The role of poker media

[Steve-O]

I'm going to cross-post from the Lock Poker thread in SSS because it probably needs its own discussion and could sidetrack the other thread:

This is my response to the recent poster RYPac13. I have inserted counterpoints regarding his assertions thorought the post --my comments are in bold, and there is a summary of my thoughts after the line-break.

"Dan's writeup - Very good writeup. My only complaint is that you talk about CalvinAyre's articles and don't mention that apparently Jennifer Larson worked for CalvinAyre and those articles they have written don't have many damaging facts in them (mostly bitter personal insults and pictures and speculation). I think leaving out the Ayre articles makes the story more accurate, informative and honest."

I agree with this.

"Dan's comments about the affiliates/SteveO's response - I have heard the same things from multiple affiliates. Some are in contracts, others are simply surviving on affiliate revenue from Lock and many people just flat out hope things get better with Lock and hope that the player money is there, so that they can sleep a little better at night knowing that the money they took for referring players wasn't at the expense of their entire accounts (just their bonus money that was promised to them)."

"But it kind of baffles me that you would say PNB and Bluff have a good affiliate relationship with Lock. Did you guys read Dan's post? You are the sites that should be covering these news stories, you're like... the poker news media right? Or are you a purely entertainment website now? Shouldn't you be a concerned affiliate of Lock's, asking them tough questions about most of what Dan writes about?"

This is where you are the most out of touch. There are numerous jobs in media; ONE of those jobs is investigative journalism. This is the type of journalism that Haley Hintze has been doing on AP and UB (on her own time and with no guarantee of compensation). Unfortunately, the poker media is not equipped to hire investigative journalists, neither the time nor the money is there. It would be great if they could do this, but it’s not going to happen.

Yes, most poker media outlets focus on two things Entertainment and being informative in a straight reporting kind of way. Saying the poker media has dropped the ball or is not doing their job in investigating online poker sites is ridiculous! Should I spend 6-months investigating Lock Poker, flying to Canada and building up a contact base of inside informants, to write an expose that might land me a few hundred dollars on a good day???? Is PokerNews or BLUFF or PNB going to give me a weekly stipend and pay my expenses while I conduct these investigations?

Face it, there are no Bob Woodward’s in the poker world because nobody is going to pay to have an investigative reporter on the payrolls. It’s insulting to think you believe the poker media doesn’t care about this stuff; we do, but I also care about my family eating.

It’s not my job to repot on every allegation, scam, and scandal that goes on in the poker world: I have never called myself an investigative journalist, and I have never accepted the challenge of “outing” the bad people in the poker world.

"Anyways, PNB and Bluff aside, yes, I can verify myself that there are Lock affiliates unhappy with many of the Lock actions that Dan describes (not that the statement is very surprising to me given Lock's actions, any honest reputable person would be concerned about what Lock is doing, but you seemed mystified by Dan's claims)."

Honestly, this is same argument Druff is making, and without posting the specifics of their complaints this is just hearsay, and idle speculation. Without listing the details of these claims you shouldn’t mention them at all. Anonymous sources of fine as long as the details of their complaints are specific.
Lock Poker has affiliate ads and ad-buy space on BLUFF, Cardplayer (where they sponsor the online player of the year leader-board) and virtually every other major poker media outlet.

How can you claim they are in bad standings with affiliates when the largest affiliates seem to have no issue with them?

"I think you should update your In Depth Look At Lock Poker article: http://pokernewsboy.com/poker-room-n...ock-poker/6065"

"There's no mention of anything in Dan's thread here, and that is obviously incredibly valuable information. You should also correct the error that says Lock Poker is the softest poker room online. That claim could never have been true, as they are a skin that shares the exact same playerbase as many other skins on the network. At best, Lock could share the softest playerbase in the world with 30-40 other skins on the Merge Network. But the truth doesn't always look as pretty/isn't as easy to sell."

Explain to me (other your semantic argument about Lock vs. Merge as a whole) what is non-factual about anything I wrote in that article from March 2011? I was critical of their software despite this being something of a PR piece for the site, the games at the time were extremely loose, and this was written before Girah, Casino Bonuses, and everything else.

"Given the actions of Lock, I think we're getting to the point to where tougher questions and closer looks need to be given to player fund security. Given the actions (failures) in many more manageable situations, given that public reports indicate that Lock is processing cashouts on their own, outside of the Merge fund segregation/layer of security and given that other Merge skin owners have publicly talked about the dangers of that (even before Lock was doing it, so not just a competitor talking down to another one.. and it was the reputable Hero Poker CEO that talked about it on 2p2), also given that the regulator specifically said Lock wasn't licensed by them last year, only the Merge Network was (they didn't call out other skins, just Lock in particular), doesn't that seem like a pretty valid question to be thinking about now?"

And we can believe any of this why? Who says Merge segregates funds and Lock doesn’t; where’s the proof? Who owns Merge for that matter? Full Tilt Poker answered every E-Mail inquiring if funds were segregated in the affirmative, how did that work out?

Because Lock was the first to put the license on their website –they did this before the licensing process was fully complete, and the LGA admitted this was merely a technicality –the same LGA that licenses PokerStars licenses Lock.

"I don't understand the way some of you people act though. I certainly had a UB and AP rakeback offer up until the day they went down on my site. But when users asked what the softest site was, I told them (for the games my site represents) Carbon and Bodog were just as soft as UB/AP, and without the scandal. Users still had a choice to sign up at UB/AP, and some did, but I'm sure less signed up there after reading every answer to the question I gave over the years that included facts and links about the UB/AP scandal and subsequent coverup and really poor actions by the network. Imagine if I had told them UB and AP were really good, reputable, soft sites and they should sign up. How would I look today? What would I say to customers that entrusted me to give them accurate information from my more informed position?"

This is interesting. You kept offering UB/AP after a proven insider scandal, up until the day they went down; but you’re ready to throw Lock under the bus for far less.

"So why not report some of the concerns about Lock on PokerNewsBoy? Why not get some Bluff news coverage on this? You don't have to drop them as an affiliate, but if you're going to rep them, why are there no stories about Lock's role in these scandals (particularly the casino bonuses scandal) and why do you keep a page that erroneously claims Lock is the softest poker room online up on your site? Dan Druff shouldn't have to be reporting these things and telling people about the actions of Lock, it's the poker news media's job and they seem to be largely failing (and have for the last year or so since these issues began)."

Do a search of PNB and even more so my personal blog, I have discussed the Girah situation more than anyone in poker media.

I have been very upfront with my lack of knowledge on the Casino Bonus scandal (which still seems to be unfolding as I try to get caught up on it at 2+2). From what I understand of the scandal, Lock Poker was prepared to honor the Casino Bonus thing (in an effort to pilch players from other skins) but Merge called an end to it.


"Where's Jennifer's post/interview too? These aren't just a few random concerns, these are things Dan calls outright frauds, and I don't see anybody arguing that the casino bonus actions were anything less than a fraud. They dishonestly promised a bunch of extra stuff to players and hurt a lot of other businesses that delivered on what they promised. In a better market, the regulator might actually care about this, or the Merge Network. You'd think the poker news media would too. But when Merge gets a cut of Lock's rake, when the regulator gets a cut of the entire Network's rake (or fees per year based on server load, however that setup is working over there) and when the news sites are getting advertising money, I guess we can see why this story is in this thread and not on the cover of Bluff Magazine or being debated in the courts of law."

I’m not a lock PR person or Jennifer Larson’s personal assistant. If Druff reached out to her and she doesn’t want to get involved that’s her business. Personally, I think she should, and she should face the hard questions Druff would undoubtedly ask. I said I could put him in contact with her and it seemed to me from his reply he has already reached out to her –if I’m wrong on this than he can correct me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First off, I have ZERO vested in Lock Poker as an affiliate and am not on Lock’s payroll. It just seems odd to me that so many people are willing to take forum speculation, about segregated funds; who’s shady; and so on, and simply ignore the fact that this shit is going on at every online poker site to varying degrees.

Let’s not forget the way Druff and Micon denounced Victory Poker on DD radio. Same vitriol, same opinion and speculation. And guess what? That site went under and everyone got their money.

Should you be skeptical of Lock Poker? Certainly! You should be skeptical of every online poker room at this point in time. But to be calling lock Poker the new UB is taking severe liberties with the facts.

Druff’s post is terrific, but it’s a one-sided argument that people should most definitely use to weigh their online poker options. I could make a similar lengthy post of PokerStars “crimes” over the years as well, throw in a few opinions and speculation on their motives, and make them look just as bad.

Finally, this IS a matter for poker forums and blogs; poker media is there to cover what has happened and report on the facts as we know them (which we don’t always get right), not throw out potentially libelous claims based on our gut feelings about a room or speculate on their motives for calling Girah the winner of a contest and then later rescinding.

I’m proud of my track record in the industry, and I stand by what I write. If they are opinions I am sure to make my readers aware of that fact. And even when “fluff” PR pieces are requested I make sure that what I write is accurate, as with the Lock Poker piece cited above –what type of editorial liberties the person I write it for takes is another matter entirely. I have turned down jobs based on what I was asked to do and have refunded money and had reviews taken down when they took too much editorial liberty with my work.

Do I get everything right? Absolutely not. Do I miss stories, YES! But to question the poker media’s motives for not uncovering these issues is totally insulting.

• I have extensively covered the Girah scandals and am one of the few people that deeply explored Jungleman’s role in it.
• I am the only person in mainstream poker media who covered the StoxTrader collusion accusations and the PeachyMer fiasco.
• I have written a ton UB and AP’s Super-User scandals and interviewed both sides. I wrote extensively on DD’s Travis Makar findings.
• Do a search of my name (Steve Ruddock) and poker scandals and then tell me I don’t cover this stuff
• I write extensively on cheating, scams, and scandals: I apologize that I missed this one, and I assure you I am doing my homework on it now and will post something in the future

[Sandwich]

I'm confused... Is the bold YOUR (Steve-O's) response? And who are you responding to? Non-bold is "the recent poster", you say -- Who?
And then the non-bold language below the line ("----------------------------") -- are those YOUR words again, or is that someone else?

Perhaps if I went to the original Lock thread I could match all this up and figure it out -- but surely you see the value in making this CLEAR to the reader without having to revert to another thread?

(maybe a quick synopsis of who these people are would help too? for example, I gather from what you've written that you are somehow involved in the 'mainstream poker media'?)

[Steve-O]

I'm confused... Is the bold YOUR (Steve-O's) response? And who are you responding to? Non-bold is "the recent poster", you say -- Who?
And then the non-bold language below the line ("----------------------------") -- are those YOUR words again, or is that someone else?

Perhaps if I went to the original Lock thread I could match all this up and figure it out -- but surely you see the value in making this CLEAR to the reader without having to revert to another thread?

(maybe a quick synopsis of who these people are would help too? for example, I gather from what you've written that you are somehow involved in the 'mainstream poker media'?)

Added a quick note on who is who, Hopefully this clears it up a bit

[jsearles22]

I'm confused... Is the bold YOUR (Steve-O's) response? And who are you responding to? Non-bold is "the recent poster", you say -- Who?
And then the non-bold language below the line ("----------------------------") -- are those YOUR words again, or is that someone else?

Perhaps if I went to the original Lock thread I could match all this up and figure it out -- but surely you see the value in making this CLEAR to the reader without having to revert to another thread?

(maybe a quick synopsis of who these people are would help too? for example, I gather from what you've written that you are somehow involved in the 'mainstream poker media'?)

Added a quick note on who is who, Hopefully this clears it up a bit

Steve-O is God

[Sandwich]

... There are numerous jobs in media; ONE of those jobs is investigative journalism. This is the type of journalism that Haley Hintze has been doing on AP and UB (on her own time and with no guarantee of compensation). Unfortunately, the poker media is not equipped to hire investigative journalists, neither the time nor the money is there. It would be great if they could do this, but it’s not going to happen.

Yes, most poker media outlets focus on two things Entertainment and being informative in a straight reporting kind of way. Saying the poker media has dropped the ball or is not doing their job in investigating online poker sites is ridiculous! Should I spend 6-months investigating Lock Poker, flying to Canada and building up a contact base of inside informants, to write an expose that might land me a few hundred dollars on a good day???? Is PokerNews or BLUFF or PNB going to give me a weekly stipend and pay my expenses while I conduct these investigations?

Face it, there are no Bob Woodward’s in the poker world because nobody is going to pay to have an investigative reporter on the payrolls. It’s insulting to think you believe the poker media doesn’t care about this stuff; we do, but I also care about my family eating.

It’s not my job to repot on every allegation, scam, and scandal that goes on in the poker world: I have never called myself an investigative journalist, and I have never accepted the challenge of “outing” the bad people in the poker world.

Ok Steve-O, sorry I found most of the OP very hard to follow. The portion I quoted above, to me, seems most relevant to the interesting issue posed by the title of the thread.

From my own perspective -- that of a (sometimes casual, sometimes voracious) consumer of "poker media" -- I must say that over the years I have been disheartened about how many in the poker media seem so disingenuous, holding themselves out as reporting unbiased facts, when in fact, all along being heavily influenced (biased) by the myriad behind-the-scenes associations and political bullshit. Sometimes in the name of putting poker in only the most positive of lights (what's "good for poker"?) and sometimes because they are getting paid, directly or indirectly, by cardplayer or bluff or have rakeback deals or whatever. We're seeing forums censor truthful things that hurt their bottom lines. Some of the problems stem from the "Entertainment" poker media (as you say) purpoting to report and cover controversial stories as if they are investigative journalists, when in fact what we are getting is spin.

I think this is beginning to change due to sites like what I hope pokerfraudalert becomes -- like donkdown over the past couple of years -- sites that will "ask the tough questions" and provide an uncensored forum for truths to be told.

So, besides putting food on your family's table, what's your view -- What is the ROLE of poker media?

[Steve-O]

... There are numerous jobs in media; ONE of those jobs is investigative journalism. This is the type of journalism that Haley Hintze has been doing on AP and UB (on her own time and with no guarantee of compensation). Unfortunately, the poker media is not equipped to hire investigative journalists, neither the time nor the money is there. It would be great if they could do this, but it’s not going to happen.

Yes, most poker media outlets focus on two things Entertainment and being informative in a straight reporting kind of way. Saying the poker media has dropped the ball or is not doing their job in investigating online poker sites is ridiculous! Should I spend 6-months investigating Lock Poker, flying to Canada and building up a contact base of inside informants, to write an expose that might land me a few hundred dollars on a good day???? Is PokerNews or BLUFF or PNB going to give me a weekly stipend and pay my expenses while I conduct these investigations?

Face it, there are no Bob Woodward’s in the poker world because nobody is going to pay to have an investigative reporter on the payrolls. It’s insulting to think you believe the poker media doesn’t care about this stuff; we do, but I also care about my family eating.

It’s not my job to repot on every allegation, scam, and scandal that goes on in the poker world: I have never called myself an investigative journalist, and I have never accepted the challenge of “outing” the bad people in the poker world.

Ok Steve-O, sorry I found most of the OP very hard to follow. The portion I quoted above, to me, seems most relevant to the interesting issue posed by the title of the thread.

From my own perspective -- that of a (sometimes casual, sometimes voracious) consumer of "poker media" -- I must say that over the years I have been disheartened about how many in the poker media seem so disingenuous, holding themselves out as reporting unbiased facts, when in fact, all along being heavily influenced (biased) by the myriad behind-the-scenes associations and political bullshit. Sometimes in the name of putting poker in only the most positive of lights (what's "good for poker"?) and sometimes because they are getting paid, directly or indirectly, by cardplayer or bluff or have rakeback deals or whatever. We're seeing forums censor truthful things that hurt their bottom lines. Some of the problems stem from the "Entertainment" poker media (as you say) purpoting to report and cover controversial stories as if they are investigative journalists, when in fact what we are getting is spin.

I think this is beginning to change due to sites like what I hope pokerfraudalert becomes -- like donkdown over the past couple of years -- sites that will "ask the tough questions" and provide an uncensored forum for truths to be told.

So, besides putting food on your family's table, what's your view -- What is the ROLE of poker media?

poker media by and large doesn't have any "responsibility" to cover things for the players; it's the players who decide which outlets they trust and therefore read. Personally I think I bring more opinion into my articles than most, and the owner of PNB gives me a lot of editorial control over the content. There are some great writers in the industry and theri are also plenty of hacks and shills too.

It all depends on what the person's role is. Dear abby doesn't talk economics and Jim Cramer doesn't (or shouldn't) give relationship advice or offer up pumpkin pie recipes. Poker News outlets report on tournaments, talk about promotions, maybe a little bit of player gossip, and report on things AFTER they break. You should'nt expect more than this from them, and it's not their responsibility to provide more than this anymore than saying certain outlets underreported the Trayvon Martin case or only offered a one-sided view.

I don't expect Matt Taibbi to be a cable news host, he's an investigative journalist, and I don't expect Bill O'Reilly to do the digging, he's a host. If your expectations of PokerNews, Cardplayer or any other affiliate driven poker news outlet is to provide "full" comprehensive coverage of the poker world you are going to be disappointed. Just like Fox News or MSNBC have their own agendas so do online poker outlets, and aside from flat-out lying it's their perogative to do so.

If you read my articles at PNB and expect more than straight reports and some muted opinions you are going to be disappointed, that's not my role there and not what I was hired to do. If you want to know my thoughts and feelings on different things you can find them at my blog.

If you want to hear about the wonderful poker affiliate model or how awesome a freeroll is you can read any number of sites; if you want a clearer look at what this means go read Bill Rini's blog posts on the subject.

The point is, you have to know WHERE to look for the information you are after. If I want a liberal slant on Gay Marriage I don't watch Fox News or read the Wall Street Journal. If I want to know what is going on behind the scenes at UB I read Haley Hintze; if I was just looking for an overview of the scandal I would go to PokerNews or some other mainstream outlet.

This isn't going to change until the affiliate model is blown up entirely. Right now if I want rumors and gossip I know where to look, and if I want to know who won the Irish Open I know where to look; Kind of rambling but I hope my point comes across

[Dan Druff]

This is a very good discussion, and I have a lot to say about it, but I am busy this afternoon.

I will come back with my own novel on this situation a little bit later.

[Jasep]

This is a very good discussion, and I have a lot to say about it, but I am busy this afternoon.

I will come back with my own novel on this situation a little bit later.

Your fucked steve

[Steve-O]

This is a very good discussion, and I have a lot to say about it, but I am busy this afternoon.

I will come back with my own novel on this situation a little bit later.

Your fucked steve

I don't really think we'll be too far off on this; I'm sure Druff will want more accountability from the top down and I'd be all for that.... but we'll see what he has to say

[Hockey Guy]

Your fucked steve

I don't really think we'll be too far off on this; I'm sure Druff will want more accountability from the top down and I'd be all for that.... but we'll see what he has to say

You've misunderstood Jasep here.
He means your finger will be sore from scrolling through his response it'll be so long.

Just kidding. Should be an interesting read.

[Dan Druff]

I'll answer about the poker media part first, then I will get to the Lock specific stuff.

Mainstream poker "media" is pretty good at covering mundane, non-controversial topics (such as tournament write-ups and player interviews), but really bad at reporting "news" type items. They're especially bad at news items if such coverage would serve to hurt their advertisers.

The coverage of the AP/UB scandals -- probably the biggest stories ever to hit poker -- was abysmal.

I don't like Steve-O's explanation that they simply don't have the resources to do investigative reporting. It goes far beyind that. In the UP/AB situation, the investigative reporting was already done for them by the players-turned-detectives that got cheated. The main poker media outlets avoided this topic like it was contagious with a horrible disease. Several continued affiliate/advertising relationships up until the very end.

This saddens me because I feel that poker media owes at least a little bit back to the community that has supported them. Sure, you can keep quiet (or mostly quiet) about your most generous advertisers cheating people. Sure, that will make you more money in both the short run and the long run. But is it right? Is it ethical? Definitely not.

I really wish the poker media saw itself as part of a closet-knit community that it cares about, rather than just an entertainment outlet looking to make a buck. If you run an affiliate program (or advertisements) for websites that you KNOW are shady, you are guilty of misleading your customers and taking advantage of their trust. Some rationalize that their users already know about these scandals and are choosing to play anyway, but that's not true. Many players are surprisingly ignorant when it comes to news about poker scandals. A lot of this is actually because of the mainstream poker media trying to sweep these scandals under the rug!

As members of the poker community, I feel that it's our civic duty to collectively boycott these cheat sites, and not rationalize why it's okay to support them or have a business partnership with them.

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

The role of the poker media is to continue to bring donks to the game and keep average players average. I applaud them.

[Dan Druff]

Regarding Steve-O and Pokernewsboy.com:

First, I would like to say that Steve-O is a great poster here, and his presence really adds a lot to this site.

He is also correct that, unlike other many other poker media sites, he has given a lot of coverage to the various scandals to have hit online poker.

I believe, for example, that Pokernewsboy was the first to cover the Girah scandal on Lock Poker.

Do I wish that Steve-O would take down his Lock affiliate links from Pokernewsboy? Yes.

Do I think that he sees Lock Poker in a more favorable light than they deserve? Yes.

But you can't accuse Steve-O of ignoring scandals or stories that make his affiliate partners look bad. He's definitely not guilty of that.

Steve, I haven't contacted Lock CEO Jennifer Larson for an interview. I figured it would be a waste of my time. If you would like to arrange one and can work that miracle, I would love it -- though I doubt she would give me any kind of substantive answers on the toughest questions.

Regarding the security of our money on Lock and Merge, I am less concerned about that. Well, I mean, I'm concerned, but I think that few of us are naive enough to believe that small networks like Merge are segregating player funds. We'd like to believe it when we have a balance on these sites, but in reality, if they ever get busted, we can probably kiss our money goodbye. That's part of the risk I accept when I play on a network like Merge. I realize that my money isn't all that secure. I think most players realize this. I'm not making excuses for Merge, but at the same time, I don't think your funds on Lock are much more at risk than they are on the rest of the Merge network.

My bigger problems lie with Lock's blatant cheating of their own players. Those scandals (and Lock's subsequent cover-ups) remind me eerily of AP/UB's handling of their scandals. Sure, Lock's scandals are smaller in scope than AP and UB, but does that really make their intent or trustworthiness any different? I see them as all cut from the same cloth.

Don't believe that the Casino Bonus scandal was the result of Merge clamping down on an unauthorized promotion. Yes, that's what initially caused the problem, but Lock has had a thousand opportunities to make it right for the aggrieved players, and they haven't. They've just endlessly stalled and lied about the situation, ultimately cheating their most loyal players out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are hiding behind Merge's anonymity and desire to keep out of the public eye and pretty much blaming it on network rules. Without the network coming forward and contradicting them, it's believable, right?

But they're simply not telling the truth. I know a good deal about Merge's relationships with its skins, and I can assure you that Lock could have easily compensated the players who lost out on their promised additional rakeback. Lock just isn't doing it because they want to keep the money for themselves. Shameful. This is nothing short of fraud.

But that's far from the only incident on Lock. Between the Casino Bonus scam, the Girah scandal, the Tim West signing, and the plain-text "security" of passwords, I think it's pretty damn clear how Lock runs their business, and how they will never hesitate to cheat their best customers.

The thing that saddens me most about Lock Poker is how so many people are willing to ignore it and repeatedly forgive them for their transgressions.

Do people not remember AP?

Do people not remember UB?

Do people not remember Full Tilt?!

If we keep giving a free pass to companies that seem very shady and provide no explanation for their ongoing questionable behavior, then we haven't learned a thing.

[Dan Druff]

The role of the poker media is to continue to bring donks to the game and keep average players average. I applaud them.

I disagree with this.

You can't just give cheating sites a free pass because reporting on it will scare away donks. That's positive reinforcement for the cheaters, and it will hurt the game in the long run.

Some idiots on 2+2 criticized me for my statement on "60 Minutes" in 2008 that cheating may still be going on, perhaps at other sites besides AP and UB. They attacked me for daring to insinuate that the mighty Pokerstars and Full Tilt could be cheating.

I countered that, while the sites seem okay on the surface, without any regulation or oversight, they could easily be cheating us and just not have been caught yet. You can't give any sites your 100% trust until a strong regulatory body examines them closely and gives their seal of approval.

Well, 3 years later I was proven right, as Full Tilt was cheating in a different way -- spending our money that they claimed was on deposit.

The bottom line is that reporting on poker dishonesty should always be priority #1, and keeping new fish coming should be secondary.

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

DanDruff, What's your opinion on that Mike Caro 4 hour long video where he interviews guys and they all say Doyle, Chip, and basically every other player in the poker hall of fame was a cheat? Was that all lies?

Also you are confusing me with someone who read a single word from the thread. I was simply giving my opinion on what their roll was. I wasn't even thinking about the cheating stuff.

[Dan Druff]

DanDruff, What's your opinion on that Mike Caro 4 hour long video where he interviews guys and they all say Doyle, Chip, and basically every other player in the poker hall of fame was a cheat? Was that all lies?

Also you are confusing me with someone who read a single word from the thread. I was simply giving my opinion on what their roll was. I wasn't even thinking about the cheating stuff.

Probably true, but that's from a different era.

Poker is mainstream now, and the worst cheating is now perpetrated by companies, not individuals.

To be honest, getting cheated by online poker sites is a lot worse than being cheated by a guy like Doyle at the tables.

In old-school poker, you knew that Doyle was your adversary and was there to take your money.

In modern online poker, the companies are acting as your advocate, promising to provide a fair game and acting neutral regarding your success or failure on their site. When they're the ones cheating you, it's a much bigger breach of trust.

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

DanDruff, What's your opinion on that Mike Caro 4 hour long video where he interviews guys and they all say Doyle, Chip, and basically every other player in the poker hall of fame was a cheat? Was that all lies?

Also you are confusing me with someone who read a single word from the thread. I was simply giving my opinion on what their roll was. I wasn't even thinking about the cheating stuff.

Probably true, but that's from a different era.

Poker is mainstream now, and the worst cheating is now perpetrated by companies, not individuals.

To be honest, getting cheated by online poker sites is a lot worse than being cheated by a guy like Doyle at the tables.

In old-school poker, you knew that Doyle was your adversary and was there to take your money.

In modern online poker, the companies are acting as your advocate, promising to provide a fair game and acting neutral regarding your success or failure on their site. When they're the ones cheating you, it's a much bigger breach of trust.

Really surprised you responded with the "probably true but no big deal" thing. That's a really bad look for a person with your clout. In the future just say that you think they were liars who made up things due to jealousy. That's a way better look.

[Dan Druff]

Probably true, but that's from a different era.

Poker is mainstream now, and the worst cheating is now perpetrated by companies, not individuals.

To be honest, getting cheated by online poker sites is a lot worse than being cheated by a guy like Doyle at the tables.

In old-school poker, you knew that Doyle was your adversary and was there to take your money.

In modern online poker, the companies are acting as your advocate, promising to provide a fair game and acting neutral regarding your success or failure on their site. When they're the ones cheating you, it's a much bigger breach of trust.

Really surprised you responded with the "probably true but no big deal" thing. That's a really bad look for a person with your clout. In the future just say that you think they were liars who made up things due to jealousy. That's a way better look.

I didn't say probably true but no big deal.

Just very different and, in my opinion, not as big of a deal as systematic cheating by online poker companies.

[Brittney Griner's Clit]

Really surprised you responded with the "probably true but no big deal" thing. That's a really bad look for a person with your clout. In the future just say that you think they were liars who made up things due to jealousy. That's a way better look.

I didn't say probably true but no big deal.

Just very different and, in my opinion, not as big of a deal as systematic cheating by online poker companies.

Lets say it is 1 percent as big of a deal. Can you please post one time about it for every 99 times you post about AP/UB.

[Steve-O]

DanDruff, What's your opinion on that Mike Caro 4 hour long video where he interviews guys and they all say Doyle, Chip, and basically every other player in the poker hall of fame was a cheat? Was that all lies?

Also you are confusing me with someone who read a single word from the thread. I was simply giving my opinion on what their roll was. I wasn't even thinking about the cheating stuff.

Probably true, but that's from a different era.

Poker is mainstream now, and the worst cheating is now perpetrated by companies, not individuals.

To be honest, getting cheated by online poker sites is a lot worse than being cheated by a guy like Doyle at the tables.

In old-school poker, you knew that Doyle was your adversary and was there to take your money.

In modern online poker, the companies are acting as your advocate, promising to provide a fair game and acting neutral regarding your success or failure on their site. When they're the ones cheating you, it's a much bigger breach of trust.

This is my feeling as well. But I think it's important to explain the type of "cheating" we are talking about. I don't think Chip, Doyle, and the others colluded in the way we think of it today --some of the shadier characters with life issues probably did though. They most likely soft-played one another, shared bankrolls (Doyle, Slim, and another road gambler, Sailor Roberts I believe, did this on the road) which makes collusion almost unavoidable, and so on. Basically, I think the "cheating" they were doing back in the day is analogous to ghosting, account sharing, multi-accounting and the like today.