The Rake :( - Page 5

On October 15 2010 03:18 jchysk wrote: Currently unsolved problems with this idea:

>Voluntary-only support, probably on forums
http://ubuntuforums.org/ seem to be fine
>Control issues as far as who has the right to dictate or enforce the rules
Don't like it? Then fork the software and develop your own version.
>Marketing would probably have to be cost free
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/networkin...-york-times-runs-firefox-ad-39181362/

On October 15 2010 15:51 Bigbobm wrote: Show nested quote + On October 15 2010 13:37 YoMeR wrote: ^ true, but a very microscopic % of the player pool are getting that high of a %. the rest are just chumps giving Lee a good laugh while he scoots on towards the bank. (yes i still believe Lee exists somewhere within pokerstars. so sue me) I would definately participate in this kind of strike. But would be hard for me to do so for a long time. I got bills to pay. Yea but those people are the ones paying the most rake, and obviously the most deserving. Even still, almost any serious regular who gives stars a majority of their action will get supernova which is mid 40% rb. While Lee might still be lining his pockets, they are still giving back a shit ton of money to their biggest rake payers. I'd rather have a reward system that encourages casual players to want to reach higher vip levels so they get more bonuses than to effectively give it to them by cutting the rake.

There is almost no chance of a player at .25/.5 or lower making it to Supernova. That rakeback % is simply not available to those players. On top of that those players are being raked more in terms of proportion than any other stakes played on Pokerstars. I'd like to know how many winners you think there would be at 1/2 and higher if the rake was 5% of every pot instead of being capped at $3.00. That's what micro players are up against. There is no reason for you to be on the other side of this issue. Even for players at 1/2 or higher the rake is far in excess of what it should be. The rake needs to be reduced significantly.

The more we reduce the rake, the more people can be winners, and the softer the games at higher limits will be. That's a simple and obvious truth. Pokerstars treats its player base like lemmings. The VIP rewards programs are designed with that intent. It's the twinky on a stick in front of a treadmill design. If you play day and night or have nothing else to do except grind hands on Pokerstars for 40+ hours a week we'll reward you with a 65% Rakeback on 200k a year you pay in rake going for SNE. We'll profit 70k USD off all your hard work. We'll also laugh our asses off as we profit 100K+ over all the people who go for SNE but fall short.

The rake is way too high. I've given it some thought and here is the first change I think we should be shooting for.

The rake at HU/NL on Pokerstars is capped at 50 cents no matter what limit you play at. The lowest limit is NL50 - at that rate maximum rake per pot is achieved when 20% of a buy-in is put into the pot. So if all poker was raked in this fashion.

NL2 2 cents
NL5 5 cents
NL10 10 cents
NL25 25 cents
NL50 50 cents
NL100 1 dollar
NL200 2 dollars
NL400+ 3 dollars

This would make the rake considerably fairer for lower limit players and result in more fish or slighter winners working their way up into the bigger games to donate to the big boys. This is not the be all end all goal of reducing rake. I honestly think a system that allows regulars to opt-in on a rake cap and pay a monthly fee to receive 100% rakeback is what eventually needs to happen. This can be done as a rake meter in the cashier page where once it's full for the month all further rake is returned to your account in one payment at the end of the month.

This however I think is the starting point. Reduce the unfair impact of rake on the microstakes and even early middle stakes. These players are paying way too much proportionally compared to people who are playing higher. It is unfair taxation of the lower stakes and results in a reduced quality of the games at higher levels because few weak players will ever ascend there.

In terms of my personal view I hope that one day if we don't see a monthly rake cap we at least see the maximum rake per pot reduced to something like ten cents. I feel this is an achievable target. None of the major poker sites are going to want to do this. We have to force them to. We have to organize ourselves and wage an everlasting campaign until we get what we want. I expect it to be a long fight, but I also expect the movement to grow as more people join in. It's time to start getting the word out across the internet, facebook, twitter, and every source of social media we've got. The fight is on.

On October 15 2010 15:43 genjix2 wrote: Hey everybody, I just signed up to post this. That is your solution. As a semi-notable former game developer who spent several years working on Open Source software, I can tell you that the technical cost of writing software like PokerStars is very tiny- one guy with enough willpower could likely write a similar quality client in under 6 months. I don't know the other costs like administration and legal, but I doubt it's many orders of magnitude greater than the technical costs. Just off the top of my head, here's what I can imagine: you download the opensource software which contains a list of servers offering games- you can always add more servers to your server list. You go to the servers and find a game someone has setup. Now the game is not hosted on the server (that's only for finding games), but on all participating players machines. A player sends an encrypted long string to all the other players. After the hand is finished, they send out another key to decrypt the long string to confirm their hand. This kind of encryption is impossible to crack. Since everyone taking part in the game is collectively hosting the game (peer to peer network), no rake needs to be taken. For handling the money, bitcoin has been making a lot of noise recently although I don't really know how it works. I imagine when you sit down for your $100, that it gets added to a special account for the current game which everyone has a small piece of the total password for. Maybe you have to deposit another $200 into there so that when you leave, you do actually relinquish your password to the rest of the group. These schemes are just from the top of my head, but with a bit of ingenuity and thinking, the security issues and problems can be worked out into a water tight scheme. Of course the poker community is not much of a community. Reading this thread you can just see how fragmented people are. Open Source communities are very selfless and strong, which is what really makes the projects work (cooperation). This solution would give you rake free poker software, with the power in your hands (not hostage to companies since you have access to all the tech) and security (since the source-code is open, any dodgy business gets quickly discovered). It's truly a capitalist model since you can design your own games and if you don't like some aspect then you can easily fragment (design your own game, move to another server, or change the software and redistribute it) or even make your own skin (complete with integrated HUD, scripted play or auto-fold hands). The poker companies are scamming you and laughing to the bank while you chase the bonuses. This model is a federated peer2peer design. You can read more details, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_(information_technology) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_identity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer2peer Diaspora is a distributed social network that was funded by donations, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(software) Excellent example of distribution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software) Distribution is an established methodology and with enough mathematical schemes to prevent exploitation, they are rock solid in terms of security.}

Glad someone even acknowledged my idea let alone agreed with me. haha
I've always figured it wouldn't be difficult to create a poker client in league with full tilt or pokerstars and considered getting some friends together to build it, probably within a few months. The reasons that always stopped me were the fact that I had no idea how I would get it off the ground or the amount of crazy legal stuff I would have to do to handle the money or even to host a poker room within the US. I'd be willing to try to set something like this open source software project up, even host a website and forum for it just to see if there is really enough interest to continue pursuing this.

On October 15 2010 16:29 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 15 2010 15:51 Bigbobm wrote:   On October 15 2010 13:37 YoMeR wrote: ^ true, but a very microscopic % of the player pool are getting that high of a %. the rest are just chumps giving Lee a good laugh while he scoots on towards the bank. (yes i still believe Lee exists somewhere within pokerstars. so sue me) I would definately participate in this kind of strike. But would be hard for me to do so for a long time. I got bills to pay. Yea but those people are the ones paying the most rake, and obviously the most deserving. Even still, almost any serious regular who gives stars a majority of their action will get supernova which is mid 40% rb. While Lee might still be lining his pockets, they are still giving back a shit ton of money to their biggest rake payers. I'd rather have a reward system that encourages casual players to want to reach higher vip levels so they get more bonuses than to effectively give it to them by cutting the rake. There is almost no chance of a player at .25/.5 or lower making it to Supernova. That rakeback % is simply not available to those players. On top of that those players are being raked more in terms of proportion than any other stakes played on Pokerstars. I'd like to know how many winners you think there would be at 1/2 and higher if the rake was 5% of every pot instead of being capped at $3.00. That's what micro players are up against. There is no reason for you to be on the other side of this issue. Even for players at 1/2 or higher the rake is far in excess of what it should be. The rake needs to be reduced significantly. The more we reduce the rake, the more people can be winners, and the softer the games at higher limits will be. That's a simple and obvious truth. Pokerstars treats its player base like lemmings. The VIP rewards programs are designed with that intent. It's the twinky on a stick in front of a treadmill design. If you play day and night or have nothing else to do except grind hands on Pokerstars for 40+ hours a week we'll reward you with a 65% Rakeback on 200k a year you pay in rake going for SNE. We'll profit 70k USD off all your hard work. We'll also laugh our asses off as we profit 100K+ over all the people who go for SNE but fall short. The rake is way too high. I've given it some thought and here is the first change I think we should be shooting for. The rake at HU/NL on Pokerstars is capped at 50 cents no matter what limit you play at. The lowest limit is NL50 - at that rate maximum rake per pot is achieved when 20% of a buy-in is put into the pot. So if all poker was raked in this fashion. NL2 2 cents NL5 5 cents NL10 10 cents NL25 25 cents NL50 50 cents NL100 1 dollar NL200 2 dollars NL400+ 3 dollars This would make the rake considerably fairer for lower limit players and result in more fish or slighter winners working their way up into the bigger games to donate to the big boys. This is not the be all end all goal of reducing rake. I honestly think a system that allows regulars to opt-in on a rake cap and pay a monthly fee to receive 100% rakeback is what eventually needs to happen. This can be done as a rake meter in the cashier page where once it's full for the month all further rake is returned to your account in one payment at the end of the month. This however I think is the starting point. Reduce the unfair impact of rake on the microstakes and even early middle stakes. These players are paying way too much proportionally compared to people who are playing higher. It is unfair taxation of the lower stakes and results in a reduced quality of the games at higher levels because few weak players will ever ascend there. In terms of my personal view I hope that one day if we don't see a monthly rake cap we at least see the maximum rake per pot reduced to something like ten cents. I feel this is an achievable target. None of the major poker sites are going to want to do this. We have to force them to. We have to organize ourselves and wage an everlasting campaign until we get what we want. I expect it to be a long fight, but I also expect the movement to grow as more people join in. It's time to start getting the word out across the internet, facebook, twitter, and every source of social media we've got. The fight is on.

With the numbers you are proposing, I feel like you live in the la-la land. Reduce the rake? Ok, let's discuss it; I am sure there are valid points to be made. Maximum rake per pot down to 10 cents? I think you should check out this place called the real world.

On October 15 2010 16:29 Bejamin1 wrote: There is almost no chance of a player at .25/.5 or lower making it to Supernova. That rakeback % is simply not available to those players.

wtf i made sn at nl50 in 2008, i started at nl2 in march and made it in october and i wasnt even playing during summer


[?] brag

On October 15 2010 17:01 dogmeat wrote: Show nested quote + On October 15 2010 16:29 Bejamin1 wrote: There is almost no chance of a player at .25/.5 or lower making it to Supernova. That rakeback % is simply not available to those players. wtf i made sn at nl50 in 2008, i started at nl2 in march and made it in october and i wasnt even playing during summer [?] brag

I mean this in reference to the casual player. Obviously if when you put in hours you were putting in 40/hrs a week then probably. The point being that Supernovas are a very small minority of the overall player base on stars. It's obviously not impossible to be a supernova playing .25/.50 but its certainly quite difficult especially if poker isn't your full time job .

On October 15 2010 16:41 phexac wrote: Show nested quote + On October 15 2010 16:29 Bejamin1 wrote:   On October 15 2010 15:51 Bigbobm wrote:   On October 15 2010 13:37 YoMeR wrote: ^ true, but a very microscopic % of the player pool are getting that high of a %. the rest are just chumps giving Lee a good laugh while he scoots on towards the bank. (yes i still believe Lee exists somewhere within pokerstars. so sue me) I would definately participate in this kind of strike. But would be hard for me to do so for a long time. I got bills to pay. Yea but those people are the ones paying the most rake, and obviously the most deserving. Even still, almost any serious regular who gives stars a majority of their action will get supernova which is mid 40% rb. While Lee might still be lining his pockets, they are still giving back a shit ton of money to their biggest rake payers. I'd rather have a reward system that encourages casual players to want to reach higher vip levels so they get more bonuses than to effectively give it to them by cutting the rake. There is almost no chance of a player at .25/.5 or lower making it to Supernova. That rakeback % is simply not available to those players. On top of that those players are being raked more in terms of proportion than any other stakes played on Pokerstars. I'd like to know how many winners you think there would be at 1/2 and higher if the rake was 5% of every pot instead of being capped at $3.00. That's what micro players are up against. There is no reason for you to be on the other side of this issue. Even for players at 1/2 or higher the rake is far in excess of what it should be. The rake needs to be reduced significantly. The more we reduce the rake, the more people can be winners, and the softer the games at higher limits will be. That's a simple and obvious truth. Pokerstars treats its player base like lemmings. The VIP rewards programs are designed with that intent. It's the twinky on a stick in front of a treadmill design. If you play day and night or have nothing else to do except grind hands on Pokerstars for 40+ hours a week we'll reward you with a 65% Rakeback on 200k a year you pay in rake going for SNE. We'll profit 70k USD off all your hard work. We'll also laugh our asses off as we profit 100K+ over all the people who go for SNE but fall short. The rake is way too high. I've given it some thought and here is the first change I think we should be shooting for. The rake at HU/NL on Pokerstars is capped at 50 cents no matter what limit you play at. The lowest limit is NL50 - at that rate maximum rake per pot is achieved when 20% of a buy-in is put into the pot. So if all poker was raked in this fashion. NL2 2 cents NL5 5 cents NL10 10 cents NL25 25 cents NL50 50 cents NL100 1 dollar NL200 2 dollars NL400+ 3 dollars This would make the rake considerably fairer for lower limit players and result in more fish or slighter winners working their way up into the bigger games to donate to the big boys. This is not the be all end all goal of reducing rake. I honestly think a system that allows regulars to opt-in on a rake cap and pay a monthly fee to receive 100% rakeback is what eventually needs to happen. This can be done as a rake meter in the cashier page where once it's full for the month all further rake is returned to your account in one payment at the end of the month. This however I think is the starting point. Reduce the unfair impact of rake on the microstakes and even early middle stakes. These players are paying way too much proportionally compared to people who are playing higher. It is unfair taxation of the lower stakes and results in a reduced quality of the games at higher levels because few weak players will ever ascend there. In terms of my personal view I hope that one day if we don't see a monthly rake cap we at least see the maximum rake per pot reduced to something like ten cents. I feel this is an achievable target. None of the major poker sites are going to want to do this. We have to force them to. We have to organize ourselves and wage an everlasting campaign until we get what we want. I expect it to be a long fight, but I also expect the movement to grow as more people join in. It's time to start getting the word out across the internet, facebook, twitter, and every source of social media we've got. The fight is on. With the numbers you are proposing, I feel like you live in the la-la land. Reduce the rake? Ok, let's discuss it; I am sure there are valid points to be made. Maximum rake per pot down to 10 cents? I think you should check out this place called the real world.

.

I actually don't think 10 cents per pot is unrealistic it all. You seriously think that isn't massively profitable compared to what it costs to deal one hand of poker on virtual felt? I'm 100% certain it costs less than 1 cent to deal a hand of online poker. The fact that people are willing to pay $3.00 doesn't make it right. This isn't about what the poker companies think is a fair price to charge. It's about what the consumer thinks. Do you really think it should cost the players more than 10 cents to be dealt a hand of poker? Would you be willing to pay 10 cents every time you updated the status on your Facebook page? Start putting the cost of the service were being provided into real terms. Then you'll see how ridiculous the charges are. Honestly for all the whining people do about cell phone companies being a huge ripoff in terms of their charges poker companies are 1000x worse and nobody says anything.

I do live in the real world. In the real world consumers have a significant voice in most industries. Poker players have been too lazy to find their voice so I'm working on starting a grassroots movement to reduce the rake. If you want to stick your head up your ass and settle for less than poker provided at a much fairer cost to the consumers then go ahead. My first target is to bring the rake at lower stakes proportionally into line with the rake at the nosebleed stakes. Why should the little guys pay 5% a pot when that's clearly not the case at the higher levels?

I think the initial numbers I just provided which cap the raked dollars at 20% of a buy-in for every level is a good first target. Eventually I'd like to see regulars have the option to opt-in to a program that allows 100% rakeback after a certain rake fee threshold is reached per month.

Right now the rake disproportionately affects the players at the lower levels. The first target is to bring that rake into realistic proportions. That way more lousy players can work their way up to the bigger games and help give players like yourself more money.

On October 15 2010 19:20 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 15 2010 17:01 dogmeat wrote:   On October 15 2010 16:29 Bejamin1 wrote: There is almost no chance of a player at .25/.5 or lower making it to Supernova. That rakeback % is simply not available to those players. wtf i made sn at nl50 in 2008, i started at nl2 in march and made it in october and i wasnt even playing during summer [?] brag I mean this in reference to the casual player. Obviously if when you put in hours you were putting in 40/hrs a week then probably. The point being that Supernovas are a very small minority of the overall player base on stars. It's obviously not impossible to be a supernova playing .25/.50 but its certainly quite difficult especially if poker isn't your full time job .

To be frank, I don't care at all about the casual players. They pay far less rake than the average grinders, and they are given much less back. A lot of people have worked hard to get SN/SNE and deserve to be rewarded for it. If the casual player wants to pay less rake, get serious and grind more/move up. If they can't beat the rake, that's a problem they have to face because there are a lot of people who have started with nothing and play 1/2+ playing under the same rake structure, with quite possibly a much worse rb program.

On October 15 2010 15:08 vltava wrote: Show nested quote + On October 14 2010 22:14 Carthac wrote: All I know is we domesticate ourselves, and look what happens. You know what they say, in the poker game of life, women are the rake They are the fucking rake.... What the fuck are you talking about? What- what saying?

Its a rounders quote, calm down

According to HEM I paid ~$69 an hr in rake this year. Which comes out to about ~38k or so ;o

and I'm not going busto so the rake structure can't be all that bad.

But really I'd be all for the strike. reducing the amount of rake i'm paying would be quite nice.

Now to actually mobilize enough players to do this would be another story...

On October 15 2010 20:23 Carthac wrote: Show nested quote + On October 15 2010 15:08 vltava wrote:   On October 14 2010 22:14 Carthac wrote: All I know is we domesticate ourselves, and look what happens. You know what they say, in the poker game of life, women are the rake They are the fucking rake.... What the fuck are you talking about? What- what saying? Its a rounders quote, calm down

Fail. The correct response is:

"I, I don't know. There oughta be one."

On October 15 2010 21:16 vltava wrote: Show nested quote + On October 15 2010 20:23 Carthac wrote:   On October 15 2010 15:08 vltava wrote:   On October 14 2010 22:14 Carthac wrote: All I know is we domesticate ourselves, and look what happens. You know what they say, in the poker game of life, women are the rake They are the fucking rake.... What the fuck are you talking about? What- what saying? Its a rounders quote, calm down Fail. The correct response is: "I, I don't know. There oughta be one."

Well I just got completely rolled

But you know what cheers me up when I'm feeling shitty?

rolled up aces over kings?

On October 15 2010 19:34 Bejamin1 wrote: Show nested quote + On October 15 2010 16:41 phexac wrote:   On October 15 2010 16:29 Bejamin1 wrote:   On October 15 2010 15:51 Bigbobm wrote:   On October 15 2010 13:37 YoMeR wrote: ^ true, but a very microscopic % of the player pool are getting that high of a %. the rest are just chumps giving Lee a good laugh while he scoots on towards the bank. (yes i still believe Lee exists somewhere within pokerstars. so sue me) I would definately participate in this kind of strike. But would be hard for me to do so for a long time. I got bills to pay. Yea but those people are the ones paying the most rake, and obviously the most deserving. Even still, almost any serious regular who gives stars a majority of their action will get supernova which is mid 40% rb. While Lee might still be lining his pockets, they are still giving back a shit ton of money to their biggest rake payers. I'd rather have a reward system that encourages casual players to want to reach higher vip levels so they get more bonuses than to effectively give it to them by cutting the rake. There is almost no chance of a player at .25/.5 or lower making it to Supernova. That rakeback % is simply not available to those players. On top of that those players are being raked more in terms of proportion than any other stakes played on Pokerstars. I'd like to know how many winners you think there would be at 1/2 and higher if the rake was 5% of every pot instead of being capped at $3.00. That's what micro players are up against. There is no reason for you to be on the other side of this issue. Even for players at 1/2 or higher the rake is far in excess of what it should be. The rake needs to be reduced significantly. The more we reduce the rake, the more people can be winners, and the softer the games at higher limits will be. That's a simple and obvious truth. Pokerstars treats its player base like lemmings. The VIP rewards programs are designed with that intent. It's the twinky on a stick in front of a treadmill design. If you play day and night or have nothing else to do except grind hands on Pokerstars for 40+ hours a week we'll reward you with a 65% Rakeback on 200k a year you pay in rake going for SNE. We'll profit 70k USD off all your hard work. We'll also laugh our asses off as we profit 100K+ over all the people who go for SNE but fall short. The rake is way too high. I've given it some thought and here is the first change I think we should be shooting for. The rake at HU/NL on Pokerstars is capped at 50 cents no matter what limit you play at. The lowest limit is NL50 - at that rate maximum rake per pot is achieved when 20% of a buy-in is put into the pot. So if all poker was raked in this fashion. NL2 2 cents NL5 5 cents NL10 10 cents NL25 25 cents NL50 50 cents NL100 1 dollar NL200 2 dollars NL400+ 3 dollars This would make the rake considerably fairer for lower limit players and result in more fish or slighter winners working their way up into the bigger games to donate to the big boys. This is not the be all end all goal of reducing rake. I honestly think a system that allows regulars to opt-in on a rake cap and pay a monthly fee to receive 100% rakeback is what eventually needs to happen. This can be done as a rake meter in the cashier page where once it's full for the month all further rake is returned to your account in one payment at the end of the month. This however I think is the starting point. Reduce the unfair impact of rake on the microstakes and even early middle stakes. These players are paying way too much proportionally compared to people who are playing higher. It is unfair taxation of the lower stakes and results in a reduced quality of the games at higher levels because few weak players will ever ascend there. In terms of my personal view I hope that one day if we don't see a monthly rake cap we at least see the maximum rake per pot reduced to something like ten cents. I feel this is an achievable target. None of the major poker sites are going to want to do this. We have to force them to. We have to organize ourselves and wage an everlasting campaign until we get what we want. I expect it to be a long fight, but I also expect the movement to grow as more people join in. It's time to start getting the word out across the internet, facebook, twitter, and every source of social media we've got. The fight is on. With the numbers you are proposing, I feel like you live in the la-la land. Reduce the rake? Ok, let's discuss it; I am sure there are valid points to be made. Maximum rake per pot down to 10 cents? I think you should check out this place called the real world. . I actually don't think 10 cents per pot is unrealistic it all. You seriously think that isn't massively profitable compared to what it costs to deal one hand of poker on virtual felt? I'm 100% certain it costs less than 1 cent to deal a hand of online poker. The fact that people are willing to pay $3.00 doesn't make it right. This isn't about what the poker companies think is a fair price to charge. It's about what the consumer thinks. Do you really think it should cost the players more than 10 cents to be dealt a hand of poker? Would you be willing to pay 10 cents every time you updated the status on your Facebook page? Start putting the cost of the service were being provided into real terms. Then you'll see how ridiculous the charges are. Honestly for all the whining people do about cell phone companies being a huge ripoff in terms of their charges poker companies are 1000x worse and nobody says anything. I do live in the real world. In the real world consumers have a significant voice in most industries. Poker players have been too lazy to find their voice so I'm working on starting a grassroots movement to reduce the rake. If you want to stick your head up your ass and settle for less than poker provided at a much fairer cost to the consumers then go ahead. My first target is to bring the rake at lower stakes proportionally into line with the rake at the nosebleed stakes. Why should the little guys pay 5% a pot when that's clearly not the case at the higher levels? I think the initial numbers I just provided which cap the raked dollars at 20% of a buy-in for every level is a good first target. Eventually I'd like to see regulars have the option to opt-in to a program that allows 100% rakeback after a certain rake fee threshold is reached per month. Right now the rake disproportionately affects the players at the lower levels. The first target is to bring that rake into realistic proportions. That way more lousy players can work their way up to the bigger games and help give players like yourself more money.

It kind of makes sense that the rake is disproportionate based on stakes. They're providing the same service, but to different levels. They have their base rake and then cap it off at higher levels. From the technical side of things it doesn't cost them any extra, but it's better than them charging 5% pot for every level unanimously. Anyway, I still think it's pretty unrealistic that you'll get very far. It's pretty similar to the fees for trading but that doesn't get capped off at high volume. Brokerages make a lot of money. If your style includes making a lot of trades your rake at the end of each month can easily be way more than your profits.

On October 16 2010 01:04 byrnesam wrote: rolled up aces over kings?

Yeah, and check raising stupid tourists, taking huge pots off them

stacks and towers of checks that i cant even see over

playing all night high limit holdem at the Taj

Where the sand turns to gold...

in the game of life....

lets play some cards

The poker room at the Mirage in Vegas...