Here's some script from the movie "The Hustler" that explains it.
Astutely recognizing Eddie's determined will to beat Fats, the manipulative, Mephistophelesian, sports promoter gets "personal," pep-talks Eddie, and cynically repeats his earlier criticism of the player during the Ames match. The Satanic gambler calls him a self-pitying "born loser":


Gordon: Eddie, you're a born loser.
Eddie: What's that supposed to mean?
Gordon: First time in ten years I ever saw Minnesota Fats hooked, really hooked. But you let him off.
Eddie: I told you, I got drunk.
Gordon: Sure you got drunk, the best excuse in the world for losin'. No trouble losin' when you got a good excuse. And winning - that can be heavy on your back too, like a monkey. Drop that load too when you got an excuse. All you gotta do is learn to feel sorry for yourself. That's one of the best indoor sports, feelin' sorry for yourself. A sport enjoyed by all - especially the born loser.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Simple solutions to the above problem include a) Stop gambling, or b) Buy a book and stop losing. Seriously. I'm not saying it's not possible to be a gambling addict, but gambling is always going to exist, so if you've got a gambling problem, at least make sure you learn how to win at the game. It's not hard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pathetic. The only solution offered here is prohibition, to a greater or lesser extent, of one area of gambling - on-line. "I have a problem, so make it illegal for everyone."

So what do you think happens to addicts if this part is illegal? Will they be better off if they're in basement and hotel-room games? Any idea how easy it is to rig a home poker game? It's pretty easy to cheat at poker in a casino (by colluding). A back-room game, forget about it - you're chancing everything from rigged decks to outright robbery. On-line, at least these things like collusion can be checked (if someone raise-raised with junk to bolster someone else's great hand, that's gonna set off alarm bells, whereas in a live game she just folds before showdown). If on-line hadn't been available, might you have gotten into dorm-room and hotel-room games, with the same result?

Is it better if addicts are chasing the fantasies of beating roulette, craps, or even blackjack (the few who have beaten that were, in one notable case, a bunch of MIT math whizzes who practiced for months beforehand, which leads a lot of suckers to think they can do the same - they can't).

Interesting thing about those three states that ban the on-line games... they all have legal casinos. Now, which do you think is worse?

Listen closely: Every game in the casino is rigged. That is, by simple mathematics, you cannot win, long term, in a casino - the odds are set against you. That's how they pay for those big, fancy casinos, and all the politicians who support them.

The only game possible to beat is blackjack (and that only with a team of MIT mathematicians and months of practice, in the most notable recent example), and if you ever do beat it (you won't), you'll be banned. You're only there to lose money. You want to deal with the gambling problem, look there. Why does anyone risk even a dime at any casino?

The only exception is poker, that's the only game where someone can, long term, come out ahead. So, all those other casino games being legal and advertised all over the place don't factor in here? Hmmmm...

If you think it's easier to lose on-line because the transaction seems less real, maybe you haven't heard the old joke, "The guy who invented cards was brilliant; the guy who invented chips was a genius."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's look at drugs for comparison. We can a) have prohibition and a million people in jail, lives ruined, criminal organizations massively funded, etc., (the government protecting "its citizens") or b) have education, treatment for those that choose it, tolerance, etc.

Instead of pushing for the government to protect "its citizens" (hello, I don't consider myself one of "its" citizens, and I don't feel government's role is to play in loco parentis) with prohibition, why not push for something constructive. For example, if we're talking about regulation, it might not be a bad idea to force these companies to contribute to an addiction fund, a large one. Part could go to helping addicts, part could go to funding research on the issue of addiction in our society, and how we want to deal with that.

Because gambling is everywhere, just like drugs, alcohol, sex, exercise, high-calorie foods, etc. And addicts who think they're gonna outrun their addictions through prohibition are kidding themselves (even places where they hang people for drugs have drug problems - or they'd never hang everybody for it). Addiction can be serious and painful; prohibition is never the solution. It just compounds the hurt.

We could also ban drinking or sex. Both have been tried. We had the Prohibition disaster in the US; in some countries they kill you with rocks if you hook up with the neighbor. Not necessarily the best approach. The article itself points out more constructive ways to deal with those problems (at least one of them).



The worst thing about this article is that an individual is left in a terrible position. (After reading it, I just wanted to go play some on-line poker.) She's left with no recourse but to hope her provider blocks access to the games or to pray that some Senator manages to push through a prohibition bill, after which she'll likely discover that the addiction is real, and not so easily stopped. There's no information that can help here, such as, even mention of an organization called Gamblers Anonymous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about including some suggestions, such as:

1. Get a notebook.

Before anyone gambles, they should get a little notebook. I know a lot of people who are convinced they've won money at casinos over the long term. They haven't. They just remember the $4,000 jackpot they hit last December and are convenientl y vague about all the nights they dropped "oh, a few hundred."

In that notebook, you must scrupulously write down all wins and losses - what did you enter the game with, what did they leave it with, and the running total win or loss.

If you're not willing to do that, you're already in denial and thus you've already got a problem. Spare yourself and everyone who cares about you a lot of pain and go directly to number 6.


2. Find the Gamblers' Anonymous phone number in your area.

Put it on the inside cover of that notebook. Read their website. Call them up and just chat sometime.


3. Realize TV shows the exceptions.

While you see some people on TV who make a living gambling, television also shows that some people can make living riding a bike or kicking a ball... but not many. And even for them it's a bad idea to rely on it. That's why promising athletes are encouraged to get educations and to make fallback plans. That's why that notebook is so important - if you planned to be the Tour de France champion, but lost finished near the back of every race you enter, you'd accept is a just a dream.

If you're losing consistently, you can quit or at least scale down to something like nickel games (those exist on-line, too, but NEVER in real live because they'd be too expensive for a casino to run - one argument in favor of on-line), as long as you don't go over your limit.


4. Set a limit.

Decide how much you're willing to risk and lose, per week or month or year. Once you've done that, consider that money ALREADY gone. If you ever go over that (certainly no more than a week's wages per year), go to 6.

5. "I just want to get even..."

If you ever find yourself saying, "I just want to get even, and then I'll quit forever," your in deep trouble. Realize that that's a way to keep pouring money in forever. Far too many gamblers say that, all of whom just go on losing and losing. Go to 6.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

6. Quit.

When it becomes a problem. You've got to quit immediately, however you do that. Get in touch with GA, cut up your credit cards, talk to your parents, spouse, bank, boss. However you go about it, you're done. It's not entertainment anymore, it's serious.


Of course, there's room for a lot more (well, not here, but...), and a lot of people can benefit from the experience others. Unfortunately, this article offers no benefit to anyone that I can see.

Other questions are, for example, why credit card companies are giving such easy access to young students out of the home on their own for the first time. That's is really what this particular case is about - someone doing grown-up things, having way more responsibility than she now feels she should have been allowed to have, and making a huge mess of it... but the problem there is the credit card companies, isn't it? Because I have friends who never gambled but are in the same position of facing huge credit card debts they ran up as students.

Gambling addiction is a serious problem, like a lot of other addictions. Banning one of the few forms where the players actually have a chance seems a strange solution.

What the author really needed was help. How 'bout forcing sites to put the Gamblers Anonymous link prominently on the welcome page, if you want to look at regulatory solutions, and forcing them to let gamblers set hard limits and so on?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Education would be also be a good approach. Only problem is, if you ran it right, about the only game people would be playing anymore would be poker, and that mostly on-line. If you really educated people about gambling, if you really sat them down and explained about odds and risks and so on, you'd soon empty the casinos (a multi-billion dollar industry) of all but the very deluded.

Some people say casinos are really in the business of offering entertainment. ("How entertaining, I just lost 800 dollars.") Forget it. People are there because they don't understand the math and they have false hopes.

No sane person would bet ten dollars that a coin would land on heads if they'd only win one dollar if it did. They wouldn't even bet two dollars against one for it. They'd insist on even odds. Educate the people who visit casinos, and you've got a big problem for a big industry.

Yeah, on second thought, maybe just go with the pretend solution - just push for this one-little-corner prohibition. Looks good to the folks at home watching TV, anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Online gambling and online porn are now available 24/7. These are perhaps the web's 2 biggest sucesses. Prohibition is hypocrtical unless your going to prohibit alcohol and tabacco, which are also available 24/7 or close to it. Besides prohibition doesn't work, because deprivity doesn't work.

The best way to stop a destructive behavior is to replace it with something healthy. Of course addictions and cravings are not easily let go of. Still, it's not governments responsibility to protect you from yourself. Sure, I'd like to not have my shaddow impulses available for explotation 24/7. I'm responsible for my actions. The government isn't responsible for what I do.

What better solutions are there than prohibition? Personal responsibility is numero uno (a republican concept for the most part, which makes there enthusiasm for the war on drugs hypocrtical). A couple of ideas: Make anyone who signs up for gamblers annoymous get approval from their sponser to start gambling again (sort of like getting a doctors prescription for valium). I don't know. It's a problem, I just know prohibition is not the solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The person who commented that poker is one of the ONLY gambling games where it's possible to win long-term is right...in a way. Mathematically, it is of course impossible for everyone to win at poker. For you to win, someone else has to lose. However. It is the exception in that it is skill against skill, and it is possible to study the game and become a very good player through applying tested methods and a little intelligence.

So, the only real message to be picked up from this article is "Wah wah I'm no good at poker, and lost a lot of money through being too dumb to quit and too lazy to improve." What's next - are you going to try to stop people from playing GOLF against each other? You know, I hear you can win a lot of money at that. And lose a lot through buying fancy clubs. What's your suggested solution..."BAN ALL GAMES BECAUSE I SUCK!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Fallacy of Online Poker Gambling

by Stephen Katz

Online poker is rapidly becoming one of the most popular gambling games at gambling websites on the internet. The main reason for this popularity is the belief that it is a game of skill in which money could be won. This belief is a fallacy. Skillful play will never help gamblers to win money at online poker because winning money at online poker is impossible.

Online poker is a game of skill only to the extent that skillful play would allow gamblers to lose their money slower. Money could temporarily be won in the short-run. In the long-run though, the gambling "house" which operates the gambling website, will permanently win all the money from all of the players. With a fast played game such as poker, the short-run quickly becomes the long-run when playing enough hands. Each hand played whether winning or losing any particular hand, slowly disintegrates the bankroll of every gambler. There is not anything that gamblers can do to save their bankrolls except to never play online poker.

The top poker players in the world do not play poker at gambling websites. Some top poker players may say they do only because of getting paid for endorsements. These top poker players know they can beat the other players, but that they cannot beat the house. There is not anybody on the face of this earth who can make money playing online poker. Even the world’s best poker player will never be good enough to overcome the "rake" which is the house cut from each pot.

"It takes a minute to learn and a lifetime to master" is a phrase used by some gambling website promoters to describe the poker game of Texas Holdem. This phrase is true when playing against other poker players if there is not any rake. But this phrase is false for online poker because of the rake involved. Gambling house promoters know this phrase is false for their poker. Yet they keep parroting this phrase to fool you into thinking that even though you keep losing money at their website, that one day you could "master" Texas Holdem and then start making money. This phrase for online Texas Holdem should be corrected to truthfully state, "It takes a minute to learn and a lifetime to lose money."

Continued...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Continued...

Here is an example of how the gambling house will always win all the money from all of the players. Five players sit-in on an online poker game each with a $20 bankroll for a total at the website table of $100. Let’s say the average pot is $10 and the rake is 5% or 50 cents per hand. Let’s say 200 hands are played which does not take that long. After 200 hands, that 50 cents rake per hand totals $100 which is the entire amount that all of the players started with at the website table. Of course not all of the players go broke at the exact same time and fresh money can come into the game. But sooner or later each gambler will eventually lose their $20 bankroll every time without exception. If bringing in $20 more, that will also eventually be lost. Every amount brought in will eventually be lost through continued play. Those are the facts in a nutshell. Any honest mathematician, statistician, or numbers expert who understands the game of poker, would not dispute the example in this paragraph.

Now knowing that money cannot be won playing online poker, here are three more nails in the online poker coffin so that this complete waste of your money, time and life can be buried:

1. How do you know the other online poker players are real? You could be the only real player at the website table with the rest being software program players which would be programmed so that you could not possibly win even in the short-run.

2. How do you know the cards are a randomly dealt deck? You would eventually lose your money anyway even with a randomly dealt deck. However some gambling houses do not want to wait that long to fleece you out of your money. The cards could be rigged in any which way to assure that you will lose quicker. They can easily rig any hand. For instance you could have four kings on the flop but a software program player gets a fourth ace at the river to beat you.

Continued...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Continued...

3. How do you know a gambling website can be trusted with your bank account and credit card information? Without your knowledge, they can easily clean out your bank account and max out your credit card anytime they wanted. After they do this, even if locating them in their country of origin and getting them hauled into court, they could just falsify some computer records and claim that you gambled away the money. It is highly unlikely that a judge from their country is going to rule in your favor.

There are a good number of dishonest gambling websites out there just waiting to steal money from you. But even if you did happen to find the most honest, forthright, respectable gambling house that exists, it still is a money fleecing business which would be most happy to financially destroy you. Do not give them the pleasure no matter how nice their website appears to be. Do not give them the pleasure no matter how friendly their promoters seem to be. Do not give them the pleasure for any reason.

These gambling houses along with their slick marketing campaigns are very clever at trying to influence you into gambling. Do not believe any advertising or information from gambling websites or other sources which state or imply that money can be made playing online poker. Do not let them fool you but if they have, then permanently delete their money fleecing software from your computer.

Continued...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Continued...

You have a choice to follow the guidance of this article or play online poker. Playing online poker will cost you money and quite possibly a lot of money. You may get addicted to it even if believing that could not happen. It very well can happen. Unfortunately, getting addicted to online poker has happened to many people. But even if never technically getting addicted to online poker, isn’t it foolish to play a game in which losing your money is a certainty? Losing money is not only true for online poker, but for all other gambling games on the internet. There are not and never will be any exceptions. You are absolutely, positively, guaranteed to lose your money. Those are the facts. Do not allow gambling promoters or anyone else to convince you otherwise.

Please make the right choice, the smart choice and the necessary choice to never play the money losing game of online poker or any other online gambling game. Keep your money in your bank account where it belongs. Your money does not belong in the bank account of a gambling house.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Katz is, sadly, a mite confused. When facts don't fit with theory, which do you discard?

"Any honest mathematician, statistician, or numbers expert who understands the game of poker, would not dispute the example in this paragraph." In fact, any of them would.

It's true the table as a whole is losing and average of X dollars per hand to the rake (what the house skims off), but the very good players are winning enough to make up for that. They'd make a lot more without that rake, and the losing players would lose a lot less on average. However, the online rake is no higher than the rake played in live games. Live games have additional charges such as dealer tips, transportation and so on, and yet some players do still come out ahead.

The argument would only work if all the players were equal, which they're not. That's the basic assumption of the model, and it's basic error.

Of course, we can just skip over the academic argument and look at something called, oh, reality. The reality is that there are online players coming out ahead over the long term.

If you want to make an argument about rakes draining off too much money, you might have a case. Online play is much faster than live play, and the players as a group are losing millions and millions of dollars that's being taken by the rakes. The rake is the main winner here, and that's where much of the table's money is going. Without that, players would be able pass the time without being deep-sixed by the rake. Everybody would win more.

A big part of that problem is the grey-area legal status. Online services don't have to charge such high rakes but because they can't advertise, it's very difficult for another service to get into the game, as it were. They can only advertise sister sites (.net instead of .com, for example) that don't take money. Thus, they can never make the case for a key selling point. They could charge a far smaller rake, and then the game would be closer to something fun and it would be possible for far more players to come out ahead.

They say the biggest site, which has a near stranglehold, makes a million dollars an hour. That's million dollars an hour that could just as easily stay with the players if they'd charge a far lower rake - meaning individuals would lose a LOT less - but given that they're effectively protected from competition, why would they?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Confused" Kneel? Not hardly! My article which has already been listed at many websites on the internet, including a number of college newspaper websites, is posted here to back Lauren up that her statements are 100% accurate. Some of your previous comments are absolutely absurd and completely wrong - and you probably already know that. You can spin things any clever way you want Kneel, but you cannot change the truth. Lauren's article and mine state the truth.

There will be a followup to "The Fallacy of Online Poker Gambling" coming sometime in August which will clearly repudiate your false comments. These false comments aren't unique to you...these false comments can be found on many online poker websites. You are simply regurgitating these false comments. Like all good propaganda artists, you mix in some truth along with distortions to promote and serve your agenda. Your agenda seems to me to be enticing college students into believing that money can be made playing the sucker's game of online poker.

Good people such as Lauren are exposing the online poker industry for exactly what they are - money fleecing businesses that are financially harming and destroying the lives of millions of people. If you want to support an industry such as this Kneel...that is your prerogative. No doubt in my mind that online poker, if it hasn't already, is going to go down in history as one of the worst scams of this early 21st century.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sad that we can't confine our discussion to the facts, that we can't just try to get at the truth.

Sticking to the facts, I said that the basic argument is basically wrong. You're insisting that no player can come out ahead in online poker, because of the rake. That's a fairly easy proposition to disprove. Would you argue that no poker player in any raked game comes out ahead? Because the rakes are about the same in live games, often higher.

If you're convinced that any statistician or mathematician would agree with you, go to the local university and talk to a few.

See, once you say that, no one knowledgeable is going to listen to the rest, and you've undermined whatever you were trying to get across.


I think a drugs comparison is appropriate here: When trying to warn people of the dangers of drug use, I believe it's best to give factual information. If you tell them that one toke marijuana were turn them into deranged carjackers, well, that might warn some people off for a while, until they see that disproved, and then they're not gonna believe anything else you tell them.

Your other coffin-nails have more substance, and are worth warning people about.

What I find sad here is that you and Ms. Patrizi and others are so intent on going after one tentacle of the octopus, which, even if successful, will be a Pyrrhic victory - students will still end up horribly in debt, out-of-control gambling will still ruin many lives, etc.

There are issues here of a huge unregulated industry. There are issues of why students have to go into such debt to get an education. There are issues of credit card companies preying on young people, and of the debts we carry in general.

I'm sorry for Ms. Patrizi, but this could have happened at the track, Las Vegas, the golf course, the sports bar. It does all the time. I know someone who lost his vacation cash playing a trivia game for money.

Banning this one aspect for an entire nation of 300 million might not be the best approach. I assume there'd be punishments for those caught trying to circumvent the law (and you know they would). More fodder for the prisons?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In any case, to go from a basic premise that's plain wrong doesn't help. I checked a couple of the other places the article was posted, and people of course immediately pointed out the problem with it - the assumption that all the players are equal. I don't really understand why you haven't taken a second look at that. Are you able to explain that?

So talk to some of those mathematicians. I understand you're trying to flog a book. I'd suggest it's gonna need a little revising.

And you might want to look up propaganda while you're at it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Playing poker online for money is a suckers game. All it takes is for two or more players to be in contact with each other, ie, by phone, and they can clean out everybody else at the table. When there's money at stake, people will cheat if they can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just noticed Ms. Patrizi's comment there:

"I'm not sure if government intervention is the right thing, however, how could it be the wrong thing?"

How?

Let's say you were left not only with a big debt, and bewilderment about how it ever went so far, but you were also facing a felony charge for doing so. Your article began with pounding on the door just before the FBI arrested you for violating the Online Gambling Prohibition Act of 2007, sponsored by Senator Charles Schumer. You were immediately expelled and, because you're over 18, you will serve at least the mandatory minimum prison sentence.

That's how.

Unfortunately there's no real debate here. Mr. Katz is simply... well, go to his website, read his interview in the Reagan Review, and you'll understand. He's confused and apparently has been for a long time. I wish him the best.

As for compassion, I have a great deal of it, and I'm sorry for your situation. I appreciate that you're trying to warn others off a similar fate, I just wish you'd done a better job of that, instead of grasping for a solution that isn't one.

I have a close friend who also lost a huge amount playing poker while she was in college, more money than I've ever seen in one place. She's still paying for it. Thing is, she lost it all in casino card rooms. Never played on line. I have two friends who went thousands in debt over their boyfriend's projects that didn't pan out.

It really seems to me that the main problem that they, and you, had access to that much credit. And that, to me, is a better focal point. Why are credit card companies giving young students on their own for the first time so much credit? Because there all kinds of ways to end up that badly in debt.

It may be that were it not for online poker, this would never have happened to you. But I'd guess that it might have just been delayed, and maybe worse. My friend who lost all the money, that came in graduate school, and by then was able to access a lot more money, and lose it. I've seen gambling addiction destroy people's families and lives. That you're an addict is not really the fault of this or that, and federal legislation isn't the way to deal with your addiction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The argument is similar to what I've faced on ending drug prohibition: Where's your compassion for the addicts? This was actually an argument advanced in Newsweek - legalization would be better for most of society, but the addicts would be condemned to the hell of their addictions.

Well, what do this people think it's like for addicts under prohibition? And, for all the ravages of addiction, it's clearly far better for the addict when it's legal.

Maybe some bill or other will be passed - though people will find workarounds, especially clever college students (and we should note how hypocritical and self-serving that legislation is - states that have legal casinos robbing people blind, with billboards everywhere, ban online sites where the odds might even be better). In the meantime, why not give some advice and suggestions. Your article would have been improved if you'd given some warning signs to look out for. Talk to addiction counselors, to Gamblers Anonymous, figure out what signs you might've seen, and what you might've done, and tell us about that. That would help others who are right now chasing some desperate hope of getting their money back, or who are just placing that first $20 bet.

My problem is, I didn't see that. Short of hoping for forces largely beyond her control to step in, what do you leave the similarly afflicted reader with?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kneel - There you go again with more propaganda...you are a clever guy. Your spins are right up there with the best propaganda spins I've seen regarding online poker. You probably either work for an online poker website or are involved in a poker forum - both designed to entice victims into playing online poker. You and your gambling industry comrades have been very successful at doing this to the tune of millions of lives financially harmed and destroyed.

Most if not all of your comments, which are clever but nothing new...I've heard them all before...will be addressed on my website sometime in August with the new article. You can read it there.

I've got no problem with people expressing different ideas to learn the truth. However your ideas are deviously designed to keep your con game going of fleecing college students and others out of their money. The truth is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make money in the long-run playing poker against a house cut. That is a fact. Again...this will be more clearly explained in my new article. Even Chris Moneymaker, who as you know won the WSOP, will lose back his winnings if he keeps on playing poker against a house cut - and I think you also know that. Poker is a game of skill but there is simply way too much luck involved to overcome the long-run effects of even a small house cut - and it's not even close.

You keep bringing up Gamblers Anonymous which is fine. GA is a great organization and is there to pick up the pieces from shattered gamblers. But you don't mind GA because you realize that usually anyone joining GA has already been well fleeced out of their money. Your gambling industry friends have already sucked these gamblers dry. So your friends just recommend GA to the people you have ruined, thinking that this absolves them of all responsibility, and then you can get busily working on fleecing your next victims.

Continued...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Continued...

The thing that worries the parasites who own online poker websites is prevention. Getting information out to people regarding the realities and consequences of playing online poker, before gamblers get devastated. That is why you are so insidiously trying to denigrate Lauren's article. Yes, gamblers must take responsibily for their actions, but sooner or later your gambling industry friends are going to be forced to take responsibility for their actions of the huge devastation they have caused.

These owners of these onlin e poker websites are already filthy rich - they don't need any more money. As for you - you'd be better off using your intelligence working for businesses which benefit society, instead of trying to con people into playing online poker, and stop supporting an industry which is strictly a societal leech.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Katz, your 'facts' are demonstrably untrue.

While there are certainly worthy points of discussion in this article, you have become so blinded that you come off, to the average reader such as myself, as paranoid. Making unfounded assertions that posters are working for online gaming sites is simply ludricous.

Rather, you should attempt, statistically, to support your 'facts'. This isn't a discussion about the evils of poker, it's a statistics discussion, and you are simply dead wrong.

Poker involves some skill. As a result, if you take a random group of players with different skill sets, their results will be distributed along a bell curve. In fact, those at the far end of the bell curve WILL turn a profit, assuming a 10% take for the house.

Let's look at an example. Say that we entered 500 people of differing skill levels in 100 10 player tournaments. For this example, let's assume that the top three places pay out 50-30-20, with the house taking an additional ten percent. If we average out the finishing places for each player, there will be a good percentage whose average finish is above 4th place and even some above 3rd. Those people WILL HAVE TURNED A PROFIT. It's a statistical certainty.

I am living proof, BTW. I have played 106 tournaments in the last six months. Not alot by any means. I have finished first 21 times, second 19 times and third 16 times. Do the math. I'm certainly not the best player out there, and clearly not the worst, however my experience should give a real life example of how incorrect your statement is.

The social costs of gambling deserve serious and considered discussions. You are offering neither. In my opinion, your rhetoric and uncalled for individual attacks simply denegrate what should be a useful and meaningful discussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The other interesting assertion you make is that there is not enough skill involved in a game to overcome the house take in the long run. Again, an interesting opinion, but one which does not hold up well. In fact, the skilled player, over time, is far less likely to be victimized by the lucky draw of an opponent.

Again, as an example, assume that a player makes a 2-1 bet which will return 3 times the money. Statistically, that is a good play. Over time, that play will ultimately pay off for the bettor. A skilled player has the ability to make those odds deteriminations quickly and fairly accurately, the unskilled player does not. Over the long haul, that skilled player will continue to win more than he loses because of that ability. The skill is purely computational, and over time, the element of luck will show less and less influence over that individuals result. That's statistics 101.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't quite understand how Stephen Katz can go on asserting that it's impossible to make money against a rake over the long run. People do it, that's why you have poker professionals. All you have to do is be better than the average player to a percentage greater than the rake. And with online poker, where a lot of people simply don't know what they're doing, that's not hard.

However, it's the mark of a "scientist" like Mr Katz that they never let hard facts stand in the way of a nice theory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Okay coolriver, yea, yea, yea...so you say you won all these tournaments. Now where’s your proof sir? The only way for you to prove that would be to post scanned documents of your 1040 tax returns, along with a signed letter of the audited returns from a reputable CPA firm, along with scans of the credit card transfer statements for the year. Otherwise, anything you say and anything anybody else says about winning money playing online poker is only a rumor.

My “proof” coolriver is in observation which is a scientific method of proving something. And my observation is that no online poker player has ever posted this documentation. Also, where are all the luxurious homes, cars, boats, jewelry, etc., that all these “winning” online poker players are buying? Where are they? I’ll tell you where they are…they aren’t anywhere because they don’t exist. Gamblers love to tell “tall tales” about their gambling successes. Gamblers winning money in the long-run playing online poker is a tall tale.

We both know that there is no mathematical formula for proving that poker can be beat playing against a house edge. You made the statements about winning, not me…you and some like you in poker forums are bragging about making all this money so it is up to YOU to prove it in the manner which was previously stated. Until then, like most addicted gamblers, and most gamblers playing online poker are addicted to it whether or not wanting to admit that, you in my opinion are simply an addicted gambler living with the gambler’s illusion fantasy of making money and trying to be a big shot and convincing others to join in your losing misery. Misery does love company. Ask any psychology professor at Loyola University and the professor will tell you that yes, addicted gamblers do tend to live in a fantasy world of some type.

Continued...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Continued...

Please note though coolriver that my fight isn’t with gamblers. I have never rooted against a gambler in my life and I never will. My fight is with the gambling industry and the way they are harming and destroying many millions of lives. This has to end. Enough is enough. At least you and kneel have some credibility - you did not deny the fact that online poker is harming and destroying the lives of many millions of people - you, kneel and any others can spin Lauren’s article any clever way you want and spin my article any clever way you want - but this is all about the financial destruction being caused by online poker. Even if it were true, and it isn’t until proof is shown, that a few isolated players were winning money in the long-run playing online poker - it still wouldn’t change whatsoever the fact about the destructiveness of online poker.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think it's best to simply agree to disagree, as scientific facts and mathematical certainties don't seem to sway your opinion. For every loser in one of these games, there is a winner, but apparently you simply can't accept that fact.

Meaningful dialogue is a good thing. A personal crusade, in which you refuse to acknowledge any other opinion or actually engage in any meaningful dialogue has, down through history, proven to be incredibly destructive.

You've dismissed both the posters here who disagreed with you. Not with facts, but with subtle (or not so subtle) innuendo that he is an online poker plant, and I am delusional. You dismiss us in an incredibly condescending and cavalier manner. And as proof, you offer your 'observations' which amount to what exactly?

So, I only ask that you don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. We certainly don't 'both know' what you say, so hold your opinions as your own. I trust mine will stand up better than yours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I love your observations. No one has allowed you to view their personal information, so you believe it's all a lie.

Where is my luxurious home? Well, I don't gamble enough to buy a luxurious home or a new car. I gamble for fun. Each of those tournaments I described cost me $5.50, and my winnings don't add up to a couple hours of work for me. Believe it or not (and I think your own studies will bear this out), for every problem gambler, there are many of us who are NOT problem gamblers. I am a former chess master. I found this game to be incredibly strategic and challenging, as a game of skill. I enjoy the competition, but it's simply a hobby for me. I know you don't believe such people as me exist, but guess what? They do.

I won't pretend that gambling has no social cost, but lets address that issue, rather than simply condemning an activity because certain people cannot handle it. You are doing a disservice to your cause by the manner in which you respond to those who disagree with you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think it's important to distinguish, which Katz and the author of tha article do, between true gambling, like roulette, which is based on pure chance and in which the house will always win your money in the long run, and a game involving skill, such as poker. Katz treats poker as a pure gambling addiction, and his assertion that the "house" always wins is of course correct when there's a rake; they can't lose.

However, as professional poker players and skilled amateurs know, and despite Katz's refusal to entertain their testimony, to make money at poker and beat the rake, all you have to do is be better than some of the players at the table. And what does that skill consist of? Simply, the ability to recognize when you have a mathematical edge, and bet in those circumstances, while avoiding the circumstances in which you are an underdog.

The complexity of this runs very deep. A simple example would be if you have to pay $2 to see one more card, and the odds are 5-1 against that card being the one you want, but you stand to win $50 if you are successful. The "pot odds" - i.e. the amount you have to pay compared to what is in the pot - are 25-1, five times greater than the odds of drawing the card, which means that this is an extremely favourable situation to bet. Four times out of 5 you will lose $2, and 1 time out of 5 you will make $50.

Making money at poker, online or not, revolves around this concept, and the manipulation of it. Unskilled players play against the odds, and sometimes they get lucky, but in the long run they lose money. Skilled players only bet when they have the odds to do so, and therefore in the long run, if they are playing with players less skilled than they are, it is a mathematical certainty that they will make money.

Katz seems not to understand this key concept, which is probably the reason why he lost so much money and got so angry about the gamblinbg industry. I'd also suggest that the author of this article didn't understand it, or couldn't apply it. However, other peoples' failure does not invalidate the success of those who've applied this idea.

>>

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Personally, I've made a relatively modest profit playing online poker so far - I've turned $50 into about $600. Katz will no doubt accuse me and everyone else who makes an assertion like this of being a gambling industry employee, thereby making it clear to everyone reading these comments that he is nothing but a crank scientist and conspiracy theorist, the dime-a-dozen types that frequent the fringes of the Internet always obsessively hawking their pet ideas and publications.

I've no doubt that for Lauren and for Katz, online poker was a Bad Thing, due to their inability to understand what's really going on with the game. And personally I am glad that players like them exist, because they contribute money to the players who have more skill. I don't mean to sound uncompassionate - I am sorry that these people have struggled with an addiction - but my sympathy ends when instead of realizing that the addiction was their own personal problem, they drag their healing process through the ugly phase of attacking the industry that they would like to think victimized them.

Like I said before, if you're going to be a poker addict, at least learn how to play properly. I don't think what's being discussed here is a gambling problem so much as a stupidity problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It saddens me to see this kind of rhetoric anywhere. Is this a progressive tome?
For the author to even suggest that the answer to HER problem should be an issue for government and legislation shows a willingness to ignore the most basic tenet of a free society. It is called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Because YOU do not want to take responsibility for YOUR problem you want to see YOUR PERSONAL problem legislated out of existence.

The issue here is that SIMPLE. It is NOT about the rake or percentages or poker skill.

The author KNOWS that there is a vast network of affordable and/or free help available. Since she has net access she should start with google. She will find help readily available.

People who suggest that the answer to THEIR problem is government intrusion into what is CLEARLY a personal decision and responsibility have a shortsighted and
selfish view of the rights of their fellow citizens. The author clearly needs to embrace HER problem and acknowledge HER DENIAL of HER problem.

What you do in the privacy of your own home - how and what you spend your money on - how you address your personal problems - is your business.
Don't you agree?
Could I have the same right?

The legislation that you so selfishly advocate to help with YOUR problem would have ever more far reaching effects. The pragmatic effect of this legislation could and probably would lead to an increase in Internet monitoring by government.
Since almost all gambling sites are off shore and can't be legislated directly by the congressional morons - they will attempt to stop it by criminalizing what SHOULD be a personal choice by whatever means they choose.

More surveillance! That's a good idea.
Another PERSONAL choice you can be arrested for. That's a good idea.

Wake up! If the citizens of this country open a door - the politicians will walk through it.
That door leads to the realm of your personal freedom and the part of the room that belongs to us gets smaller all the time.

GROW UP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seems very clear to me and I'm sure to anyone else who doesn't have a pro-gambling agenda that Lauren has taken responsibility for her actions by stopping gambling and warning others about the realities and consequences of playing online poker. What about the responsibility of these online poker websites that are maliciously ruining more and more lives everyday? How about their responsibility? They have none, but one day sooner or later, they will be forced to take responsibility for their actions. In case these pro-gambling advocates here have forgotten, playing internet poker is against the law in the United States. These gambling website owners are knowingly and willingly violating American law - and one day they will be brought to justice for their criminal activity.

Lauren's article has certainly brought out the pro-gambling spin doctors. You can bury my article all you want...that's okay...I can handle it because I know it's the truth. But to bury Lauren's acticle is quite loathsome. If Lauren was talking about alcoholism, drugs or other addictions, none of you here would dare come on here and criticize her. But since it's gambling addiction, you feel that this is okay. Well it's not okay and take a good long look in the mirror because some of you here are without question addicted to gambling.

And by the way...I of course do not want to speak for Lauren. Looking at her various other articles she seems like a fantastic writer and no doubt if wanting to she will have a tremendous career in journalism. Wouldn't surprise me one bit to someday see her doing interviews on 60 Minutes or writing for a national newspaper or magazine.

You online poker players think you are so smart because you want to be a big shot and eat all the "fish" out there. I've got some news for you...you are also the fish...you just haven't been eaten yet. It's only a question of when if you continue playing online poker. Every online poker player has a gambling problem - it is only a matter of degree.

Anyone lurking here can believe us or the pro-gambling propaganda artists who are cleverly trying to entice people into gambling...the choice is yours. Please make the right choice, the smart choice and the necessary choice to never play the sucker's game of online poker.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alan - you are totally clueless when it comes to knowing what gambling is really all about. Believe whatever you want to believe, but all I ask is for some very simple PROOF...and nobody provides it. So what's that tell you? This shouldn't be so hard to comprehend.

You have some college students and others bragging on the internet about winning all this money playing online poker. Yet the few pictures I've seen of them show them living in some shabby looking dorm or apartment and probably driving a 1990 Buick or Oldsmobile. They won't even display the title to their car which if I was in college making what I've seen gamblers stating on websites making over six figures a year, I'd certainly spring for a nice new expensive car like a Lexus. There's been no PROOF Alan - those are the facts.

Also...someone bragging about making all this money better be reporting this "income" to the IRS. Gambling winnings are taxable in case you didn't know, including the small amounts coolriver said he has won. It would be naive to think that the IRS doesn't search every avenue possible regarding tax evasion so certainly they are also surfing the internet. So if a gambler claims to be making say over $100,000 per year, they have already publicly opened themselves up to IRS scrutiny, and should have paid the taxes. So why not post the copy of the tax returns to prove these winnings to the public. Since they openly bragged about the winnings, what is wrong with asking them to simply prove it? The bottom line is that there are no tax returns showing these winnings obviously because there are no winnings - it's really quite that simple.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow, this has almost left me speechless, it's so totally out in left field, but I just have to challenge a couple of your statements, and ask you where you get your information.

"playing internet poker is against the law in the United States".

I challenge you to show me a ruling in any Federal Court which backs up that assertion. While some states have made this illegal, Federal Courts have not made any such rulings. In fact, they have sided with the players in refusing to rule that participating or playing these games is illegal. See Judge Duvals ruling in District Court in New Orleans, which was upheld in fifth district appeals court. They specifically disagreed with the Justice Departments assertion that the Wire Act covered online poker. State laws vary on this subject, but in general, they are aimed at the operators, not the participants. I think you would agree that this is the right approach. So explain how your statement has any shred of truth in it.

"Every online poker player has a gambling problem - it is only a matter of degree. "

What are you implying, and where are the studies which would back up this assertion, or is it just your opinion? Please define problem for us? Are there degrees of addiction? The definition doesn't seem to support that idea. Please, revel us with your wisdom on this subject, since you've just diagnosed several million people as gambling addicts. Some of them might just take offense at that.

I truly hope the anti gambling establishment finds a better spokesperson to aide them. Once you start making things up, your credibility is shot. You've completely lost me.

What's really interesting here is that you've characterized me as all sorts of things here, a mouthpiece for gambling, delusional, addicted. I assume you simply lump anyone that challenges you on any front as all of these things, and move on. How does that contribute to the discussion? It's simply a classic case of narrow minded stereotyping.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finally, because I can't resist....

How is it that you have personal knowledge that 'there are no tax returns' showing on-line poker winnings? Just curious. Have you examined every American's tax returns? I don't think you could possibly have done so, but maybe I'm wrong. Just because you haven't seen them, it doesn't prove they don't exist. I've never been to China, but I'm pretty sure it's there. Maybe people believe (and rightfully so) that their tax returns aren't filed for your personal perusal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

coolriver - to answer your questions.

1. Regarding the legality of online poker in the United States: There is not a single website based in the US which offers online poker. Not one! Now if playing online poker was legal, don't you think there would be at least ONE? Come on now...stop being silly.

2. Regarding everyone playing online poker as having a gambling problem: Online gambling websites are an enabler for a gambling addiction - that is a problem. Playing online poker exposes people to possible gambling addiction - that is a problem. Playing online poker results in losing money and many times lots of money - that is a problem. All these are problems and there are more.

3. Regarding tax returns: Again...it is up to bragging poker players to show proof of winnings. They are the ones doing the bragging so they must show the proof. Anyone can say that they climbed Mount Rushmore, but without having photographs to back it up, why should anyone believe them?

4. Regarding characterization of you: Coolriver...ultimately you should determine how others characterize you. I state my opinions and feelings based on having communicated with thousands of gamblers over the years, and with the understanding of gambling addiction.

5. Regarding being a spokesperson: I speak for myself and nobody else and for no other organization. I appreciate the compliment though that you were thinking of me as a possible spokesperson. Thank you!

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. You stated that PLAYING online poker is illegal in the United States. What court decision supports your assertion. We all know it is illegal to run an online poker site, but that is not what you stated. Answer?

2. You stated that all online poker players have a problem. State the authority on which you base this statement. Again, don't take about the sites, talk about the players, since you characterized the PLAYERS as all having a gambling problem.

3. How do you know that no tax returns contain income from online poker. Please site the statistics that you base this statement on.

If you are an expert on this subject, you should certainly be able to provide these answers, but you didn't. Put up or shut up Mr. Katz.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. You stated that PLAYING online poker is illegal in the United States. What court decision supports your assertion. We all know it is illegal to run an online poker site, but that is not what you stated. Answer?

Go ask your gambling industry friends why there are no online poker websites based in the US. Obviously if it was legal, there would be hundreds if not thousands of these websites in the US. That's all I need to understand to know that it's illegal.

2. You stated that all online poker players have a problem. State the authority on which you base this statement. Again, don't take about the sites, talk about the players, since you characterized the PLAYERS as all having a gambling problem.

It was already characterized from a player's perspective.

3. How do you know that no tax returns contain income from online poker. Please site the statistics that you base this statement on.

For at least the third time...it is up to bragging players to provide the proof. They made the claim...so back up the claim! If you or anyone else chooses to believe these claims without proof...then that's your choice.

If you are an expert on this subject, you should certainly be able to provide these answers, but you didn't. Put up or shut up Mr. Katz.

The questions were answered. If not liking the answers or if the answers weren't exactly as expected, then so be it.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Katz I can see that you are a True Believer. You seem to have several telling symptoms.
Here are just a FEW of them. Do you know how to recognize them?

1) Absolute Certainty - This is characterized by unsubstantiated, sweeping generalizations.

" Seems very clear to me and I'm sure to anyone else who doesn't have a pro-gambling agenda..."

"Every online poker player has a gambling problem..."

"What about the responsibility of these online poker websites that are maliciously ruining more and more lives everyday?

2) Identification and Assignment of negative labels/descriptions to those who disagree with you.

"Anyone lurking here can believe us or the pro-gambling propaganda artists..."

"You online poker players think you are so smart because you want to be a big shot and eat all the 'fish' out there."

"Yet the few pictures I've seen of them show them living in some shabby looking dorm or apartment and probably driving a 1990 Buick or Oldsmobile.

3) Your opinions are the truth - the whole truth and nothing but the truth - so help you... you.

"You can bury my article all you want...that's okay...I can handle it because I know it's the truth."

"I state my opinions and feelings based on having communicated with thousands of gamblers over the years, and with the understanding of gambling addiction."

4) Anyone disagreeing with you is advocating the worst EXTREMITIES of the other position.

"But since it's gambling addiction, you feel that this is okay. Well it's not okay and take a good long look in the mirror because some of you here are without question addicted to gambling."

5) Your absoluteness requires you to deny choice to others.

"These gambling website owners are knowingly and willingly violating American law - and one day they will be brought to justice for their criminal activity."

The extrapolation of what MAY be a PROBLEM for SOME into a CAUSE that attempts to legislate, criminalize and limit the freedom of others in what is CLEARLY an individual decision - is in MY opinion - WRONG. It is a reactive attempt at legislating morality and impinging on freedom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shart - You've got the pro-gambling "sales pitch" down cold haven't you? Take statements from people against gambling and twist things to suit your agenda. Do anything possible to keep the focus off of the fact that gambling is harming and destroying millions of lives. Good for you - you've been well schooled. You'll receive some warm & fuzzy handshakes and pats on the back from your gambling industry friends for your little post here.

You and others can continue to do your quack psychoanalysis of me and others like me all you want. Frankly, I find your amateurish portrayal of Sigmund Freud quite amusing. I enjoyed a good laugh reading your post!

However, what is not the least bit amusing is the way you and others like you keep spinning your nasty black widow spiderwebs attempting through whatever devious means possible to lure college students and others into gambling and getting financially ruined. That is the bottom line of this whole discussion Shart and however you rant and rave, we are not going to lose our focus on what needs to be done.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Katz we should leave be. Read his website and you'll see he's had a rough time. His admonitions seem to be directed mainly back at himself. (Behind those admonitions is a voice ready to shout, "The PRECIOUS!") I wish him... well I won't say luck, but I wish him well in his endevours.

I think the rake is an issue here, even on the topic of problem players.

With a million dollars an hour being sucked from the players on one site alone, that's where a lot of the losses are going. Without that, players would do a lot more passing the money around. Yes, there would still be losers, but there'd be a lot less. Collectively, a million dollars an hour less would be lost. It makes a difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kneel - You're absolutely right here - being a gambler is a "rough time" and just like other problems and addictions, people, especially young people must be warned about it. That's exactly what Lauren did and what I am doing. Sharing our experiences regarding the realities and consequences of gambling. Providing knowledge and education so that people can make an informed choice.

You should be applauded for at least telling some of the other side of the story of just one poker website sucking out a million dollars an hour from gamblers. If this one comment stops one person from playing and getting addicted to online poker, then this thread will have been a success.

Best regards,

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well I think it's obvious that what we are dealing with here is someone who has become so unhinged by their own losses that they are unable to handle the idea that their losses were in large part due to a lack of intelligence and study. It's much easier to blame the BIG BAD COMPANY that to say "Hey - I had a real problem, being that I was addicted to gambling and really bad at it. But I'm over it now and I spend my time knitting, as opposed to writing paranoid screeds full of flawed mathematics attacking the BIG BAD COMPANIES who burned me!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's worth re-iterating ONE LAST TIME, in case someone will read it and understand, that poker should not be placed in the same category as the pure gambling that Katz has probably spent most of his time at. I am not a gambler, I am a poker player and I apply skill and tested principles which enable me to win money from players worse than myself. I am not dumb enough to trust money to a roulette wheel or a horse race and never will be.

I would probably tentatively agree with most of what Katz has to say about many forms of pure gambling (except that I'd hate to publicly agree with him about anything in case people also thought I was a mouth-frothing paranoid) - but I flat out disagree with him about poker, and I think he fails to make an important distinction when it comes to games that are a mixture of skill and chance, such as poker.

There you go, Stephen. That's as far as I'll go towards your stance. I think you chose the wrong article here to use to hawk your book.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"...and just like other problems and addictions, people, especially young people must be warned about it. That's exactly what Lauren did and what I am doing. Sharing our experiences regarding the realities and consequences of gambling. Providing knowledge and education so that people can make an informed choice."

If this is the true intention and goal of your polemics then I think you are providing a valid counterpoint and dare I say service to people. The above statements seem very reasonable to me.
The operative word being CHOICE.

But if you advocate legislation leading to prohibition and criminalization of gambling online or off - I have a problem with your methods and your goal.

So which is it Mr. Katz?
An individuals choice or yours?

Education or Prohibition?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shart - I would like to see every casino, horse and dog racetrack, poker and bingo parlor, and gambling website closed. That being said, you or I aren’t the “King” so the people in the United States will decide this through the voting booths.

That being said, your wanting to compare eliminating gambling as similar to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s is simply not a valid comparison. This is a tired argument by the pro-gambling establishment to con people into thinking that eliminating gambling has something to do with curtailing freedom. The elimination of gambling in the 21st century really has nothing to do with the Prohibition Era of 85 years ago. The right comparison about making gambling illegal should be how narcotics such as cocaine and heroin are illegal. Many unbiased studies have shown that gambling addiction is similar to addiction to these narcotics. That’s leading psychiatric studies stating this Shart. So, gambling should be illegal for the exact same reasons that cocaine and heroin are illegal.

We’re not talking about private neighborhood card games, office pools, or dollar Nassau on the golf course here, we’re talking about preventing the fleecing of money from millions of people by an organized industry - which has harmed and destroyed countless lives. You can further comment on this “eliminating gambling - Prohibition Era” argument if you want Shart, because people such as you want to try to take the focus off of gambling harming and destroying millions of lives. This “strategy” of yours isn’t going to work anymore.

Gambling industry marketers though are extremely clever…they’ll keep coming up with new ways of trying to con people. Their latest con game is promoting “responsible gambling” as if they really mean that. What a joke…and a sick joke at that! Currently they are promoting orange wristbands designed for problem gamblers with the phrase “keep it fun” - my opinion is that all this does is serve as a reminder to gamblers…to gamble…and the marketers know that...another clever con game.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“mouth-frothing paranoid”

I always keep plenty of paper towels handy when I’m typing on the keyboard - LOL

Alan - I’m glad you understand the foolishness of roulette and horse racing and I’m presuming by that you mean other types of casino gambling as well. We certainly agree on that.

Obviously Alan you are going to continue playing online poker. It is hoped that you just keep an open mind about it. When the inevitable losses at online poker start to occur, you should realize that it has nothing to do with the way you are playing or with bad luck. It is simply random numbers and the house cut that is grinding out your bankroll.

"I think he fails to make an important distinction when it comes to games that are a mixture of skill and chance, such as poker."

But the distinction was made Alan, right in the article. I don’t advocate gambling but I do search for the truth. The truth is that poker is a game of skill whereby in private games without a house cut the best players will win money in the long-run. Doyle Brunson has a huge, beautiful house - which he won playing poker in private games, not playing online or in a casino. If observing online poker players with houses like Texas Dolly, bought from money won playing online poker, then I would simply amend my comments to say something like, “stay away from online poker because only a few win and the odds clearly are that you will not win.” I would have no problem whatsoever with saying this if it were true. We’ll agree to disagree about that.

And I didn’t disagree with coolriver’s comments about some people can have fun playing online poker and not get badly harmed by it. If coolriver is one of these players then fine - I wouldn’t wish gambling addiction on anyone. But a point is that playing online poker and getting in a habit of it is putting yourself in harm’s way. It’s really not hard to get addicted to playing online poker, and quickly, and lose an awful amount of money.

Best Regards,

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just because something is posted on the internet doesn't make it authoratative. Holocaust denials and reports from people claiming to be abducted by aliens are all over the net too.

People may or may not agree with the article above. It's largely a matter of balancing individual right to freedom, entertainment, and means of income (because yes, some people make a living playing poker) versus the societal drawbacks from those that lose more than they can afford. Should tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people be denied their favorite source of recreation because some people can't control themselves? Why don't we ban drinking, one-night stands, and smoking while we're at it?

There is also the huge issue of regulation. The potential to prohibit online gambling is extremey low...unless the government wants to use orwellian controls like ferreting out every online gambling site and forcing IPs to block access to them.

However, the guy that posted the streaming falsities about online poker being rigged and a guaranteed losing bet is simply ignoring reality. The skill differences between players allows for profit potential. There are thousands of people who have won money playing online poker, and many professional players do most of their playing online.

It's one thing to state an opinion, like the author of the article did. It's another to just spew out a bunch of bull shit and call it facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Katz you have a SEVERE comprehension problem because you are pathological in your cause.
No where in any post I have made could a rational mind interpret anything I wrote as advocating for gambling.
I advocate for personal freedom and against government intrusion into citizens personal life.

"That being said, your wanting to Compare eliminating gambling as similar to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s is simply not a valid comparison."

How does using the the noun prohibition referring to gambling lead you to conclude that I am comparing gambling to alcohol?

"This is a tired argument by the pro-gambling establishment to con people into thinking that eliminating gambling has something to do with curtailing freedom."

This is an astounding statement rooted so deeply in Orwellian cynicism it is beyond comprehension.

So you really want people to believe that your crusade has nothing to do with curtailing their personal freedom to choose to gamble or not?

How about this for your slogan...
'FREEDOM IS WHAT WE SAY IT IS'

This type of over the top fervor COMPELS you to make wild, exaggerated and wholly ignorant statements which show how detached you are from reality.

This is also why you swing from such statements as

"Providing knowledge and education so that people can make an informed choice."

"And I didn’t disagree with coolriver’s comments about some people can have fun playing online poker and not get badly harmed by it."

to..

"Every online poker player has a gambling problem..."

"I would like to see every casino, horse and dog racetrack, poker and bingo parlor, and gambling website closed."

Which is why in your distorted view anyone who disagrees with you is a shill for the gambling industry.

This lack of rationality is why your postings are diatribes and not arguments.

It also makes you a TERRIBLE advocate for your cause.
You can't be taken seriously.

You are so incoherent that I honestly wonder if YOU are a shill for the gambling industry.

That's how bad you are as an anti gambling "spokesman".

Leaving now Mr. Katz and I hope you get better in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

" Education or Prohibition? "

Come on now Shart - You can't be that naive to not realize that mentioning a word like "Prohibition" in a gambling discussion such as this wouldn't imply the Prohibition Era? The gambling industry constantly brings up Prohibition, refering to the Prohibition Era. So you baited me and in your mind it worked...good for you...you probably consider yourself a very clever guy.

But your diatribe Shart doesn't matter. We are not going to take our focus off of what needs to be done with getting people to stop gambling and helping them recover from gambling addiction.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I sincerely hope your CRUSADE against personal freedom is successful. Perhaps if you are successful you will find the identity and stability that you so obviously need and zealously seek.

However may I suggest since people have gambled for thousands of years and millions of people WANT and do gamble that you take a deep breath and investigate some treatments for your condition in the meantime.

While I have always deplored the state of mental health care in this country the newer generation of medications really can help if you give them a chance.

Though they can have some side effects that may be dangerous to your current mental condition.

You might clarify your thinking.
You might start writing coherently.
You might be compelled to use facts in your arguments.

In any event I wish you good FORTUNE. I would have said LUCK but it would have proved conclusively that I am working for the gambling industry.

Hope you get better Mr. Katz.

Kindest Regards,

shart

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm really thrilled that my article has sparked such a debate. Unfortunately lately I've been really pressed for time and have not taken the opportunity to respond. I'm going to now in a sort of lazy way as I am in a bit of a rush now.

When I finished that article I said that I stepped away from gambling, and I did for a short time. The truth is in a two day span I spent $295 dollars in a spree online. The only thing that caught me was the fact that I gave my mom my bank account number to check on me. I'm so glad I did. Well, now I'm in therapy for my "little problem". And I'm even more glad about that. That's the thing you guys, I want you all to realize that this is literally an addiction, not something that's like "Oh, you dumbass just quit duh." Believe me I've reiterated that to myself on more than a few occasions.

I wish that the problem was just isolated to me. And I wish even more that online gambling institutions could exist in the U.S. and never create a problem. I would have no problem with drugs being legal either if they didn't destroy lives. The truth of the matter is, they do. And yes I believe that we do have to make online gambling illegal for these points.

1. Offshore gambling institutions serve no purpose to the United States or its citizens. No jobs are created, no tax monies are earned, and no broader interest is served.
2. Because the flow of money often goes to uncertain entities (perhaps terrorism, drugs, or other criminal operations), we cannot allow US dollars to continue to flow to these institutions.
3. The dangers of online gambling outweigh the "entertainment value". Contrary to Vegas casinos which work in conjunction with restaurants, shops, and hotels, online gambling supports no other entities besides itself. The only attraction is gambling. The threat of addiction, I believe, is much higher over the internet than it is in a public space like a casino.

Am I calling on the locking up of violators? No. Nor would I call for the locking up of people who fall into drug addictions. Treatment and awareness are our best ticket to pulling the masses away from the attraction of online gambling. The best way to fight the drug war is to cut off the sources with which drugs come into this country. Before I ascertained a belief in prohibiting online gambling, I always thought we should go after drug dealers or..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

traffickers and not the abusers. So, in turn, I believe the US government has a great responsibility to cut off the flow of monies to the gambling institutions. By restricting credit card and bank transactions, the government can affectively deter most online gambling decisions, and more importantly protect national security and its people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shart - You're just not getting it. Are you a Libertarian? Yes or No?

Actually, I am a very strong believer in personal freedom. I am a firm supporter of the second amendment which as you should know is there to help ensure personal freedom. Being against gambling and being for personal freedom is not a dichotomy. Maybe someday you'll understand that.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

College invests in online poker

From today's Guardian. Adds a nice little twist here.

As for the points above:

1. That could be said about a lot of things. Do we legislate everything that falls into that category. How about foriegn films. Should we ban U2?

2. This is a trifle absurd. Money going TO drugs? Huh? Furthermore, same as number 1, above.

3. It's difficult to quantify. Casinos have pretty servers to ply you with liqour and people to give you free hotel rooms if you win a lot... so they can keep you there until you lose it back. Further, the odds are ENTIRELY against you. That is, no matter how good a craps, roulette or whatever player one is, she's going to lose.

And, if I may say so, I think you're being a little insensitive to those people. For some people, the rush is in the chips hitting the felt. Why is that what was a problem for you has to outlawed, but what's a problem for all these other people doesn't?

You laud the state that have laws against online casinos while ignoring that those laws are nothing more than self-interested hypocrisy. (What would happen to Vegas if people only played online?) You ignore the devastation of those casinos inflict on the people in those states. Who are the states protecting?

Setting aside the three fairly weak points here, your argument for protection of citizens and so forth applies to casinos as well. (And as for creating jobs, they don't "create" them nearly in proportion to the money it takes in.)

I really don't see how those people must be left to fend for themselves. I don't get that at all.



I never said you were dumb. I doubt you are. The people who say that to lose you must be are mistaken, as even top-notch players can go on tilt, or get very drunk and lose all they've built up over time, or have personal problems that cause them to lose. (Pierce Brosnan, in fact, lost his entire pay for the second James Bond film he made in one night at a London poker table.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How do you intend to enforce this prohibition? Already, credit cards generally don't allow gaming transactions (including sports betting, which, for most of us, is harmless - a way to enjoy an event and without have to pay a bookie for the privilege... bookies are everywhere), and PayPal was heavily fined for it, but people have just come up with workarounds, as they will continue to do. Already, the people who run the biggest site are afraid to set foot in the United States for fear of arrest.

You say you won't lock people up (as if you'd have any control over that), so what will you do with someone who sets up a system that makes his computer appear to be logging on to the poker site from Belgrade, because there are going to be thousands of those people, many thousands.

Is sports gambling included? So, basically, we're gonna need a huge new federal bureaucracy to monitor every single email everyone sends to make sure they don't involve sports bets, and lots of police to kick in the doors of all the people who do?

(You'd keep drugs from coming "into this country"? How? You know where all the meth comes from? Do you know you can synthesize heroin from coal tar? Marijuana, I believe, can be grown inside the United States - not sure about that but I'll check. And of course, why is it the government's responsibility to decide?)

Treatment and awareness, I agree, but you're not going to get that because, frankly, casinos are too big a lobby group, and as I said above, your odds are so much better at poker that if people were aware, the casinos would empty. To treatment and awareness I might add... oh... tolerance?

I believe you have a problem, you. And you need to deal with it. Not the federal government. Other people with the same problem need help, too.

That brings me back to my original problem with your article and your continued focus on prohibition/legislation as the answer to your ills, when in fact you have, like it our not, addictive tendencies, and maybe this whole episode will be have a long-term benefit in that you'll recognize that early.

I'm just not sure you have actually recognized your problem. You seem convinced the problem was THIS, this ONE thing, and if only it didn't exist, you'd've been fine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, a lot of addicts feel that way. They don't get better until they turn the spotlight around and put a little light on the real source of the problem.



I'm puzzled that you're not more interested in the issue of credit card and other debts, which seems to have been more of the problem for you, and which adversely affects a lot more people than online poker.

Also, think about that rake. Why is a group of poker players paying hundreds of millions of dollars for the privilege of playing against each other? You might even find that's where most of your losses have gone.

Perhaps another idea is to make it legal and regulated. If people want to play at unregulated sites, fine. Given the risks (Katz is correct about those), I doubt many would trust their money to those sites.

That would bring rakes down such that players wouldn't have to lose a million dollars an hour to some offshore entity, and it could heavily fund addiction treatment, even to the point that someone could have stepped in.

Imagine the software checks losses, initial bets and so forth and someone contacts you saying that you've now lost X dollars and, given your level of spending, that seems to be more than you can afford. Your account at this, and at all other regulated sites, is temporarily suspended.

Some states, for example, set per hour loss limits when they allowed casinos. Supposing you had to agree to a credit report inquiry when you joined a site, and your limits were based on that.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that, just pointing out that there's a broad range of solutions that don't have to involve this draconian prohibition which, as I said, wouldn't necessarily help.

You seem not to have thought it through much beyond that point - pass the laws and everybody lives happily ever after.

Hold 'Em is so popular now - they sell kits at toy stores - that I'd guess it would be all over college dorm rooms if online was banned (not to mention all sorts of other rooms). How hard would it be to rig those games? How brutal would the fights be that would break out over that?

Ever seen how angry gamblers get when they lose? Three people I knew were shot and killed over a basement dice game. Banning online poker might just be letting out a genie best kept in the bottle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Further, a site that preyed on college students by advertising gambling as a good way to pay their tuitions? They'd be in as much trouble as a legit casino would be if they tried that.


It's naive in the extreme (you're allowed, but it still is) to imagine prohibition, which basically never works, is going to miraculously make this better. Especially when so many are able to play responsibly and even enjoy it.

They'd enjoy it a lot more without paying a million an hour. There's no reason it can't be legal in the US. I do hope you fail in your attempts push it further from legitimacy, because I think even for you it might have been better if it were legal (for one thing, you'd've had a much harder time getting involved in the first place, being underage), and I know it would be for a lot of other people.

(Again, what if you'd lost it all playing in games down the hall? It's late at night, you have a paper you don't want to work on, your "friends" are getting a game going and it's gonna be fun... and they really want you to be there.)

But I sincerely wish you, in struggling with your problem, great success.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Mr. Katz I'm not a libertarian. Or a Democrat or a Republican or a Green or Red or any other labeled ideology you might ATTEMPT to ascribe to me.

"Actually, I am a very strong believer in personal freedom."

As long as YOU get to describe what freedom means. Right?

" I am a firm supporter of the second amendment which as you should know is there to help ensure personal freedom."

As long as YOU interpret the 2nd amendment to fit YOUR cause.

" Being against gambling and being for personal freedom is not a dichotomy. "

I AGREE! It is a pity that in YOUR case that is not your position.

You are not just against gambling. You want to ELIMINATE it for EVERYONE.

You have made clear that you are against FREEDOM and a persons ability to make their OWN choice.

"Maybe someday you'll understand that."

I do understand. Clearly. And this is what makes you zealous.
You want people to have freedom as long as YOU can make this ONE choice for THEM.

And this makes you wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Best of luck on your struggle with addiction.

Unfortunately I have to take issue with several of your statements.

"1. Offshore gambling institutions serve no purpose to the
United States or its citizens. No jobs are created, no tax monies are earned, and no broader interest is served."

What if a citizen WANTS to use an offshore gambling facility?
What if they enjoy it? Is that a valid purpose?

So any offshore endeavor must generate US TAX revenue and create American jobs or it has no economic benefit. And of course it MUST serve a broader
interest. Whose interest?

"2. Because the flow of money often goes
to uncertain entities (perhaps terrorism, drugs, or other criminal operations), we cannot allow US dollars to continue to flow to these institutions."

Using the word "perhaps" is not evidence.
You do a disservice to your argument by
using this technique. Do you have PROOF that any online gambling site is involved in terrorism? In Drugs? Other criminal operations? If you do you should contact Homeland Security or the FBI and give them details. If you have no evidence then why make such a statement?
Shutting online gambling down is a
matter of national security?

And..

"Am I calling on the locking up of violators? No."

Making online gambling illegal means locking people up.What do you think happens when you criminalize something?

"The best way to fight the drug war is to cut off the sources"
Are you arguing that the war on drugs is a success?
Hard to buy drugs where you live is it?

If you are addicted to ANYTHING the very first step is to acknowledge that YOU have a problem. Online gambling did not make you an addict. You made yourself an addict. If you believe a prohibition against online gambling will "cure" you of your addiction then you are still in denial.
As a recovering addict with 20 years of sobriety I never met ANYONE who was successful staying sober even talking about prohibition of drugs, alcohol or gambling. You won't find anything in the 12 steps about evangelizing against or advocating for prohibition of drugs, alcohol or gambling.

Do you know why? Because if other people gamble it has nothing to do with YOUR addiction. And overcoming YOUR addiction is hard enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“As a recovering addict with 20 years of sobriety”

Shart - Congratulations on the 20 years. I’ll presume that you probably mean you are an alcoholic but the term sobriety can refer to drugs and other chemical substances. For me, I’ve been clean from gambling for over 34 months coming up to 3 years and it feels great.

The 12 step program is used for addictions such as your addiction and for gambling addiction. Obviously you are a believer in the 12 steps and that is wonderful. But what you don’t understand and perhaps you don't want to, is that the gambling industry is not the same as the alcohol industry. The gambling industry is an entity in itself and has to be dealt with accordingly. So virtually all of your comments are based on ignorance of that. Yes, Lauren must take care of the addiction but her comments about the gambling industry are valid no matter how you or anyone else wants to spin things.

Your comment… “I never met ANYONE who was successful staying sober even talking about prohibition of drugs, alcohol or gambling.“ …would certainly be heartily embraced by a gambling industry owner. You never met anyone…okay…but you know or certainly should know after 20 years in recovery that there are many, MANY successful recovering addicts who fight against drugs, alcohol and gambling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even if basically nothing coherent came out of Shart's posts, he brought up the 12 steps which is a good thing.

To those interested…Listed below are the 12 steps pasted from the Gamblers Anonymous website:

1. We admitted we were powerless over gambling - that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to a normal way of thinking and living.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of this Power of our own understanding.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral and financial inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have these defects of character removed.
7. Humbly asked God (of our understanding) to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Make direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having made an effort to practice these principles in all our affairs, we tried to carry this message to other compulsive gamblers.

Please note that religious guidance and psychiatric counseling are also effective ways of getting yourself to stop gambling. The fact is that religious guidance has helped more people to stop gambling, by far and it’s not even close, than all other ways combined. It is highly recommended developing a new or better relationship with God and attending your Church or Synagogue and speaking to a Pastor or Rabbi. Some gamblers actually use all - religious guidance, Gamblers Anonymous with the 12 steps, and psychiatric counseling to get themselves to stop gambling and stay on the path to recovery. But please do whatever works. “Whatever Works” is a phrase used in recovery from gambling meaning whatever works FOR YOU to stop gambling and get on with a successful recovery.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Even if basically nothing coherent came out of Shart's posts"

I want to amend my comment here to note that Shart did make some decent points regarding addiction.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Katz I am going to make my final post in this thread with some advice.

I have no doubt that you are sincere in your belief that gambling is evil.
After all you believe it made you an addict.

It compels you to sermonize against gambling. As far as I am concerned I have no problem with your desire to do so.
If that was all you did and you did it in a logical and TRUTHFUL manner. But you never do.

Your problem is that you are a true zealot. A fanatic.
You have PROVEN this repeatedly in this thread with your wild, hyperbolic, unsubstantiated "arguments" and statements.

When your statements or "arguments" have been challenged with a request for proof you never respond with ANY verifiable facts. You retort when confronted with fallacies you think bolster your position with a recommitment to your cause.

Or you just ignore the most valid of points when you can't respond because your statements or "argument" is no more than a wild and totally unprovable or unsubstantiated RANT.

This causes you to make some of the most astonishingly illogical declarations that I have ever heard such as your current number #1 hit.

"This is a tired argument by the pro- gambling establishment to con people into thinking that eliminating gambling has something to do with curtailing freedom."

Your zealotry distorts even your view of the 12 step programs. This causes you to make statements such as the following..

"You never met anyone…okay…but you know or certainly should know after 20 years in recovery that there are many, MANY successful recovering addicts who fight against drugs, alcohol and gambling."

You contradict yourself within your own statements.

You acknowledge my statement as "okay" i.e my personal experience and THEN tell me what I "MUST know" with a declarative statement.
" many, MANY successful recovering addicts who fight against drugs, alcohol and gambling."

Sorry to EDUCATE you about 12 step programs Mr. Katz but to my KNOWLEDGE they are not POLITICAL organizations. They DO NOT ADVOCATE PROHIBITION of any kind. They are for addicts helping themselves and other addicts stay addiction free. They are NOT POLITICAL Mr. Katz. (continued)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

(continued)
So I don't know "many, MANY successful recovering addicts who fight against drugs, alcohol and gambling."

In fact I have NEVER heard a speaker at any meeting, convention or 12 step function EVER advocate for anything remotely political like prohibition.

What I am stating is that while your statement below may even contain SOME truth..

"many, MANY successful recovering addicts who fight against drugs, alcohol and gambling."

I personally have NEVER met anyone in 12 step meetings who does this. Having been a speaker at some fairly large 12 step meetings I don't think I would open with..

'Hi I'm Shart and I would like to speak today about organizing for legislative action against alcohol.
We must criminalize alcohol production and consumption.'

A topic like this sounds and is ridiculous!
It is NOT what AA or NA or GA is about.

You always end up DESTROYING all of your arguments yourself with your hyperbole. A reasonable and believable statement such as..

"Please note that religious guidance and psychiatric counseling are also effective ways of getting yourself to stop gambling.

Is followed by

"The fact is that religious guidance
has helped more people to stop gambling,
by far and it’s not even close, than all other ways combined."

Where is the proof of this?
Because you say so?
Because you want to believe it?

When you make "arguments" or statements like the above it makes it impossible for me to take you seriously.

Just like Lauren alluding to elimination of online gambling as a matter of national security!

So I bid you farewell and wish both you Mr. Katz and Lauren success with your recoveries.

But I hope and am confident you will fail miserably in your weak and transparent attempt at legislating morality and criminalization effort against an individuals freedom and choice to gamble.

Bye

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm glad Lauren replied, however because she missed the important points against her article I have to repeat them:

a) Poker is a game involving both skill and chance, and in fact such an amount of skill that a good player has no reason to lose money except running into a better player. It is, indeed, "gambling", but a rare form of gambling in which a good player can practically guarantee him or herself an edge.

b) If you can claim to be "addicted" to gambling, then you can claim to be "addicted" to anything. There is nothing entering your bloodstream when you play poker other than your own endorphins, and you can generate those by doing anything from jogging, to swimming, to base jumping, to cutting yourself. Are we to presume that because you have found it possible to become addicted to gambling, and have concluded that therefore the gambling industry is doing wrong, we should impose restrictions such as you are recommending on other "evil" industries like the exercise equipment industry? I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make any sense. They're not feeding you an illegal substance. They're just offering a service that you find irresistible. That's your problem. People get addicted to food and get fat. What's your solution - attack the food manufacturers? The retailers? The advertising industry?

Sometimes it really is just your fault and your problem. You have not been victimized. The capacity to become addicted to something is inherently human, unfortunately, and it is down to each of us, individually, to deal with our own addictions. You are not going to do yourself any good by concluding that your addiction was imposed on you from outside.

I do have to repeat my earlier advice. You have an addiction to online poker? Okay. You are LUCKY. Some people are addicted to things that do not have this special property of allowing them to make money if they become skilled. So, stop going on your silly "spending sprees" where you seem to think that poker is all about losing money, and you're OK with that. Stop, buy some good books (I can recommend some if you like), study, practice at SMALL STAKES for a while - then re-enter your addiction with gusto!

If this plan doesn't appeal to you, then you have a more serious problem than a gambling addiction...you are addicted to self-destruction. And that's something that no amount of government regulation could ever cure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lauren said "When I finished that article I said that I stepped away from gambling, and I did for a short time. The truth is in a two day span I spent $295 dollars in a spree online. The only thing that caught me was the fact that I gave my mom my bank account number to check on me. I'm so glad I did."

- this is a remarkably honest and psychologically naked statement, which I'm glad you made, because it reveals the heart of the problem here. You KNEW that your 2-day spree would be discovered, but you did it anyway. What this indicates, to me anyway, is that your so-called gambling addiction is really just a cry for help. No one is this stupid. You wanted to be found out. You are not even interested in winning - you WANT to lose and you want to be discovered, because there's something in your life that is stressing you to the point where you've become desperate.

Lauren, I am sorry, and I hope things get better for you. But posting this article was possibly a backward step, and I'm glad you've received so much negative comment on it, because I think you're missing some very important points about both gambling, and yourself, and maybe the comments can bring a bit of balance to this whole thing. Anyway...good luck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well Shart…there you go again and again. You just can’t help yourself can you? Just as I know very little regarding what alcoholism is really all about and so do not comment on it, you know very little regarding what gambling is really all about. Maybe someday you’ll stick your head out from underneath the sand and learn more about the realities and consequences of gambling. But I do applaud your efforts in AA and sincerely wish you well on a continued path to recovery.

Alan…you are of course pro-gambling and the bottom line is that the people will make the necessary choices about eliminating gambling. It is hoped someday you will fully comprehend that this misinformation which you are spewing out is aiding in the harm and destruction of millions of lives. You basically though seem like a good guy, although very misguided right now. So it is also hoped someday that you use your skills for good things which benefit society instead of the promotion and encouragement of gambling.

Best Regards,

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry Stephen, but I can't let you get away with such a ridiculously misrepresentative "last word" whether or not you think I'm a nice guy, which is utterly of no concern to me.

I am not "pro-gambling" and because I've said this repeatedly in practically all my comments, I have to assume that you are either deliberately lying or cannot understand English.

I can't make my position any clearer: pure gambling is something I don't do. Poker is not pure gambling. There is a high skill element and as such many of the statements you make about pure gambling simply do not apply to it.

I am not supplying "misinformation" but my own perspective and experience. I will not back down from it just because you start name-calling or because you are persistent in your apparently innocent misunderstanding of what I'm saying. From my point of view, you are the one supplying "misinformation" in that you have deliberately distorted and misrepresented the clear statements of myself and others who've been in this discussion.

I don't have much hope that you'll suddenly go "Hey Alan suddenly I understand what you're saying" or anything, but I will never let deliberate lies go uncontested if I can help it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey Alan - No lies from me and we both know that you already know that. You can keep trying to fool the people out there, and your side has been quite successful so far at doing this. But just like all scams throughout history, this huge online poker scam will sooner or later die out. Only so many lives can keep being ruined before the scam finally implodes - sort of like a pyramid scheme - eventually you'll run out of people to fleece money from.

Then you'll have to move on to another scam or as stated hopefully move on to something which benefits society, not something that harms and destroys lives. Perhaps you currently believe by the time the scam dies out, you'll have gotten filthy rich and able to buy your own little island somewhere in the South Pacific, bought with money suckered away from those who didn't understand the fallacy of online poker gambling.

No matter how hard you try Alan, you can't get around the basic fact of the destructiveness of online poker. Your propaganda is clever...very clever...but remember something - history has proven that propaganda is never clever enough. Open up a history book to find out what eventually happens to propaganda artists. Propaganda artists often think that they'll retire early on some South Pacific island, but the only island they usually windup retiring on is a concrete island surrounded by barbed wire fences and prison guards.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry Stephen, but I don't "already know that". I have supplied no propaganda, other than telling you that I have been making a modest amount of money from online poker. I have no stake in this discussion other than that, and the truth (and also my personal annoyance at your almost unbelievable obtuseness).

I presume that by resorting to calling me a "propaganda artist" and implying that I'm somehow involved in a "scam" you are indirectly confirming what I thought already - that you can't answer my very simple arguments about online poker.

You are also confirming what I said about you earlier - that you are paranoid. One of the hallmarks of paranoia is that when someone strongly disagrees with your point of view, you presume that they are somehow involved in the vast conspiracy that you have set yourself up against - in this case, online gambling. Well, sorry to disappoint you. I wish I was, because maybe I'd be nice and wealthy. But I am not - I'm just an amateur player.

It's been lovely talking with you Stephen - not - but I get the impression that you are someone who absolutely must have the last word in an argument, even if you have to embarrass yourself to do it. So, this will be my last comment here. I hope anyone else who's managed to read this far understands my perspective, but I don't hold out any hope that you will. I'm not going to wish you "good luck" because that would just be false politeness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gambling profits are used by organized crime to help launder the proceeds of criminal enterprises. In laundering, cash from drug deals, etc., is turned into "legitimate" proceeds from casinos. So reducing public access and acceptance of gambling makes laws against other criminal behavior more enforceable. Most organized crime are eventually convicted of tax evasion, not the crime itself.

Apparently, Sweden, a highly liberal country, has given up on legalized prostitution (a source of other social ills) and instead, is targeting customers and pimps, and helping prostitutes escape the lifestyle. This has reduced prostitution by 30%.

As for individual gamblers, they are like the prostitutes who need help getting out of the lifestyle. Gambling behavior is based on intermittent reinforcement, the most powerful form of behavioral reinforcement. The mind-body is designed to detect pattern, and random reinforcement through gambling induces more and more fevered behavior in an attempt to increase positive reinforcement and reduce the punishment of losses. Eventually, this type of reinforcement can reduce a human being to wreck. This doesn't get into the whole issue of random punishment which occurs when a gambler loses money.

Organized gambling should be put back in the box of the underworld where it belongs.

(http://moodle.ed.uiuc.edu/ wiked/index.php/ Intermittent_reinforcement)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alan - for someone who is what you say you are, you sure have been quite overly adamant and persistent regarding your viewpoints. You sure don’t seem to me like just an ordinary poker player defending his card playing habit or addiction. So it’s possible in my opinion that you are a fraud. A clever gambling industry marketer, pretending to be a nice guy, while using clever propaganda to bash Lauren and anybody else speaking out against online poker.

Not being paranoid Alan - it’s not always easy discerning who’s who on the internet. But I stand by my comments regardless of whether you are a fraud or whether you are really just an ordinary poker player - your statements are incorrect and harmful. You are enticing people to play the money losing and destructive game of online poker. You’ll never get around this fact no matter how hard you try.

You’ll keep trying to spin things by calling me names and doing other deviously clever things to try to take the focus off of the destructiveness of online poker. But we’re not going to lose our focus on educating college students and adults as to what online poker is really all about.

Stephen Katz

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dear Mr. Katz I HIGHLY recommend that you read the book 'The True Believer' by Eric Hoffer.

You can get better Mr. Katz! The road to recovery will be long and hard but if you really try you can make it.

Here are just a few principles in the form of quotations from Eric Hoffer's writings that describe you. When you realize how perfectly they fit you, you will be cured of your NEW ADDICTION!

It is amazing that Mr. Hoffer seemed to know you!

Good Luck! You can make it if you try. I am rooting for you.


P.S.
Mr. Hoffer is deceased so PLEASE respect that he can't possibly work for the gaming industry!

FROM ERIC HOFFER'S WORK...

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business."

"An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything in to an empty head."

"It is the true believer's ability to shut his eyes and stop his ears to facts which in his own mind deserve never to be seen nor heard which is the source of his unequalled fortitude and consistency."

"The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto."

"Self-righteousness is a loud din raised to drown the voice of guilt within us."

"The individual who has to justify his existence by his own efforts is in eternal bondage to himself."

"The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause."


"The proselytizing fanatic strengthens his own faith by converting others. The creed whose legitimacy is most easily challenged is likely to develop the strongest proselytizing impulse."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Professor Shart - That's quite a diagnosis! - LOL

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]