pgrocard

i played a very similar hand one other time, with 99 in the big blind. i checked my option, and the flop came out T98, 2 suited i believe. Small blind led out, I raised a moderate amount, and another player went all-in for about 90 dollars more. The small blind called, and after thinking for a bit, I folded, thinking that the person who went all-in had a straight, I was beat, and didn't have odds to make a full house. As it turned out, I was right on both counts; the player who pushed all-in had 76, and the small blind had T-8, leaving me with only 3 outs to pair the board and win. As it h

So I was playing in my usual $100 max buy-in NL cash game online tonight, and had the following decision to make. I picked up JJ in middle position, raised to $3.5 (blinds at .50-1), a standard raise. A player in late position reraised it t0 $10, it was folded around to me, and I call. At these tables it's rare that a player will reraise like that with anything other than AA or KK. Thinking I had a very good read on my opponent's hand, I called the bet. Flop comes out Q-J-T rainbow, giving me second set. I lead out for about half the pot, and the opponent in late position pushes all-in f

The idea that we seem to be getting at is that parents of minors and the sites themselves should share responsibility in keeping children from gambling. It is deplorable that some sites have no protections to keep minors away, when there is plenty of money to be made just by taking it legally (or quasi-legally, in the case of Americans).

BeanGW wrote: That doesn't work at all logically. The reason online gambling is different is that it takes place in the home. This is why parents are responsible as well as the institutions. Because the transactions occur online, only someone in the same place can see the person making the transaction, i.e., the parents of the minor in question. Sites should do everything reasonable to prevent minors from playing. Parents should do the same. Saying parents should take action where their children are concerned in online gambling is like saying that they should take responsibility to sto

Apologies about my Neteller mistake, it is based in the UK, not Canada, though it does have an office there. The big plus side of using it is that it's a publicly traded company (good for trust and security), and it isn't just used for gambling--it's little different than Paypal. So trying to prevent money flows to Neteller wouldn't make much sense, it's an absolutely legitamite business with only nebulous ties to gambling online.As for Leslie Stahl focusing part of the segment on kids abusing gambling, I have no problem with it. Underage people using other's money to gamble (and nearly alwa

Yes, lots of free advertising for the industry, and good pub for Paradise...The arguments by the Paradise Poker owner make good sense, much more than the Senator trying to choke off funding. I already use Neteller, based in Canada and a perfect laundering tool. The industy will get bigger, and more regulation can only help.

I've tried a few sites--UB, Pacific, and Paradise, and Paradise poker is my fav so far. The bonuses are decent but not amazing, i just think the software is very straightforward and clean. Lots of players, lots of action, a bunch of good fish. Not as many big limit games as other sites, but SNGs taking off all the time. Just my 2 cents though.