Cuban whores Mavericks out to online gambling site - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

chumdawg · 04-20-2006, 11:38 PM

I'm not sure I fully understand the constant comparisons in this thread of Pokerstars advertising to beer advertising. I mean, I grasp the concept that both are considered by some "vices." But the degrees can, and definitely do, vary.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Let's say you like to drink. You like to drink a LOT. And by one avenue or another, you recognize that you have a drinking problem. You recognize that you can't control yourself in this area. You need help.

You live in a small town, and there is only one place you can go to buy booze. So one sober afternoon, probably after a morning spent with a hellacious hangover, you go said store and say: "I have a drinking problem. I drink far more than I should, and it causes me a lot of problems in my life. Please do not, EVER, sell me more than one six-pack of beer in a single day. I don't care if I beg and plead you, don't sell it to me. Please help me with my problem, because I cannot help myself."

What do you expect the store owner might say? He's probably going to laugh you away. Free country, and all that. If he even stops to think about it, he is probably going to reason that there is only so much harm you can do to yourself in one day, anyway, since you'll likely pass out before you can threaten your body's ability to live another day.

Now let's say that you have the other vice, that of gambling at cards. And similarly, you can't control the vice. When you lose, you just want to buy in again. You keep thinking that you can win your losses back, that it was just dumb luck that contrived against you. Or you took your loss personally, and your machismo demands that you find revenge.

After one particularly bad session, in which you emptied your entire bank account and even spent your rent money, you determine that you have a problem. You go to the casino and request that whatever happens, no matter how hard you beg, they NEVER let you spend more than $200 in a single day.

Unlike the beer seller, they won't laugh you away. Party Poker, the leader in online poker, actively promotes their "daily limit" program. Every time you make a deposit, they offer it to you.

Now why would the beer store let you buy as much beer as you wanted, even if you requested otherwise, while the online poker store actively encourages you set a daily limit on yourself?

Two reasons. One, you can do a lot more harm to yourself playing poker than you can drinking beer, in that you can get yourself broke in one day of play. (Or get yourself deeply in debt, since in many cases you can play with your credit card, in borrowed funds.)

But that's really not the true reason. In fact, when it comes to their motive it's not a reason at all. The real reason is that they want you to keep losing your money to them. They want to bleed you slowly. They want as much of your hard-earned money as they can possibly get--capitalism being what it is, and all--and to maximize it they don't need you losing large sums in a hurry. They need you to steadily bleed money to them over an extended period. Otherwise they can't survive.

It's a known stat--or at least, very widely believed to be true--that well over 90% of online poker players lose money doing so. Now, in itself that is not a bad thing. Fully 100% of people who attend a Mavericks game "lose money" while doing so, if we are talking about paying for entertainment. But you severely underestimate the number of people who lose lots of money, way more than they can afford, playing poker, if you think that online gambling is just another form of entertainment.

Lots of people drink, though, without much if any damage to themselves. Again, I think the comparison is, at best, weak.

orangedays · 04-20-2006, 11:43 PM

Along chum's point, one thing I've noticed is that companies like Harrah's, PokerStars.com, etc. have made significant efforts to make it clear that gambling should be a form of entertainment - nothing more.

During the World Series of Poker broadcasts on ESPN, Gary Loveman (CEO of Harrah's Entertainment) comes on almost every commercial break to encourage viewers to 'gamble with care' and 'never bet more than you can afford lose'.

Objectively - I find this admirable. I won't go into what the ethical businessman (oxymoron?) inside of me thinks though.

Murphy3 · 04-20-2006, 11:57 PM

Yes, they want it to be a form of entertaiment.... But the form of entertainment that they are sincerely most worried about is bleeding you dry so that they can be entertained nailing drunken 18 year old high school seniors and random whores that whore around their establishments...
That's the entertainment that they're worried about. They don't want you just entertained. They want your adrenaline going...They want you to feel the highs of winning just a little money so that you will gamble your way to poverty...slowly. That is their ultimate goal. They want your 18 year old daughters to leave you because you can no longer afford to put food on the table. They have to replenish their brothels with new 18 year olds just about as often as you receive another paycheck that will be slowly siphoned away by the whore loving casino establishments.

chumdawg · 04-21-2006, 12:11 AM

Another thing that should be pointed out--though I hesitate to do so because there may have been recent changes I am unaware of that invalidate everything I am about to say, in which case please pardon me--is that all forms of promotion for online poker venues are a certain sort of get-around.

Here's how I understand the history of it all. And again, my apologies if my knowledge is outdated.

Poker cardrooms--this is not even to mention casinos, only poker cardrooms--are legal in some places and illegal in most. (The reason they are illegal is that the house takes a rake from every hand played, but for the purposes of our discussion that is neither here nor there.) Getting to those legal places--in this case we are talking about international venues--by means of the internet is taken as a violation of the Wire Act, I think it's called, from the 1960's. 1961, I think it was. Basically, the letter of the law made it illegal to access a "legal" casino by means of interstate communication. Granted, this is all pretty shady because the law was written way before things like online poker came to be, but technically the law still holds. Surely it will be tested at some point in time, but I don't expect it to become technically legal when that happens.

Online poker rooms are immune to the laws of the United States because they do not operate in the United States. They operate in countries where it is legal to do so. Of course there are no laws preventing an American from traveling to Barbados and playing in the casinos there, just as there are no laws preventing an American from traveling to Las Vegas and gambling there (though it should be noted that in both cases the American is still obligated to pay taxes on income earned from gambling winnings). But the Wire Act serves to make it illegal to access those otherwise legal places by means of interstate communication.

When this first became an issue in terms of promotion, big guys like Google and Yahoo! dropped their poker advertisements. They did so because otherwise they would have been liable for "aiding and abetting" the breaking of a law.

How did the poker rooms respond? They created a loophole. They established "play money" sites. You might hear these referred to as "poker schools." You can register at Party Poker today and play for fun, if that is fun to you--or for "learning," though it's definitely the case that play money games aren't any sort of training ground at all for real money games--right now, and not gamble a penny at it.

So that's legal, in every way.

And THOSE are the sites that online poker rooms are advertising.

Did you know that? If you didn't, rest assured that you are in no way the only one. In fact, if you thought otherwise you might well be the only one. You don't turn $160 into $5MM by playing on the play-money site.

No, everyone knows that the ads are really for the real-money sites (PartyPoker.net, PartyPoker.com, what's the difference?). But not everyone knows that ads for those real-money sites are illegal.

Perhaps one day they will be legal, but not today. Not today, while Mark Cuban is using the vast audience of the Dallas Mavericks to help promote the brand. It may technically be legal by means of the workaround, but it's certainly not ethical.

orangedays · 04-21-2006, 12:25 AM

hit the button

EricaLubarsky · 04-21-2006, 12:28 AM

my friend's fiancee plays online poker-- he puts in like 5 bucks and plays in tournaments. I think his net for 5 months of play is like +180 or something.

orangedays · 04-21-2006, 12:50 AM

Trivia:

In 2003, Chris Moneymaker turned a $39 PokerStars World Series of Poker satellite entry into a ticket to the WSOP, worth $10,000.

Moneymaker went on to win the WSOP - along with a US$2.5 million.

39 bucks to 2.5 million. Not too shabby.

chumdawg · 04-21-2006, 12:59 AM

Trivia: Moneymaker has since lost it all.

FreshJive · 04-21-2006, 07:11 AM

Chum, a person can drink himself to death in a night. They can also die while driving drunk, or kill someone else in a barfight, or overdose on a drug they normally wouldn't try, or any number things they wouldn't normally do sober that would be just as destructive as losing all your money in a night.

90% of internet players may be losers, but that says nothing about how many of those people are problem gamblers, and really provides no useful metric when comparing the destructiveness of alcohol vs poker. In fact, I would guess that alcohol is a bigger culprit in people gambling the rent away than the game itself.

aexchange · 04-21-2006, 07:28 AM

this thread is really getting laughable.

i find it silly that people think online poker sites are here to bleed people dry. thats been a common misperception for years that has somehow perpetuated itself to this day.

online poker sites have no interest in bleeding you dry. you are not playing against the house. you are playing against human opponents. if you want to consider the evil of drinking v. the evil of playing poker, give me poker any day. how many times have we heard stories about people getting into a drunken driving accident?

how many times have you heard stories about a poker player causing an accident on the highway with multiple fatalities? i think the problem with associating poker with any negative conotations is that there really are some degenerates out there who like the thrill of gambling. just like there are degenerates out there who loves getting drunk. both have problems.

madape · 04-21-2006, 07:32 AM

aexchange, I'm sorry. I love youl. But that was one of the worst posts I've ever read.

aexchange · 04-21-2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Trivia: Moneymaker has since lost it all.

dont think thats the case. hes a terrible player, but hes had a couple of decent tournament wins since the WSOP and most of his entries and expenses are paid by poker stars.

yes, hes a terrible lucksack fish. but i dont think hes broke.

funny story, webber kang who finished 4th in the 1500 or 2500 NL event as this past years WSOP, is now broke. and it wasnt because of poker. he took home roughly $180k and then i believe had another $120k payday from a 1st place finish at a bellagio tournament.

well he's totally broke. and its not because of poker. it's because he's a degenerate gambler who lost all his money on sports betting.

aexchange · 04-21-2006, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madape

aexchange, I'm sorry. I love youl. But that was one of the worst posts I've ever read.

i love you too pal.

let's go grab a beer at a mavs game some time.

jthig32 · 04-21-2006, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Another thing that should be pointed out--though I hesitate to do so because there may have been recent changes I am unaware of that invalidate everything I am about to say, in which case please pardon me--is that all forms of promotion for online poker venues are a certain sort of get-around.

Here's how I understand the history of it all. And again, my apologies if my knowledge is outdated.

Poker cardrooms--this is not even to mention casinos, only poker cardrooms--are legal in some places and illegal in most. (The reason they are illegal is that the house takes a rake from every hand played, but for the purposes of our discussion that is neither here nor there.) Getting to those legal places--in this case we are talking about international venues--by means of the internet is taken as a violation of the Wire Act, I think it's called, from the 1960's. 1961, I think it was. Basically, the letter of the law made it illegal to access a "legal" casino by means of interstate communication. Granted, this is all pretty shady because the law was written way before things like online poker came to be, but technically the law still holds. Surely it will be tested at some point in time, but I don't expect it to become technically legal when that happens.

Online poker rooms are immune to the laws of the United States because they do not operate in the United States. They operate in countries where it is legal to do so. Of course there are no laws preventing an American from traveling to Barbados and playing in the casinos there, just as there are no laws preventing an American from traveling to Las Vegas and gambling there (though it should be noted that in both cases the American is still obligated to pay taxes on income earned from gambling winnings). But the Wire Act serves to make it illegal to access those otherwise legal places by means of interstate communication.

When this first became an issue in terms of promotion, big guys like Google and Yahoo! dropped their poker advertisements. They did so because otherwise they would have been liable for "aiding and abetting" the breaking of a law.

How did the poker rooms respond? They created a loophole. They established "play money" sites. You might hear these referred to as "poker schools." You can register at Party Poker today and play for fun, if that is fun to you--or for "learning," though it's definitely the case that play money games aren't any sort of training ground at all for real money games--right now, and not gamble a penny at it.

So that's legal, in every way.

And THOSE are the sites that online poker rooms are advertising.

Did you know that? If you didn't, rest assured that you are in no way the only one. In fact, if you thought otherwise you might well be the only one. You don't turn $160 into $5MM by playing on the play-money site.

No, everyone knows that the ads are really for the real-money sites (PartyPoker.net, PartyPoker.com, what's the difference?). But not everyone knows that ads for those real-money sites are illegal.

Perhaps one day they will be legal, but not today. Not today, while Mark Cuban is using the vast audience of the Dallas Mavericks to help promote the brand. It may technically be legal by means of the workaround, but it's certainly not ethical.

This was true at one point, but don't we now see tv ads for Pokerstars.COM?

jthig32 · 04-21-2006, 08:04 AM

And I agree with Aex. I still don't get it. An amazing moral high ground is being drawn against poker of all things.

This thread disappoints me thoroughly.

jthig32 · 04-21-2006, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aexchange

dont think thats the case. hes a terrible player, but hes had a couple of decent tournament wins since the WSOP and most of his entries and expenses are paid by poker stars.

yes, hes a terrible lucksack fish. but i dont think hes broke.

funny story, webber kang who finished 4th in the 1500 or 2500 NL event as this past years WSOP, is now broke. and it wasnt because of poker. he took home roughly $180k and then i believe had another $120k payday from a 1st place finish at a bellagio tournament.

well he's totally broke. and its not because of poker. it's because he's a degenerate gambler who lost all his money on sports betting.

Yeah, he's certainly not broke. Didn't he win a WPT title a couple years ago? I think he did. I doubt he's paid more than one or two entry fees since he won the big one. Main Event winners travel the world and play tournies for free for the year after they win.

Wiley_e · 04-21-2006, 08:57 AM

I read the thread only halfway through, so please do forgive me if i'm stating views that have already been expressed.
We do have a somewhat similar discussion going on right now over here in Germany as well. The question here is whether to open up the betting market to anybody who's prepared to enter the business, or to keep the status quo which is that offering bets is allowed only for the state.
We of course do have lotteries and also some sports betting which however is heavily restricted (the maximum amout per bet is quite low). There are quite a few trials going on - even on european level - to clarify the legal situation. Until then opening betting offices is allowed for everyone (which started a few years ago when the European commission stated that it was not fair to not have an open betting/lottery market - this European idea gets out of hand more and more... but that's just my opinion and absolutely off topic).

Reality now is that the folks hanging around those places every day already cause lots of problems. If you are running a "normal" shop in the neighbourhood of such a betting office you're in serious trouble. Legally there is nothing that can be done about it.

In general in my opinion gambling should not be banned - i don't see the point in keeping the double-moral solutions everywhere - but it has to be controlled quite restrictively!
No betting for underaged, no advertising for gambling in places/events where kids normally go.
Completely forbidding gambling forces underground gambling which creates problems potentially far more dangerous.

Translated to the case at hand i would put it like this: advertising for a Poker site by using
the Mavs'Logo and such: generally ok for me, but not everywhere! Advertising for the gambling site at Mavs games or on the Mavs homepage: No!

(The same goes for me for smoking and drinking. No cigarettes or alcohol whatsoever for underaged and no advertising on TV/cinemas/sporting events etc. However, if you're old enough you're responsible for yourself!)

sixeightmkw · 04-21-2006, 09:08 AM

I guess the thing that people either don't get or want to forget is the fact that pokerstars.com, partypoker.om, you name it, it has been advertised, and advertised quite heavily on tv over the past 5 years. And it has really been advertised on MAvericks games on TV. Like I have said all along, to me, IMO< this is the same as advertising beer in the AAC.
And me personally, I am not saying they need to open up poker and betting to the public and let them run with it. That would be terrible. But I do think they need to look at the laws in affect right now, mabey rewrite some of them, bring some new laws in.

Murphy3 · 04-21-2006, 09:58 AM

Here's the problem sixeight. Your opinion doesn't count as much as mine...

sixeightmkw · 04-21-2006, 09:59 AM

hahaa, I have tired head now. no more posting on this subject for me.

sike · 04-21-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Trivia: Moneymaker has since lost it all.

how?...other than by being a totally average player I mean...

sike · 04-21-2006, 10:02 AM

got no problem with it...if, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, and every major cable channel can advertise without legal problems...I don't see any big thang with the Mavs doing it.....

Murphy3 · 04-21-2006, 10:06 AM

It's just eating away at our moral fiber....one whorish gambling commercial at a time. The next thing you know, Sike will be main-lining heroine while watching Doc and the Baylor baseball team skin an innocent cat while making man love because they are so excited about the idea of Baylor women posing nude for Playboy.

sike · 04-21-2006, 10:14 AM

I call that last Saturday Night.

Rhylan · 04-21-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Trivia: Moneymaker has since lost it all.

But if that had been me instead of Moneymaker, my house would be paid off, I would have bought land, mutual funds, used the leverage to make my job more cushy, and treated you all to a night in a box at a Mavs game.

Poker doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Drbio · 04-21-2006, 11:17 AM

Two important things I learned fromthis thread.
1. murph has a cat fetish
2. Rhylan is a badass.

u2sarajevo · 04-21-2006, 11:18 AM

Is it just me? Or does that pokerstars WSOP champ have a made-up last name?

chumdawg · 04-21-2006, 11:32 AM

Going All In for Online Poker
Internet gambling may be illegal in the United States, but the sites are minting money, and investors want some action.

By Brad Stone
Newsweek

Aug. 15, 2005 issue - Jason Kim was on a roll. One night last month, the 33-year-old policy analyst for the U.S. Department of Commerce won $60 in just 15 minutes of virtual, low-stakes Texas hold 'em on the popular online gambling site PartyPoker.com. Playing from his home PC against a half dozen strangers from around the world, Kim won three hands with a pocket pair of aces, a two pair of kings and nines and, finally, by turning a full house from what poker pros disdainfully call "the hammer"—a seven and two of different suits. But when he's not sitting at his computer these days, Kim has a different moneymaking scheme on his mind: betting on the poker sites, instead of at them. Earlier this year he invested in the stock of Internet bank Neteller, which allows players to gamble online with real dollars, and recently he began studying the stock of PartyGaming, the parent company of PartyPoker."Everyone is going to be playing online in a couple of years," he says. "I want to get in before the gold rush really starts."

He may already be too late. Thanks to the never-ending broadcasts of celebrity and professional poker tournaments, poker is now the third most-watched televised sport on cable TV—behind only car racing and football. Business in the roughly 300 major virtual poker halls of the Net is booming, and in late June, five-year-old PartyGaming, based on the tiny European peninsula of Gibraltar, was among the first to take a crucial step for any ambitious dot-com: it went public on the London Stock Exchange, where its stock has since shot up 40 percent. Other poker dot-coms are now lining up to follow suit and big American investment funds are throwing in their chips and investing. Only the U.S. casino giants are left on the sidelines, banned from the action because of one remarkable fact: despite its success, online poker is technically illegal in America, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Still, as Web poker booms, the Feds aren't doing much to stifle the party. "Everybody is comfortable that the U.S. government is not going to take any enforcement action," says Las Vegas lawyer Anthony Cabot.

The poker Web sites evade Uncle Sam with a fashionable modern-business strategy—offshoring. They set up their homes in such places as Gibraltar or the U.K. protectorate the Isle of Man, where they are regulated, lightly taxed and free to ride the seemingly unstoppable wave of poker popularity. Every day, 1.8 million players—more than 70 percent from the United States—throw their chips into the virtual pots of the Internet, according to tracking firm PokerPulse.com. Research firm Christiansen Capital Advisors says online-poker revenues have grown from $82.7 million in 2001 to $2.4 billion today—and projects the amount to double once again by 2005. The PartyGaming IPO in June offered a peek into the fortunes being amassed by the online poker start-ups. Its prospectus revealed that the company's profits more than tripled to $349 million in the last year, and it had virtually no debt. While concern over legal issues initially drove the IPO price down, the offering was three times oversubscribed, despite being off-limits to U.S. investors. "This isn't like the dot-com opportunities of the past," says Nigel Parson, a research analyst at Williams de Broe in London. "This spews out cash like you've never seen."

The popularity and success of online poker hasn't changed any minds in Washington. The federal government argues that Internet gambling violates three federal antigambling laws, including the 1961 Wire Act. A Justice Department official, who was able to speak frankly with NEWSWEEK on the condition his name not be used, noted that while Internet gambling is against U.S. law, prosecutors have greater priorities, such as combating terrorism and drugs. "We give what resources we can to it, but it's hard to keep up with," he says.

That makes playing or hosting poker games on the Web a little like going a few miles over the highway speed limit. It's technically illegal, but everyone does it and you probably won't get in trouble. Last month at the World Series of Poker in Las Vegas, nearly two thirds of the 5,619 players qualified in online competitions. Executives of the offshore poker sites, many of whom were in town for the tournament, seemed untroubled by any potential penalties for their illicit vocation. Banners for their Web sites covered the walls and halls of Harrah's Rio casino, where the competition was held. Similarly, online poker ads have returned to magazines, TV and the Internet, even though the Justice Department asked media companies in 2003 to stop taking them. The poker dot-coms have devised a simple workaround: they advertise their "educational" dot-net sites (such as PartyPoker.net), where players use imaginary money, then leave it to their customers to find the real wagering. This year, two offshore poker sites, Full Tilt Poker and UltimateBet, have even used their dot-net affiliates to sponsor entire shows on Fox Sports.

Even Wall Street can't stand being left out of this high-stakes game. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are reportedly working on the forthcoming IPO in England of Betfair, which helps gamblers place wagers against each other on everything from sports to politics (Betfair does not currently take wagers from U.S. citizens). Big investment funds are also snapping up shares of the Web gambling companies. Fidelity, Goldman Sachs and Blue Ridge Capital—all American firms—are three of the top five institutional investors in the U.K.-based sports-wagering site Sportingbet.com, which trades on the London exchange.

The only players left without a seat at the green velvet table are American companies like the big casinos, and they're frustrated by missing out on the fat stakes. Two years ago, MGM launched a poker site from the Isle of Man that catered only to non-U.S. players. It gave up after two months because customers didn't care to go through the arduous process to prove they didn't live in the United States. Steve Lipscomb of the World Poker Tour, who kick-started the poker craze with a TV show on the Travel Channel, is now trying to make that same everywhere-but-America strategy work with his new poker site. "It's the most inequitable circumstance you can imagine," he says. "Only companies that pay any attention to the regulatory authorities in the U.S. cannot participate in this business."

Everyone else plans to keep pursuing the tempting pot. The online casinos talk about expanding their service onto mobile phones and interactive television. Many experts also predict consolidation in the industry, as firms like PartyPoker, flush with IPO cash, look to gobble up rivals. Meanwhile, Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl plans to reintroduce legislation this fall to explicitly ban online gambling—though versions of his bill have failed to make it through Congress for the last eight years. (His representative declined to give details of the bill, but confirmed it was forthcoming.)

For gamblers like Jason Kim, it hardly matters. Regardless of U.S. policy, there are 80,000 players on PartyPoker.com every night and, he notes with glee, "there are lots of bad players willing to lose their money to good players." As long as that's true—and as long as the primal and sometimes destructive passion for gambling beats strong in the human heart—it would be unwise to place a bet against online poker.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8852122/site/newsweek/

orangedays · 04-21-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhylan

But if that had been me instead of Moneymaker, my house would be paid off, I would have bought land, mutual funds, used the leverage to make my job more cushy, and treated you all to a night in a box at a Mavs game.

Mutual funds are no good

jthig32 · 04-21-2006, 11:47 AM

I like how Chum's article compared it to speeding.

Perhaps we can agree that partnering with Pokerstars is a bit like partnering with an electronics company that makes Radar Detectors.

Murphy3 · 04-21-2006, 01:47 PM

No, we can't agree with that. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

jthig32 · 04-21-2006, 02:09 PM

It makes more sense than your tongue-in-cheek comparison above.

I was half joking, but seriously, that's how I see this. Online poker is technically illegal. So online poker sites are aiding you in committing an illegal act.

Speeding is technically illegal. I would even argue that speeding is far more dangerous than playing poker. Well, companies that make Raydar Detector are aiding in comitting an illegal and often dangerous act.

Makes sense to me.

Murphy3 · 04-21-2006, 03:55 PM

Well, if you and the whores can live with it, so be it.

dude1394 · 04-21-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Well, if you and the whores can live with it, so be it.

Is that you Corby?

blahblehblah · 04-21-2006, 05:41 PM

OMG! online poker is EVIL! EVIL I TELL YOU! ITS bleeding everyone who plays it DRY! ITs worst than DRUGS, ITS WORST than Alchohol, Its the worst thing EVA! Those who thinks its ok ARE WHOREES!!!
GOD save us and the mavericks from its evil!

Thespiralgoeson · 04-22-2006, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blahblehblah

OMG! online poker is EVIL! EVIL I TELL YOU! ITS bleeding everyone who plays it DRY! ITs worst than DRUGS, ITS WORST than Alchohol, Its the worst thing EVA! Those who thinks its ok ARE WHOREES!!!
GOD save us and the mavericks from its evil!

I'm confused. I understand your post was entirely tongue-in-cheek, but I'm confused about your use of the word "worst." Is that merely part of the sarcasm of the whole thing in that you intentionally misused the word, or is that how you really think it's used? I'm not calling you dumb, or anything like that. I'm just curious.

orangedays · 04-23-2006, 05:38 PM

Interestingly enough, it would appear that the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LV's tourism bureau) is a major NBA sponsor for the playoffs (and if I'm not mistaken, they were a sponsor throughout the regular season as well). What's the take on this relative to the PokerStars.com discussion, taking into consideration the fact that the Vegas ads spout not-so-family-friendly phrases such as, "What happens here, stays here."?

Here is an interesting article from USAToday on the ads.

MavsX · 04-23-2006, 05:49 PM

ugh....i just lost 100 bucks on pokerstars.com

blahblehblah · 04-24-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

I'm confused. I understand your post was entirely tongue-in-cheek, but I'm confused about your use of the word "worst." Is that merely part of the sarcasm of the whole thing in that you intentionally misused the word, or is that how you really think it's used? I'm not calling you dumb, or anything like that. I'm just curious.

Wow are you really that confused? You cant possibly understand how I could have used the word "worst" in my post? You seem to fully grasp the "tongu-in-cheek" part but the idea that perhaps I mistyped "worst" rather than "worse" never crossed your mind? Were you confused that I typed EVA instead of ever? Are you always suprised by seemingly obvious typos or inadvertant misuse of words in posts here on this site? Im not calling you dumbo, or anything like that, I'm just curious.

oops I accidently typed dumbo, hoped it didnt confused you.

orangedays · 04-24-2006, 09:31 PM

Whoa fellas, save it for the Grizzlies.