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

This is the first professional poker player to take such a decisive stand against recent changes going on PokerStars. Two time EPT champion and a PokerStars sponsored player for over 7 years, Vicky Coren-Mitchell, decided to end her sponsorship contract after PokerStars announced it will have casino games and sports betting.

Vicky announced the decision on her blog, saying:
"On Friday night, PokerStars.com announced that it will be rolling out online casino gaming alongside its internet poker. As a result, on Saturday morning, I terminated my endorsement contract with them."

She goes on and explains her decision: "This is no criticism of PokerStars itself: business is business, they are providing a new service that people want, and I know they intend to abide by some key principles of responsible gaming. It’s not anti-casino either; I spend a lot of time in casinos, and I have been known to indulge in live table gaming.
But I cannot professionally and publicly endorse it, even passively by silence with my name still over the shop. Poker is the game I love, poker is what I signed up to promote. The question I’m probably asked most often in interviews is about the danger of addiction, going skint and so on. I’m always careful to explain the difference between the essentially fair nature of poker, where we all take each other on with the same basic chance, and those casino games at unfavourable odds which can be (especially online) so dangerous for the vulnerable or desperate. Although PokerStars assured me I would not have to actively promote the casino arm, I know in my heart that continuing in my current role could risk helping to send people to a place where they would encounter something I think is dangerous. That’s not the way I want to make a living."

On November 27 2014 13:56 dogmeat wrote:

she mah pokerfu

well she's putting her money where her mouth it...props

What a woman~

Respect

so much respect

only thing i like about this casino shit in stars is some added fish im sure

like, if they had sportsbetting and casino, my dad would have stars, and he would find himself in poker games sometimes.

so this has to be at least a lil good for us ;P

shes awesome btw damn
I wonder what pokerstars was giving her per year etc

respect

lovely
great girl

<3 Vicky Coren

maybe she was on her way out anyway and decided to exit with a bang

This sounds like a load of horseshit to me ...

Poker is gambling. The same people that fall victim to gambling addiction are generally losers at both poker and casino games.

Poker is equally dangerous to a person with a strong gambling addiction who doesn't understand what EV is as are the other games. Her logic is just bad.

The only people this 'stand' protects are essentially poker pros who have problems with pit games. It doesn't accomplish anything.

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.

I'd like to poker in the ass.

I am in love

On November 27 2014 13:56 dogmeat wrote:

LOL

Shes huge in the uk as far as i know...
they would never let her go.

i actually 70% believe she left just to make a stand...
good girl imo...

I'd hit it

This is how they reward all of the grinder
Who contribute of their success for so many years
I hope they.will.be fuck all.over by genius scammer
let s see if the roulette is also a random bullshit..

I hope a new website for poker will come

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.

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=&