rgold79

Sounds like someone got up on the wrong side of the rock.

I apologize in advance for being a ****. If you want to continue to write pseudo-articles you really should consider spell checking before posting. You had some good and well presented ideas but some of the errors vastly reduced your credibility in my eyes as I read. I'm not trying to be the grammar police, but if you're looking for people to take you seriously it will help significantly if you proofread what you've written before you post. Nice post, though, and thanks for sharing.

Wouldn't this necessity be negated by the fact that he claims to have a waiting list 70 deep? In this case there must be some other explanation, right?

Well, for starters I would ask how many other rooms in the area are available for play? Secondly, I'm curious as to what objection you have for raising the max buy. Are you suggesting your tables would dry up if you raised the cap? Would you be able to fill all your games if you ran 2 tables of 40/100 and 3 tables of 60/200? Just curious as I can't really see what benefit the short buy offers.

When the weight of the world has got you down,And you want to end your lifeBills to pay, a dead end job,And problems with the wifeWell don't throw in the towelCause there's a place right down the blockWhere you can drink your miseries awayAt flaaame-iiing Moe's (Let's all go to flaming Moe's) Where liquor in a mug will warm you like a hugAnd happiness is just a flaming Moe awayHappiness is just a flaming Moe away

Bare minimum, double the max buy for 1/2 and 2/5. A 100 cap at 1/2 serves no purpose, and I can't understand why a cardroom would spread it and people would play in it. I would never sit in a game where I couldn't buy in for at least 100 big blinds.

I haven't checked in a while, but there used to be a little pamphlet from the IRS on the cashier counter at a lot of casinos explaining the situation. Basically, the casino is required to report any transaction over 10K at one time or multiple transactions over a 24 hour period that go over that total. Supposedly they're also supposed to look for people who structure and report their transactions as well, so I'm thinking the same law applies. Structuring is pretty easy to get away with, but it's bad if you get audited and the IRS sees a bunch of $8000 deposits to your bank account with no p

This article should help clear up any confusion you have. Table Stakes"All casinos and many home games play poker by what are called table stakes rules, which state that each player starts each deal with a certain stake, and plays that deal with that stake. He may not remove money from the table or add money from his pocket during the play of a hand. Nor is a player allowed to hide or misrepresent the amount of his stake from other players; he must truthfully disclose the amount when asked. This requires some special rules to handle the case when a player is faced with a bet that he cannot cal

Are you advocating structuring? Shhh... that's against the law. You never know who's listening!

This wouldn't surprise me, and will accomplish two things: First of all, it will get things done. Putting the collective resources of the major gaming companies and the AGA behind an effort to get the industry legalized and regulated is the only way the issue can really be brought to a successful resolution. I think by now it goes without saying that money gets things done in Washington. Corporate dollars speak loudly.Second of all, and this is partly what I was trying to stress yesterday, U.S. regulation is going to be fantastic for online poker. The player pool will expand exponentially

I'm assuming you're talking about points in the tournament when the whole table has deep stacks and play is proceeding normally. If that's the case you have to learn to let these hands go cheaply. For starters you're out of position and all you've got is a hand like top pair, weak kicker. Especially when you're at a table of loose opponents and taking a flop six-handed you have to expect that someone else also hit the flop in some kind of way. Try a probe bet, keep the pot small, and be prepared to let the hand go if someone puts a lot of pressure on you. On the other hand, if stack sizes

Well. now I think you're stretching a little too much to make your argument stick. The vast, overwhelming majority of people playing poker are doing so because they think they can/will make money. The idea that goals and dreams and the intrinsic value of challenging well known players is only really important in the sense that is intimately connected with winning more money - i.e. "Gee, if I keep practicing maybe that will be me at the final table of the Stars Million!" What you're saying, that you don't care about the money and are only looking for the challenge, seems to me to be akin to a

No. Candidates present their views and platforms and citizens vote based on whom they think will best represent their interests. I'm not going to go through the trouble of explaining the way that Congress and the executive interact with economic experts and a professional bureaucracy and the complex way that American economic policy is developed. I really get the feeling you don't care. Bottom line, this is basic high school civics. If you don't like the the economic policies we have, I have a suggestion: run for office.

I think you're being overly pessimistic about what US regulation will mean. On the other hand, I think I'm being overly optimistic in thinking that free market will win out regardless. In reality, it wouldn't surprise me if the two sides meet somewhere in the middle. But I do think competition will be more widespread than you think. Also, given the view of the federal government that internet commerce is somehow under their jurisdiction I would imagine that regulation of poker at the federal level would supersede the authority of the states. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong on that po

I can accept this as a theoretical political philosophy, but as practical reality it just doesn't work to say that every citizen can have his will met wherever he chooses. This is much the same as allowing the will of one man (a king) to determine the laws of a state, which we have seen does not work well either. Until you can find a better system, we're stuck with one where the will of the majority determines the direction our laws are taken.

I'm not coming down on either side of this issue, but in fairness you need to point out that those "few lawyers" are duly elected by the people to represent them and regulate economic activity where appropriate.

What difference is it to you who profits from what? Personally, I would much prefer to play at a site run by Harrah's and regulated by the government than the status quo.

ZOMG I ate a sandwich for lunch!I would only put money online if you are ok with the possibility that you may never get to see it or any winnings derived from it materialize in front of you. If you're willing to fade all the new methods/roadblocks, deposit away. If, however, the money has immediate consequences for your financial situation I might consider waiting a few more weeks to see what develops. Every week seems to bring another twist in this saga, so if you can afford to be patient it's not your worst option. Good luck with whatever you choose to do.

I've played in the Friday night 500+60 before... you get excellent value as far as the amount of play you get, and the quality of play is at times surprisingly low. It's generally around 10-11 tables. Be forewarned however, that the final table tends to be a bunch of local grinders who just want to do an even chop around 5K apiece, and, if you don't want to, will just go into full on rock mode. I've never seen this one played to the wire. Still, it's probably the best weekly tournament offered in AC.

Yes. 25K chips at the Bellagio are pinkish in color and are affectionately known as "cranberries".

Think of it like an investment, 10-15K of .02-.04 now, 10-15K of 200-400 in 2 years. Unfortunately, you can't find thousand dollar bills rolling around the streets. I will, however, admit to not having that kind of discipline myself.

You're making posts like this in many threads addressing poker and politics. This is an internet forum dedicated specifically to the topic of POKER. It is, therefore, a perfectly appropriate place for people to vent on the issue of poker as it relates to the current political environment. You may find it condemnable or laughable that it's such an important issue to some people, but they are perfectly entitled to feel however they want about anything, and this is the perfect place for them to express that view.

A better way to post this would be to leave your action on the river blank and solicit advice from that point on. As it is, maybe you missed a chance to extract some chips in there, but calling on the end is certainly an acceptable play.

You don't have to worry about him ever being elected president. His behavior in the Terry Schiavo incident alone trashed his credibility with a very large segment of the population. He flip-flopped on the subject of stem cell research only when it became apparent that public support was largely in favor. Despite being a Harvard-educated physician he refused to confirm on television that HIV cannot be transmitted through sweat and tears as a government document claimed, even though virtually every scientific study has concluded that it cannot. He may have sold stock that was in a blind trus

I understand people are still very angry at Bill Frist, but he's no longer in Congress and has bowed out of an attempt to run for the White House in '08. There are many more constructive ways to try to change the law than to focus your anger on someone who longer has the power to do so. A good start is calling your congressman and senators and voicing your opinion. I worked as an intern in the Senate in college, and the feedback from those phone calls really do make their way up the chain.