Friday, December 12, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Poker Online
I recently saw the 60 Minutes piece about online poker, namely Absolute Poker, and the cheating which took place on their site. Definitely not a good thing for those who lost millions, but why would you be betting so heavily in an unregulated space, I thought. But that's not what I'm thinking about right now.
Right now I'm thinking about why I play online at all. I have an account with Full Tilt and Bodog, but I rarely use the FT one. I've had $100 in there for the LONNNNGEST time, until now.
Initially I started with $25, went up to about $130, back down to $118, and then I decided, "I may as well pull my money out back down to $25, and go from there. Make a little coin off of this." Bad call.
I contacted Bodog in an effort to get my money and was told I needed all my credit card info, etc to do so. In addition I needed a FAX machine in order to send a copy of my license and credit card so they could have proof of who I was. I told the guy on the phone, "You're kidding me. Why do you need that?"
"For security reasons," he said, "we need to know who we're sending the money too."
"Really? How come you didn't ask me for all this information when I was sending you the money in the first place?"
"Uhh, umm...for security reasons we need to know..."
"Yeah, I heard that. You're not hearing me. But I know the answer. You are fine with taking the money, but giving it back, that you make difficult."
"No, sir, it's just for security..."
CLICK.
And since that day my money has gone from $118 to $30 in NO TIME. I have been playing online for ages, maintaining the $100, but all of a sudden I can't win a hand. When it gets down to 4 players from the initial 10, things get really tough for me. The Top 3 get paid, so it just seems whenever I'm in the lead and it's towards the end I get destroyed. Normally, like what just happened, I'll be ahead, enough to make me want to risk all my chips, and then I'll get killed on the river just before making the money.
Coincidence? I think not.
I'm not saying there's outright cheating going on, but there's outright cheating going on. I believe my account was "flagged", if you will, and going forward they want to make sure they win all my money before I request it back. Most people of the lower stakes games do not request money back so it's normally not an issue. But I think the moment you request the cash, or make a claim, you get flagged, and shit just happens to not fall your way over and over and over and over. There's no other way to explain it. I maintain a healthy balance for over a year, then in two weeks times, after requesting money, the whole thing goes up in smoke? I don't buy it.
Either way, I'll play until my money runs out because it certainly will, but I would never, ever, ever play for real money on one of these sites. And by real money I mean stakes bigger than $3-10 tables.
These sites are unregulated with servers in foreign countries. There's no legal recourse so they don't give a shit. If you don't think people are cheating you're crazy naive.
Right now I'm thinking about why I play online at all. I have an account with Full Tilt and Bodog, but I rarely use the FT one. I've had $100 in there for the LONNNNGEST time, until now.
Initially I started with $25, went up to about $130, back down to $118, and then I decided, "I may as well pull my money out back down to $25, and go from there. Make a little coin off of this." Bad call.
I contacted Bodog in an effort to get my money and was told I needed all my credit card info, etc to do so. In addition I needed a FAX machine in order to send a copy of my license and credit card so they could have proof of who I was. I told the guy on the phone, "You're kidding me. Why do you need that?"
"For security reasons," he said, "we need to know who we're sending the money too."
"Really? How come you didn't ask me for all this information when I was sending you the money in the first place?"
"Uhh, umm...for security reasons we need to know..."
"Yeah, I heard that. You're not hearing me. But I know the answer. You are fine with taking the money, but giving it back, that you make difficult."
"No, sir, it's just for security..."
CLICK.
And since that day my money has gone from $118 to $30 in NO TIME. I have been playing online for ages, maintaining the $100, but all of a sudden I can't win a hand. When it gets down to 4 players from the initial 10, things get really tough for me. The Top 3 get paid, so it just seems whenever I'm in the lead and it's towards the end I get destroyed. Normally, like what just happened, I'll be ahead, enough to make me want to risk all my chips, and then I'll get killed on the river just before making the money.
Coincidence? I think not.
I'm not saying there's outright cheating going on, but there's outright cheating going on. I believe my account was "flagged", if you will, and going forward they want to make sure they win all my money before I request it back. Most people of the lower stakes games do not request money back so it's normally not an issue. But I think the moment you request the cash, or make a claim, you get flagged, and shit just happens to not fall your way over and over and over and over. There's no other way to explain it. I maintain a healthy balance for over a year, then in two weeks times, after requesting money, the whole thing goes up in smoke? I don't buy it.
Either way, I'll play until my money runs out because it certainly will, but I would never, ever, ever play for real money on one of these sites. And by real money I mean stakes bigger than $3-10 tables.
These sites are unregulated with servers in foreign countries. There's no legal recourse so they don't give a shit. If you don't think people are cheating you're crazy naive.
Not One to Defend
But there's a video going around of President Bush getting ignored by world leaders as he stands on a podium with them. To be fair, how do we know he wasn't greeted by these people previously and that the others had just come face to face with these people at that moment?
Remember when Barack Obama hated America and didn't salute the flag, or some shit? Yeah, this is pretty much the same thing.
I'll kill him on his mistakes, sure, but lets not make assumptions.
Granted, I wouldn't shake his hand, but that's another story.
Remember when Barack Obama hated America and didn't salute the flag, or some shit? Yeah, this is pretty much the same thing.
I'll kill him on his mistakes, sure, but lets not make assumptions.
Granted, I wouldn't shake his hand, but that's another story.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Football
Are the Jets still Superbowl bound? That was fast.
Right now I'm more concerned with College Football since the Buckeyes will be taking on the Longhorns in the Fiesta Bowl. Very excited. Wanted a bigtime opponent to the end the season, now that we're totally healthy and Pryor will have had a lot of time under center. Could be a great game.
The last couple of weeks every couple of days I have been compiling some information about Charlie Weis and Notre Dame which I plan on posting as soon as I get around to finishing it. Quite interesting, I tell ya. That idiot is back for another year; another year with the chance to not lose more than 6 games. I say next year he loses 4, but that's the next post...
For now I'm more focused on the concept of a playoff system in college football.
At first I didn't like the idea, but the last couple of years have convinced me of a need for it. It has nothing to do with finding a winner because "other sports do it" but because it's really not fair to the kids playing the game. A lot of analysts claim it's unfair to "make these kids play such a long season", but that's a pretty weak argument because only 2 teams will be playing a season longer than they do now, and you could argue they don't even need too. Besides, I'm sure they'd be pretty fired up for it.
Bigger schools should stop playing more than 2 games against weak opponents, and even beyond that should be scheduling games against better opponents from the best conferences. Winning these games will give you a much better chance of making the playoffs at the end of the year. Adding these types of games to the schedule will make college football that much better. This past season Ohio State played USC, and will so again next year. The two previous year they took on Texas, and in 2010 it'll be a home and home with the University of Miami. Those are big time early season games, and teams should be rewarded for it as well.
If Ohio State had played USC tight the voters would have respected that, and it would have reflected in the polls. Year in, year out, that could be the case for other programs. Unfortunately for OSU, they were banged, not prepared, and outclassed. They suffered at the hands of the voters after that. If there was an 8 team playoff right now they would not be part of it. It has something to do with their two losses in their 2 biggest games, but more to do with how they played the last couple of years on the big stage in the National Title Game, and their performance against USC. A better performance in any of these games, chances are they'd be in a slightly better situation now. Penn State would probably be ranked higher, and OSU as well, had OSU been better in those games which would play well for them now.
Point being, scheduling early big time games can seriously reward you, and if you play well and lose it shouldn't hurt you too much. It should actually help the big conferences. These games translate into a better regular college football season which will bring in more money to the NCAA.
Florida plays Florida St and Miami, normally great teams, but currently fair at best. They won both those games, but neither were tough out of conference this season. Still, people watched those games because it was a battle of storied rival programs. Oklahoma played Cincinnati. Not exactly a world beater. Texas didn't even play a team as good as Cincy, and that's why they're not ahead of OU. The computers make the difference. They did beat Arkansas, who would probably beat Cincy, but still not a great team. National Champion LSU's best out of conference opponent? Troy. Alabama's? Clemson. They fired their coach. Texas Tech? Not sure. Toss up between SMU, Eastern Washington, Nevada, and Massachusetts! These teams are doing their best to not lose before the regular season, and frankly, Texas was punished for it in the polls.
Bottom line is most of the teams play a bunch of shitboxes early in the year. Those games can be reduced, and teams will be forced to play better opponents. Especially if a system can be created where teams are somehow rewarded solely for scheduling teams ranked in the Top 35 (or so). Maybe earning a point for doing so. The voters will reward them for making it a game. Once you've cut back the garbage you can either shorten the season to before Thanksgiving, then play your conference title games afterward, or begin the playoffs. Whatever the case, the season can be shortened to eliminate weak games, or teams can make those games count.
As for the playoff, it should consist of 8 teams, and three BCS Bowls. The Rose Bowl can go back to the Big Ten / Pac 10. In this scenario, this year, Ohio State would be going to the Rose Bowl to take on Top 20 Oregon. Not horrible.
The first round of the playoffs would be a home game for the Top 4 seeds, and the matchups would be:
Penn State at Oklahoma
Texas Tech at Florida
Utah at Texas
USC at Alabama
This would be incredible.
Then, after these games we'd have the two of the three remaining bowl games at Semi-Finals, with the last remaining BCS game being the Final game.
If things played out as one would expect you'd get:
Oklahoma vs. USC in the Fiesta bowl
Texas vs. Florida in the Sugar Bowl
The winners to meet in the Orange Bowl two weeks after New Years day, or the week before the Superbowl.
As for travel, it's not a big deal. Fans and alumni who make the final game will have ONE more game to go to. If they're huge fans, they'll make the trip. Either way, no chance any of these games will not be sold out. Add in the extra home games for higher seeded teams, again it's an incentive to play in big games early in the year.
Some could suggest you're better off playing patsies in order to stay undefeated, but a system will have to reward these teams, which it already does on some level.
Back to my first point, on fairness.
The reason I want a playoff has nothing to do with finding a winner, and everything to do with rewarding types of teams, namely, schools up North.
Right now the bowls favor fast, spread 'em out teams, aka, THE SEC and seemingly Big 12. The Big and Pac 10s have historically been grind it out conferences with bruising styles. When they get to a bowl game, played on a surface catering to the SEC schools after 40+ days of rest, those schools have a serious advantage because the field of play favors them, as does the rest. Sending an SEC school up to Ohio State in December would truly be a test, and a reward for a higher ranked Big Ten school. Shortening the rest between the following playoff game speaks more to how football should be, as opposed to this current system. Football is a battle, a war of attrition, if you will. Having to use your depth, play tough, and get through the pain is part of it. The bowl system eliminates that. Last year LSU's best player in the championship game was Ricky Jean-Francois. The guy played one game all season. THAT GAME! Why? Because he had an extra 50 days to rest! Sorry, but that seems a bit strange.
This is where it gets into fairness for me. Again, bowl games favor a style of play from the physicality of it to the style, and that is what makes me want a playoff: even the field. Right now it's not even.
This is my plan. Those are my reasons.
Right now I'm more concerned with College Football since the Buckeyes will be taking on the Longhorns in the Fiesta Bowl. Very excited. Wanted a bigtime opponent to the end the season, now that we're totally healthy and Pryor will have had a lot of time under center. Could be a great game.
The last couple of weeks every couple of days I have been compiling some information about Charlie Weis and Notre Dame which I plan on posting as soon as I get around to finishing it. Quite interesting, I tell ya. That idiot is back for another year; another year with the chance to not lose more than 6 games. I say next year he loses 4, but that's the next post...
For now I'm more focused on the concept of a playoff system in college football.
At first I didn't like the idea, but the last couple of years have convinced me of a need for it. It has nothing to do with finding a winner because "other sports do it" but because it's really not fair to the kids playing the game. A lot of analysts claim it's unfair to "make these kids play such a long season", but that's a pretty weak argument because only 2 teams will be playing a season longer than they do now, and you could argue they don't even need too. Besides, I'm sure they'd be pretty fired up for it.
Bigger schools should stop playing more than 2 games against weak opponents, and even beyond that should be scheduling games against better opponents from the best conferences. Winning these games will give you a much better chance of making the playoffs at the end of the year. Adding these types of games to the schedule will make college football that much better. This past season Ohio State played USC, and will so again next year. The two previous year they took on Texas, and in 2010 it'll be a home and home with the University of Miami. Those are big time early season games, and teams should be rewarded for it as well.
If Ohio State had played USC tight the voters would have respected that, and it would have reflected in the polls. Year in, year out, that could be the case for other programs. Unfortunately for OSU, they were banged, not prepared, and outclassed. They suffered at the hands of the voters after that. If there was an 8 team playoff right now they would not be part of it. It has something to do with their two losses in their 2 biggest games, but more to do with how they played the last couple of years on the big stage in the National Title Game, and their performance against USC. A better performance in any of these games, chances are they'd be in a slightly better situation now. Penn State would probably be ranked higher, and OSU as well, had OSU been better in those games which would play well for them now.
Point being, scheduling early big time games can seriously reward you, and if you play well and lose it shouldn't hurt you too much. It should actually help the big conferences. These games translate into a better regular college football season which will bring in more money to the NCAA.
Florida plays Florida St and Miami, normally great teams, but currently fair at best. They won both those games, but neither were tough out of conference this season. Still, people watched those games because it was a battle of storied rival programs. Oklahoma played Cincinnati. Not exactly a world beater. Texas didn't even play a team as good as Cincy, and that's why they're not ahead of OU. The computers make the difference. They did beat Arkansas, who would probably beat Cincy, but still not a great team. National Champion LSU's best out of conference opponent? Troy. Alabama's? Clemson. They fired their coach. Texas Tech? Not sure. Toss up between SMU, Eastern Washington, Nevada, and Massachusetts! These teams are doing their best to not lose before the regular season, and frankly, Texas was punished for it in the polls.
Bottom line is most of the teams play a bunch of shitboxes early in the year. Those games can be reduced, and teams will be forced to play better opponents. Especially if a system can be created where teams are somehow rewarded solely for scheduling teams ranked in the Top 35 (or so). Maybe earning a point for doing so. The voters will reward them for making it a game. Once you've cut back the garbage you can either shorten the season to before Thanksgiving, then play your conference title games afterward, or begin the playoffs. Whatever the case, the season can be shortened to eliminate weak games, or teams can make those games count.
As for the playoff, it should consist of 8 teams, and three BCS Bowls. The Rose Bowl can go back to the Big Ten / Pac 10. In this scenario, this year, Ohio State would be going to the Rose Bowl to take on Top 20 Oregon. Not horrible.
The first round of the playoffs would be a home game for the Top 4 seeds, and the matchups would be:
Penn State at Oklahoma
Texas Tech at Florida
Utah at Texas
USC at Alabama
This would be incredible.
Then, after these games we'd have the two of the three remaining bowl games at Semi-Finals, with the last remaining BCS game being the Final game.
If things played out as one would expect you'd get:
Oklahoma vs. USC in the Fiesta bowl
Texas vs. Florida in the Sugar Bowl
The winners to meet in the Orange Bowl two weeks after New Years day, or the week before the Superbowl.
As for travel, it's not a big deal. Fans and alumni who make the final game will have ONE more game to go to. If they're huge fans, they'll make the trip. Either way, no chance any of these games will not be sold out. Add in the extra home games for higher seeded teams, again it's an incentive to play in big games early in the year.
Some could suggest you're better off playing patsies in order to stay undefeated, but a system will have to reward these teams, which it already does on some level.
Back to my first point, on fairness.
The reason I want a playoff has nothing to do with finding a winner, and everything to do with rewarding types of teams, namely, schools up North.
Right now the bowls favor fast, spread 'em out teams, aka, THE SEC and seemingly Big 12. The Big and Pac 10s have historically been grind it out conferences with bruising styles. When they get to a bowl game, played on a surface catering to the SEC schools after 40+ days of rest, those schools have a serious advantage because the field of play favors them, as does the rest. Sending an SEC school up to Ohio State in December would truly be a test, and a reward for a higher ranked Big Ten school. Shortening the rest between the following playoff game speaks more to how football should be, as opposed to this current system. Football is a battle, a war of attrition, if you will. Having to use your depth, play tough, and get through the pain is part of it. The bowl system eliminates that. Last year LSU's best player in the championship game was Ricky Jean-Francois. The guy played one game all season. THAT GAME! Why? Because he had an extra 50 days to rest! Sorry, but that seems a bit strange.
This is where it gets into fairness for me. Again, bowl games favor a style of play from the physicality of it to the style, and that is what makes me want a playoff: even the field. Right now it's not even.
This is my plan. Those are my reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
