, the less % of rake the site can earn off of each deposit, which is why amaya is raising rake and adding casino etc, and why almost every other site is doing their best to fuck over winning players

online poker is doomed. not to mention the unstoppable bots coming in the future. bring the americans back!

/offtopic

Daniel - Poker Journal
My Take on Poker and Gambling
28 Nov 2014:
http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker...chive=&start_from=&ucat=&