- Videos And Software
- Poker Software
- Video Packs
- HUSNG Hyper Turbos(Preflop and Flop Strategy by Lotte Lenya)
- Coffeeyay and Friends - Spin and Go Video Pack
- Beating Spin & Go Poker
- Hyper Turbo Video Pack: A Journey Inside My Mind
- GTO In HUSNGs
- Turbo HUSNG Masters Pack
- Expert No Limit Hold'em, Volume 1
- Solving Poker
- Crushing Hyper Turbo HUSNGs
- Crushing Regs: The Way To Beat Tough Opponents
- Hyper Turbo Guide
- Russian Turbo Pack
- Heads Up Cash Video Packs
- Other Content
- VIP Deals
- Spin an Gos
- HUSNG Downloads
- HUSNG Hyper Turbos(Preflop and Flop Strategy by Lotte Lenya) Download
- zZzTILT Crushing Regs
- zZzTILT & phl500 Crushing Hyper Turbo HUSNGs
- Chadders Hyper Turbo Pack Download
- Will Tipton Book Pack Download
- Will Tipton HUNL Video Pack 2
- Hyper Turbo Poker Masters Video Pack 1 Download
- Turbo HUSNG Masters Pack
- Sentin's Crushing Fish Like a Boss Video Pack Download
- HU Cash
- Elliot Roe
- Coffeeyay Math Pack Download Page
- Greenbast Beginner Turbo Speed Pack Download Page
- Hokiegreg Class Video Pack Download
- Premium and Standard Videos
- SGT RJ Tilt Pack Download
- Seeya Russian Video Pack Download
- Winning at Blackjack Download Page
- BernardC's Advanced Hyper Hand Reading Class
- Bernardc's Hyper Turbo Poker Class Video Pack
An Interview With the Author of the Controversial Article About Dan "mrGR33N13" Colman
July 5, 2014 - 22:42
Case Keefer Expands On His Reasons For Writing the Article
After Dan Colman's One Drop MTT win, Case Keefer wrote an article about Dan that caused a lot of controversy in the poker community. Some labeled it an attack, others claimed it was unfair, and still others supported the article. Case is a sports writer for the Las Vegas Sun News, and consistently covers poker, UFC and all things gambling.
Recently, Case Keefer answered a few questions in an email exchange with HUSNG.com's RyPac13.
RyPac13: Were you surprised by the response to your article?
Case Keefer: Surprised probably isn't the right word. I was consciously thinking about the polarizing reaction it was bound to invoke while writing. I knew it was going to be controversial, but I didn't realize the extent of the firestorm I was about to ignite. I knew it would get negative feedback, but also believed many readers would find some value in my opinion. I do not believe, for the most part, that I was unfair. I presented Daniel Negreanu's voice, which is beyond infinitely more meaningful than mine, supporting Colman. I wrote a few words on why poker players are different and shouldn't be media-burdened like other athletes on ESPN. I thought the whole ordeal created a conversation worth having, and hoped to add to it even on a small scale. Instead, most people (from poker) who've gotten in contact with me have done exactly what they accuse me of doing in the column: Attacking me voraciously. My mind misclicked. I didn't see it coming. I'm not complaining. I understand it comes with the territory — just like playing in a made-for-TV event, in my opinion, comes with the unwritten obligation to at least exercise minimal accessibility.
RP: How long were you at the tournament on Tuesday, covering the final table?
CK: I arrived early on during three-handed play. My initial plan was to follow the early-goings online and take off towards the Rio when the table got down to four players. I was writing and reporting on some other completely unrelated stories, and obviously, things went fast. I got there as quickly as I could. I fought through the crowd, which gave the final table an unbelievable atmosphere, and settled on the right side of the ESPN stage. I stayed there for the rest of the night until the conclusion of the tournament.
After the dealer peeled off the final card, I couldn't believe how fast the vibe changed in the area. The mood and talk changed from "Colman did it, what a performance" to "What is he doing" within a matter of minutes. At least a couple people on twitter have accused me of fabricating all this and said I was the only person fixated on his apparent disdain for ESPN and the rest of the media. That's just completely false. It was the topic there. And it turned into the story. I called my editor and explained the situation. We collaborated our news judgments and agreed there would be far more interest on the strange post-tournament happenings. Little did we know. He suggested scrapping the story to write a column featuring what I made of it all, and here we are.
RP: Did you know anything about Dan prior to the tournament?
CK: Before the tournament, I did not. I wouldn't have been able to tell you if he was a poker player or one of the businessmen. The first information I ever gathered on him came late Monday night/early Tuesday morning. I did not end up going to the Rio for any of Day 2, but I began piecing together a brief advance of the final table hours before they halted play for the night. It was at that time that I looked up everyone remaining that I was unfamiliar with. I read up on what little information was available on Colman, with all signs indicating that he had an immense talent.
RP: If Colman has no interest in celebrating his success, convincing new people to play poker or promoting himself for corporate benefit, do you think it is fair that he refuses to do an interview?
CK: I'll assume everyone will label me as a hypocrite now, but not necessarily. It's not unfair for him to refuse an interview with me or even the most seasoned poker writers at least. But I believe he still should have spoken with ESPN. I think this is the point where the poker community and I digress. I just can't wrap my head around signing up for a tournament like this, disrespecting one of the only reasons it exists and expecting to come out without criticism. If he would have talked to ESPN, I wouldn't have written a negative word. The story would have been a traditional gamer with cited quotes that he provided for the broadcast. I would have mentioned him declining further interviews surely but nothing beyond that. It's bothered me that so many people think my piece was a self-serving groan. One of the only other tournaments I've covered this summer featured a winner who informed the WSOP he wouldn't be doing any interviews beyond the ones for their site and Poker News. That was John Hennigan in the Poker Players Championship who was in a rush to get to his stack in the $10K Limit Hold'Em. The WSOP let the assembled media know to record his video interviews because that was the only chance. You can go back and read what I wrote that night. If I was truly so concerned about the horror of someone not wanting to speak with me, wouldn't I have ripped Hennigan a week ago? You won't find anything resembling that.
Henningan handled it the right way. Colman did not. Not even close. Everyone is quick to jump on me for being indecent. But what about the way he acted after winning? I can't imagine anyone other than friends and family condoning his behavior. He was rude to ESPN and Caesars officials, who looked like they were near having an aneurysm trying to get him to agree to a couple simple photo-ops. Then, like a running back seeing his linemen opening a gaping hole, he rushed away. Many people disagree, but I was right in the middle and found it galling to storm off amidst your own celebration while shaking your head and making a comment about having no interest in promoting poker. The people approaching him weren't nefarious. They were trying to do their jobs. They didn't deserve to be treated that way. How hard would it be to say one sentence instead of shaking your head? Even if it's about not wanting to promote poker because of the darksides he later alluded to. That's fascinating to me, and would have stirred an entirely different discourse.
RP: In your article you wrote, "Poker players pay to compete in events, even though it's murky how much Colman forked over for the One Drop. One player around the stage after the tournament who may or may not have been part of the winner's entourage said Colman had less than 10 percent of his own action in the event. There's no way to confirm the figure, but it's too bad Colman couldn't give himself the opportunity to address the rumor. If he did put up only a maximum $100,000 of his own money, then his winnings wouldn't exceed $1.53 million."
Is this a statement you feel is fair? Do you think it was responsible to mention a rumor heard on a poker rail from an unknown person?
CK: I was very conflicted about this part. Admittedly, something like this never would have made it into a traditional news story. I think there's a speck of extra freedom you're allowed when penning an opinion piece, especially if you clearly present the source of your information and describe it as a rumor. It's entirely possible I pushed beyond those boundaries. I'm still learning. I'm not perfect. A part of me regrets speculating on the backing front because, as many from the poker world have pointed out, it's something I have absolutely no familiarity with. I know it's goes on, but I don't know the first thing about the process and percentages. A couple of the (very) few positive e-mails I've received after the column were from people claiming to have intimate knowledge of a practice that's as old as the gambler's code in poker who explained where I erred.
At the same time, I felt it was an example of the confusion prevailing after Colman's refusal to talk. When Antonio Esfandiari won the One Drop two years ago, the investors question inevitably was one of the first to come up and I remember him saying something along the lines of "I had backers but will not discuss finances any further." And it was left at that. I thought it was an adequate response. I understand poker player's outrage saying no one deserves to know the details of their business, but that's never going to recede from being part of the story and an aspect people want to know about.
RP: You wrote, "’I love the way he plays,‘ Negreanu said. ’He's got a perfect style for tournament poker. He's going to win a bunch more. I promise you that.‘ That might be true, but it's too bad that no one will care."
Do you believe that this is true? If he keeps winning, and refusing to do interviews, don't you think that will potentially build up a sort of legendary image for Dan? For example, Phil Ivey has been notoriously low key for such a successful player over the years, yet he's made a lot of money and enjoyed a tremendous following in the sport. While Phil has opened up more recently, especially with his poker app/training site/potential poker room in the works, Phil has also been in the game for almost as many years as Colman has been alive.
CK: If he can sustain success in the game's most visible events like Ivey long-term, then I'm wrong. People gravitate towards greatness. But in the short term I believe if Colman, for example, wins another bracelet it would be met with indifference from the casual poker fan. I highly doubt he's going to come off as a personality anyone cares to follow once the One Drop is shown on ESPN. I think that's unfortunate, but it's his career and he seems to want absolutely nothing to do with that aspect. Way less than Ivey to me. My first real assignment covering poker was the 2009 November Nine. While Ivey far from opened himself up, he at least fulfilled every ESPN request.
The phrases "no one will care" and "petulant child" seem to be the ones from the piece that infuriated the poker world the most. I find that very interesting. I don't want to come off as macho and pretend the vitriol hasn't affected me. I'd like to think I have somewhat thick skin — a necessity for this line of work — but the attacks hurt. It's been a really rough 24 hours. I assume people in poker will grin at those sentences. Judging from the feedback I've received, they'll feel like karma was served. And that's fine. But the divide in opinions on the story was stark to me. I spoke with a handful of people whom I trust in journalism with little to no knowledge of poker, and none of them felt like I went over the line. But in the poker community, I feel like I'm almost as reviled as an online superuser. I know poker has cultivated its own niche and community over the years. I think that's part of what's drawn me towards the game, albeit in a limited capacity. It's incredible and reminds me in a lot of ways of a sport I cover more frequently in mixed martial arts. Both are equipped with their own set of rules in the minds of those most heavily invested that don't necessarily mirror the ones I identified and studied upon getting into this business. My intention was never to anger so many respectable, hard-working people from poker. I simply wanted to add my thoughts to a discussion I witnessed brewing as divisively as a massive cooler between two chip leaders on a money bubble.
July 6, 2014 - 00:38#1
A few relevant
A few relevant links:
mrGR33N13's post about why he did no interviews - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=43862667&postcount=2553
HS LHE and 2p2 mod Schneids' response to the post - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/2014-1-million-bu...
Olivier Busquet email with a friend about the topic - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Brob6k1CQAAEu47.png
July 6, 2014 - 05:12#2
F*cking journalist shines
F*cking journalist shines with hypocrizy these days. Jesus.
July 6, 2014 - 05:31#3
If he had done the interview
If Colman had done the interview everyone would forget about it in a couple of weeks.
Not doing the interview got him far more attention and it is a thing that will be talked about for a long time.
If he didn't want to draw the attention he provoked the completely opposite effect and got lots more attention than he would otherwise got.
If he did want to get lots of attention he did the right thing by refusing to talk...
July 6, 2014 - 15:55#4
Seems to me that Case
Seems to me that Case Keefer's argument is that the event would not exist in its current form if it was not for broadcasting interest in the event, and that this obligates at least the winner to cooperate with those broadcasters. Ironically, although Colman rails against how idolatry and hype can lead individuals to ignore the "social contract", his own actions, in ignoring those who made the event what it was, can be viewed as being a different kind of violation of the "social contract".
July 6, 2014 - 17:17#5
i think colman made a mistake
i think colman made a mistake by defending himself. if he had just taken the "miles davis approach" and simply go his way, that would have been that. but then going on about how dark poker is and that it´s better to not promote the game at all, that sounds like a spoiled child who tries to be an intellectual. such an attitude is patronizing and condescending to say the least. without all the people who drown in the darkness of the game, who fall for the promise of everyone being able to become a millionaire playing cards, he probably would have had to take an office job that barely pays 40k a year. either you live with the moral dilemma you face or you leave the game and do something reasonable with your money, but taking everything the game still has to offer and then posting such a pseudo-intellectual justification, well, that´s about as low as it gets.
i´ll attribute it to his age though and not thinking about it thoroughly before posting it. i am sure he is intelligent enough to know in hindsight that his phrasing was at least unlucky.
July 6, 2014 - 19:42#6
In the defense of Colman, he
In the defense of Colman, he did say that he was conflicted.
If Colman said he was certain of all of this, then I would probably be a bit critical that he didn't use the stage to talk about it. He didn't say that though, so I think his actions were certainly fine. If you don't feel fine promoting poker, but you're tired as all hell, sick of being in adult disneyworld (Vegas strip) and have tons of cameras and fans around you, is it really so bad to play it safe and just answer a question or two about the charity, volunteer to go over to Africa (Busquet mentioned that he did this) for the charity, take a few pics then walk out? It seems fairly reasonable to me, though of course if he had some publicist or something around him he could've handled it more gently, as to not piss off a bunch of people. I don't fault him in the least for that bit though.
All that said, given his past, and his chat patterns over the years, he should obviously expect many to be critical too. People can (and constantly do) change, but expecting the mass public to just say "oh ok he's changed in the last 6-18 months" is not realistic. The word "flip flopper" is somehow prevelant in our society as a negative label (when the correct political decisions should often run contrary to what the correct decision was just years ago).
As far as the "darkness of poker" I get what he's saying, but I respectfully disagree on any level that poker is really worse than so many other accepted jobs or situations in life. I believe that poker, particularly HU, is just a more pure form of exchange (both in monetary value and emotional value). I could go through hundreds of examples where people suffer gradually over years, or in ways that aren't "omg he lost 10k!." Is a nurse being harassed by her supervisor for 5 years less harmful than losing 10k and quitting poker? And the people that just lose 10k hardly ever lose their own 10k. Try depositing 10k to many sites, it doesn't really work like that usually. Some of the most dramatic losses ever are when 1) a former winner borrows six figures from current winners and loses it. He's not losing some house he worked hard towards. 2) A donk binks a big MTT and loses six figures. He's not losing his house because of that. 3) A good player faces another good player in high stakes and loses six figures. He's not losing a house he's earned or destroying a stable family. 4) A very wealthy person spews money. Guy is one example, Ginette (Jeremy Johnson, the processor that made 10s of millions processing poker transactions and spewed a few mil at the tables) are great examples of that. Again, no families destroyed or houses lost.
I just disliked it when he compared poker to tobacco. Tobacco is something with zero positive and a solid double digit % of people that use it become severely addicted. I believe gambling in general (including many worse games than poker) has a very low addiction percentage, at or around 1%. It's too naive to compare poker to tobacco in my opinion. It's also too naive to ignore so many industries that exploit the masses to the tune of billions... healthcare, education, government leadership at a federal and local level, charity (charities have so much fraud and exploiting in them), entertainment (all sports, but music, movies and video games), just to name a few. I just don't like the narrow scope of which poker is described as bad, when I am confident I can lay the same type of case against so many things that people tend to not really speak out against when talking bad about poker. It's not that poker is good for people necessarily (Though I do believe it has helped me and so many others learn valuable decision making and value oriented skills, the positive of which people talk about far less often than they talk about the dramatic degen stories or scams), it's just that if you want to look at it negatively, you should be looking at a very wide range of things in life negatively.
However, that all falls under the category of "respectfully disagree with Mr. Colman's views on poker" not "he's wrong and should've done interviews." The guy is younger, has been in the strip area for weeks (depressing area if I say so myself) and plays with hundreds of thousands of dollars regularly. I can't necessarily relate to his mindset in many ways.
July 8, 2014 - 11:02#7
While I don't feel
While I don't feel particularly qualified to comment on this debate given that:
(i) he does play with hundreds of thousands of dollars
(ii) has been in front of the television cameras for hours and
(iii) I can relate to neither of these
I do want to give my two cents, so to speak:
(i) complaining of the dark side of poker is fine in general but in his case it seems wrong given a lot of his success has been based upon a strategy which involves aggressive trolling of his opponents.
(ii) is he just pissed off that whenever he is in one of these live events the tv commentators who are introducing all the notable players reel off a list of people who have picked up a big live win here or a bracelet there but fail to mention the most successful online poker player ever?
(iii) is he actually owned by Pokerstars and, in light of the recent comments on this forum and possibly others, he is trying to distance himself from the industry which has, apparently, set him up for life?
(iv) he has described online poker as being comparable to a gold rush before. Perhaps it is the case that he feels that he now has enough gold to make the hard work of digging for it no longer worth his time but is unable to just walk away from the gold mine without feeling the need to blow it up so that no one else can get as rich as he is.
(v) if he really does feel the way he says he does then he should consider (a) putting his money where his mouth is and donate his cynically earned cash to Addiction support groups and (b) stop trolling.
(vi) he sounds like a rich kid with a huge trust fund, given to him by his family who have made a fortune in the banana industry, telling his father that he refuses to say a few words at the company's annual banana charity bash because he has decided that he has developed a problem with his trust fund as he feels that workers on banana plantations are exploited and that this is now leaving him conflicted. And this on the background of having spent most of his time (he doesn't have or need a proper job given said trust fund) online @ bananaworkersblog.com telling them how useless they are at picking bananas.
July 9, 2014 - 05:36#8
First off, no offence, and please don't take this personally but I feel the need to state the obvious:
I disagree with pretty much everything you posted and feel that most of the things are utterly childish / uninformed / and offensive.
But then again if that's how you feel then you certainly have the right to state your opinion and I'm in no position to judge you for doing so.
As for the statement about poker being "dark" I think it may be a little outdated to assume that.
With the big poker boom it has definitely evolved to a full blown "sport" instead of being some Vegas-backroom-members only-cutthroat business....
This evolution is what allows the everyday Joe to take part in it just sitting comfortably at his home pc, or visiting a casino / poker room which probably exists in almost every bigger city throughout most civilized parts of the world these days. And yes it can be addictive / it IS addictive and of course there are countless victims to their own greed and that addiction to account for when looking through the field of players...but really is there any sport that doesn't have such victims?
Just recently I watched a documentary about Lenny Cooke, who was at some point in 2001 I believe (I don't remember the exact dates and they are somewhat unimportant in this context) playing high-school basketball while outranking the likes of Lebron James. Never heard of Lenny Cooke? It's not really surprising since today Lenny is a "fat fuck" (sorry Lenny but it's the truth) who lived most of the recent years off his wife's 2 day jobs and travels around the US campaigning against high-school kids falling into the same trap as he did: Going into the NBA draft without a plan B. So basically, he's trying to do the very same thing Daniel did - but just on a different level and with no media attention: He's warning young Basketball players of the dangers they are facing when making decisions about their lives. And even though I agree wholeheartedly that Daniel might have chosen a wrong way of doing so / phrasing his mind a little carelessly perhaps, not choosing the right words/place/time to talk about this topic I still see him doing the exact same thing, and I personally find this admirable and support him in doing so. (If you walk into some hipster cafe in downtown NY and publicly claim that all women should stfu and stay in the kitchen you're going to have a hard time...if you did this in some redneck bar in one of the Southern states you'd probably get applauded and people would smash beers against their heads in joy - this may sound a little wrong, and I know that I'm being an ignorant prick here as I have no understanding of how life in the United States of America is and I only know what Hollywood wants me to know. But it's for the sake of argument so deal with it) So yeah I can understand why Daniel would choose not to state his opinion in front of TV cameras standing at the WSOP, but choosing to do so on 2+2 is probably the 2nd worst option.
And I believe there is that "dark" side to almost every modern day sport, simply because it's the very same greed and lusting for fame that motivates Everyday Joe to join the poker tables, that also motivates a kid to start training vigorously to become a pro athlete even if it might cost him his education and become a health issue in later years....it's the very same glory that people are wishing for when they dedicate their life to one thing and one thing only, and as you can guess - most of us just don't get there ever. Whether someone spends 10k playing MTTs before he realizes that he don't got it, or 50k on personal pool trainers before he realizes he'll never step in O'Sullivan's footsteps I think it really doesn't matter. It's just that poker is still frowned upon from wide circles in society that leads people to not see the difference between going to Vegas to party and going to Vegas to play at the WSOP.
So to sum it up, every sport in modern day is "dark" in some areas and we can't really blame anyone but ourselves for that when we allow young kids to think that 90 minutes of playing soccer twice a week are actually "worth" a 10 million yearly gross income. Just something to think about...peace, seat open, and sorry for any spelling/phrasing mistakes.
July 9, 2014 - 17:16#9
No offence taken.Firstly,
No offence taken.
Firstly, can I apologise if I have appeared childish. I was feeling quite emotional when I posted the above.
I appreciate your points comparing poker to other sports. You are right of course. However, poker is the "darkest" of them all by far in my opinion. Let me explain:
(i) playing well requires deception and more so than any other "sport"; for example, in rugby you will see players making a side step, in football players will drop a shoulder, and in squash you will see players move their body in a way so as to disguise their true intention.
(ii) when you watch these sports the skill shown being deceptive pales in comparison to the skills being displayed with regards hand-eye coordination. However, when you watch poker players play you don't really get a feel for all the mathetmatics and internal strategising which are going on (especially on television when it is almost impossible to calculate pot odds given the information on display). It is all about how much much truth is represented in the bet, raise, reraise or check.
(iii) and so to a newcomer it appears that to play poker well you just need to be better at the "dark arts" than your opponent and being mathematically orientated is preferable.
(iv) if you watched a professional football match for the first time and came away with the impression that the most important skills to be successful were (a) to be able to deceive your opponent with your anticipated line of running and (b) diving for a free kick or penalty ( while it helps if you can actually kick the ball ) then I can imagine a lot more young people would be presenting themselves to their local football academy.
(v) however, in true sport, this not the case. The case is that we watch the Tour de France on television and know immediately that not in this lifetime will we be able to cycle 200kms a day for three weeks up and down mountains. And when we watch a tennis championship, while we may think that we can do that because the television makes it look easier than it is, as soon as we get on a tennis court we realise just how untouchable these players' talents are.
(vi) instead we watch a poker tournament on television and we get told how much everyone's tournament winnings are which is so deceptive as it doesn't factor in how much they have spent buying-in.
(vii) and so a new player now believes that he just has to out-think his opponents in order to be rich. And great he can spend all day and night at home by himself on his computer doing so.
(viii) furthermore, it doesn't necessarily become quickly apparent to him that he has not got what it takes before it is too late because he never really knows if he is losing money due to himself or the variance. And so he often pushes on. And anyway if it is variance: practice makes perfect. So it is win-win to play more. Except that it isn't.
(ix) and let us not forget that poker will always be more "addictive" than any other "sport" as it is widely agreed to be a form of gambling and the addictive nature of gambling has been well documented.
(x) so I think it is fair to say that poker is "darker" than other recreational pursuits which also have a professional elite.
I actually agree with Colman's statement and respect him for making it. It shows great maturity and a sense of responsibility for the harm that poker can do people while risking being perceived as patronising by the vast majority of sensible recreational players.
Having said that I found the timing quite extraordinary. It felt as if he was trying to deliberately harm the game of poker having just won $15.3 million (or is it $14.3 million?) from it. And I would love to know why.
July 10, 2014 - 16:23#10
The entire game is sustained
The entire game is sustained by losing players. Of which a lot are gambling addicts who are destroying their lives.
Colman is conflicted because he makes a lot of money out of the game but appears to have a conscience about the effect it has on the majority of the player base.
If he doesn't feel comfortable spinning a generic interview: "Thanks to all the organisers of the event that made it possible to support such a great cause"
Then declining an interview seems defensible.
In any case, sounds like Colman needs to make peace with the realities of the game or he should find something else to do with his time. Not sure what his spending habits are like but he can probably walk away from the game and not have to worry about money for a long time. Or put in a way he would probably better relate to, the indifference point is where:
EV(keep playing poker net of emotional & social conscience toll) = EV(walk away from game)
At this stage playing poker has a larger utility payoff for him as evidenced by the fact he hasn't quit the game. But it doesn't mean he needs to do interviews and come off as a complete hypocrite.
July 10, 2014 - 23:22#11
"The entire game is sustained
"The entire game is sustained by losing players. Of which a lot are gambling addicts who are destroying their lives. "
That's entirely false. Unfortunately, it gets way more coverage than it should, people are far more interested in a story about a degen ruining their lives than an intelligent but socially awkward kid making a lot of money.
On the flip side, people are yet even more interested in some loud mouth obnoxious fool who got lucky to win a MTT.
July 11, 2014 - 01:50#12
The entire game is sustained
The entire game is sustained by losing players.
Poker economy cycle in a nutshell:
Starting balance => add deposits => add pokersite liquidity injections (eg. freerolls) => less rake => less withdrawals => closing balance => loop
The only way the cycle continues is for losing players to continue depositing. Part of what I said I don't have the data to defend (that "a lot of which are gambling addicts"). Hell if you want to get really subjective about it, you could even argue they're not destroying their lives because they put some value on the entertainment they receive in return for their cash outlay.
Regardless, losing players are broadly comprised of:
- recreational losing players
- degenerate gamblers
The line between the two is often quite fuzzy as a function of stake (I believe higher stake economy is more reliant on lower stake winners moving up and losing their winnings to established higher stake players). And poker really isn't very fun unless you win (or is that a projection bias of mine?), so it's pretty irrational to continue depositing if you're a losing player.
When you point to some dude binking an MTT then dumping his winnings into higher stakes games, he is still net simply losing his deposit within the poker cycle.
I don't have the data to support it, but I would guess the number of "intelligent but socially awkward" kids making a lot of money out of poker would be significantly outnumbered by the number of degen gamblers in the game. There's probably only been a 20-30 guys if that (?) in history that have made "a lot of money out of poker" (say > 100k in a year).
Something like 90% of players are lifetime losers. Those who continue to deposit into perpetuity despite being losers are likely to be on the degen side of that fuzzy line between degen & recreactional fish. And the higher volume of low frequency depositers who feed the poker economy likely do so with the delusion that they will be able to beat the game. I believe that is what Dan Colman was referring to in his forum post => the fact that people make very irrational decisions in the face of hyped up marketing surrounding the poker market.
The people who are intelligent & hardworking enough to make good money out of poker are almost certainly intelligent and hard working enough to succeed at a ton of other things which will be more fulfilling and beneficial to wider society long term. Again reading between the lines a little bit here, but I think that's what Colman was trying to say in his post and he would rather decline an interview than to perpetuate the delusion that more than ~ 0.1% of the player base could achieve anything like what he has out of poker. People hold it against him that he trolls people in chat, but if you haven't tried it while playing a competitive game over the internet, you're missing out on one of the most fun aspects of the game (acquired taste though I guess :P ?).
July 11, 2014 - 07:36#13
I wouldn't describe Colman as
I wouldn't describe Colman as some socially awkward kid.
Nor would I describe him as an obnoxious loud mouth.
With regards trolling, at the risk of being a hypocrite, I tried it out yesterday to see if I in fact it is just a bit of harmless fun or just wrong.
I was playing someone from Iran so I said that the "USA is going to blow you up"
Fair enough I thought.
Pause. A few hands were played. Then I got back a few encoded expletives.
"Ah" I thought "he might tilit...."
So I waited a few more hands and then wrote, "booooom".
He ignored me.
So I wrote: "Or perhaps they will just get ISIS to do it for them"
He then, on queue, called a 3bet shove @ 15bb effective stacks with 86o.
I didn't hear anything else from him as he had lost and unsurprisingly declined a rematch.
This was @ $15 HT HU and was easily the biggest mistake I had seen in the 300 games or so I have played since moving up to them last week.
Yes I won the game. But this morning I woke up and didn't feel good about it at all. Perhaps I just need to work on strengthening my conscience. Or weakening it depending on your perspective.
July 11, 2014 - 09:11#14
Yes I won the game. But this
Yes I won the game. But this morning I woke up and didn't feel good about it at all. Perhaps I just need to work on strengthening my conscience. Or weakening it depending on your perspective.
Congrats, you won $15 yesterday, but this guy probably wont make any more deposits on the site, so in the long run you and poker community lost much more money than you won...
People really hate being insulted, especially when insulted because of their race, nationality, parents or religion...
Insulting people is also against Pokerstars Terms and Conditions. If he reported you to support you could lose your chat privileges or something like that...
July 11, 2014 - 09:14#15
Good points. Thank you.
Good points. Thank you.