Panorama programme on Online Poker

delanec8

Anyone watching this? Only just catching the end of it.

Will this be repeated at any stage?

rag2gar

you can watch it online www.bbc.co.uk/panorama

rag2gar

its also repeated on thurs night/fri morn at 01.15

delanec8

Cheers

Crispsandwich

the presenter doesn't do us much of a favour donking off his cash and hammering through stakes...

Ste05

That was rather annoying, has that "Pro" never heard of BR management, FFS. I wouldn't mind but I had a feeling that would happen, if you notice at the start, the "Pro" told the presenter (on a flushing Qxx board with QJ) that he should check because "we have the best hand and we want him to pay us off"!!!!

phantom_lord

lol. What a twat.

carfax

Ste05 wrote:

That was rather annoying, has that "Pro" never heard of BR management, FFS. I wouldn't mind but I had a feeling that would happen, if you notice at the start, the "Pro" told the presenter (on a flushing Qxx board with QJ) that he should check because "we have the best hand and we want him to pay us off"!!!!

The board was Q-3-3 and we didn't see the play pre-flop. Also the 'pro' was right and I thought he was a pretty good player. He only did the bankroll in because the presenter wanted him to....To prove his "point???"

I'm just after posting my feelings on the programme in a different thread, d'oh.

5starpool

I saw 2 minutes of this and it made too angry to continue watching it.

Ste05

carfax wrote:

The board was Q-3-3 and we didn't see the play pre-flop. Also the 'pro' was right and I thought he was a pretty good player. He only did the bankroll in because the presenter wanted him to....To prove his "point???"

I'm just after posting my feelings on the programme in a different thread, d'oh.

ahh must have seen it wrong, I was watching it on a tiny screen on the link above.

And it gave me a kinda blinkered view of him from then on, they probably heavily edited everything he said to make their "point". By basically not showing anything he said, if only they gave him, even 10% as much air time as they gave that woman with the gambling addiction, (who I'm sure is the poster child for the Anti-gambling lobby in the UK) and who's problem had nothing whatsoever to do with Poker :mad: Ah well, I suppose it's impossible to seperate Poker from gambling so...

If only they just left the guy alone for the month, and then Poker might be slightly seperated from sports betting, roulette, etc. and maybe they could have spoken more about the skill aspect of Poker or maybe even mentioned responsible gambling too. Ah well, that wouldn't make much of a news story, so C'est la vie and all that.

ocallagh

the show is ridiculous.

it compares poker to horse racing.

we all know there's much more luck involved with poker.

idiots.

luckyvegas7

ocallagh wrote:

the show is ridiculous.

it compares poker to horse racing.

we all know there's much more luck involved with poker.

idiots.

horses love the odd gamble on a sunday.

luckylucky

Yeah I watched it, a few thoughts on it...

I think that woman who blew half a million of her employers money should have been sent to jail, typical of the BS sentences here in the UK... stopping myself from going on a rant. While I sympathise with someone who gets themselves in such a hole and I can understand it to some degree, she still committed a serious crime and should have at least got a few months. It's also bad for our game, as it doesn't exactly endear online gambling and hence poker to the powerful business community.

I actually agree that online Poker can be addictive. I'm fortunate that I have made money from the game, but even so I have moments of self doubt whether it's a healthy career, and if I was a losing player, though I think I could pack the game in it would be a wrench. Still, on the flip side, I just think of some of the boring jobs I've had before and playing poker wins hands down.

I realise my comment about the addictive side of the game might not be appreciated here, but maybe it is something we should be concerned about, for one thing there is the human suffering side of it but even from a purely selfish point of view, the less problem gamblers out there, the less flak our game will get.

Anybody got any ideas on making the online poker environment a safer environment for problem gamblers?
Do you think the online gaming companies have a responsibility, or is it just democracy in motion and people should regulate themselves?

El Stuntman

things that can be addictive and lead to financial/physical/spiritual/emotional ruin:

shopping
heroin
alcohol
poker
religion
chocolate
sex
etc etc etc

you cannot regulate all of these things and personally I don't think you should even try. programmes like this are just silly as they sensationalise the extremes....

rag2gar

I think betting on horses and playing poker are very inter-twined and both can be dangerous with the wrong approach, chasing losses is a real occurance in both and that can be extremely dangerous

5starpool

rag2gar wrote:

I think betting on horses and playing poker are very inter-twined and both can be dangerous with the wrong approach, chasing losses is a real occurance in both and that can be extremely dangerous

Thay are both activities that you can win and lose money at. That is about all they have in commen IMO. I know there are a good few poker players who are gamblers who like a flutter on the horses, but there are a lot of poker players who know nothing and care less about horse racing too.

ocallagh

rag2gar wrote:

I think betting on horses and playing poker are very inter-twined and both can be dangerous with the wrong approach, chasing losses is a real occurance in both and that can be extremely dangerous

I disagree.. I wouldn't mind if they'd compared poker to dealing in shares, commodities, indices, most types of investment etc... but IMO horse racing is unique in that you cannot win in the long run no matter how good you are...

rag2gar

ocallagh wrote:

I disagree.. I wouldn't mind if they'd compared poker to dealing in shares, commodities, indices, most types of investment etc... but IMO horse racing is unique in that you cannot win in the long run no matter how good you are...

Try telling JP McManus that!!

I just think they're are players out there playing poker who are gamblers (myself included) and i could see how somebody could lose serioous money playing poker with that approach. i would hate to see somebody i know losing thousands of pounds

ArmaniJeanss

ocallagh wrote:

but IMO horse racing is unique in that you cannot win in the long run no matter how good you are...

Totally disagree, horse racing is very similar to poker in that a small % of people are smart enough and dedicated enough to make consistent profits from it.

phantom_lord

what do you think my dad does all day...

There's money to be made for a small % of people.

Ste05

ocallagh wrote:

I disagree.. I wouldn't mind if they'd compared poker to dealing in shares, commodities, indices, most types of investment etc... but IMO horse racing is unique in that you cannot win in the long run no matter how good you are...

I would also rather that comparison, and I'd have the same view about horse racing as I would consider it closer to the true case, (although because I know a little about that market I would consider myself more informed, whereas know 0 about horse racing), however I do think that with enough dedication and study you can locate +EV horse racing bets. I certainly couldn't be bothered, but I'd say the lads that know their chit, would view horse racing the same way we view Poker, but I'd say the % of long term winning bettors is far smaller than in Poker. Alternatively I could be talking through my arse, because I'm certainly the worst Horse picker in the Northern Hemisphere. (It's all rigged and luck based anyway :rolleyes: - sound familiar, he, he??)

robinlacey

this program pissed me off beyond belief...

my main problem was with the idiot presenter's idea of taking his savings and giving them to some online player,encouraging him to move up the stakes with it it and then wait till he started losing to make his point...

they made it look like everyone playing the 1k and 2k buyin games is buying in for all their money every time they play,which they could lose at any moment....

how difficult would it be to mention that most players at these stakes keep at least 30-50 buyins for the game,rather than 1-2 which is what the program suggested...

they also implied that there were thousands of high stakes games with people losing thousands all the time,rather than thousands of games,of which less than 5% were high stakes,and most are for tiny amounts of money...

some mention of how the thousands of micro stakes games feed into the small stakes,which feed into medium stakes,etc,would have given a bit of perspective,and saved people from thinking that everyone playing poker online was buying in for their last thousand dollars each time they played...

those are the only problems i can remember off hand,but i know there were loads more things that were just ridiculous,the program was sloppy and riddled with inaccuracies,fallacies, and outrageous presumptions and implications,and was completely lacking any perspective,all of which made it a particularly dishonest piece of television,especially for a program which as far as i know has a good repution...

kincsem

ocallagh wrote:

I disagree.. I wouldn't mind if they'd compared poker to dealing in shares, commodities, indices, most types of investment etc... but IMO horse racing is unique in that you cannot win in the long run no matter how good you are...

Horse racing is beatable, but not for pin stickers.

Kincsem with Paddy Power 2006 .... lost €330; won €5900 ..... the GGs

kincsem

I tried to figure out what angle that woman had that separated her from the crowd. She just gave the cash to the bookies. She knew nothing about horseracing. Good punters ignore tips / information, and pass up dozens of opportunities.

The young poker player was ok, but the presenter was pissed off because the lad ran his £2000 up to £4400. That wasn't in the script.

a147pro

robinlacey wrote:

this program pissed me off beyond belief...

my main problem was with the idiot presenter's idea of taking his savings and giving them to some online player,encouraging him to move up the stakes with it it and then wait till he started losing to make his point...

they made it look like everyone playing the 1k and 2k buyin games is buying in for all their money every time they play,which they could lose at any moment....

how difficult would it be to mention that most players at these stakes keep at least 30-50 buyins for the game,rather than 1-2 which is what the program suggested...

they also implied that there were thousands of high stakes games with people losing thousands all the time,rather than thousands of games,of which less than 5% were high stakes,and most are for tiny amounts of money...

some mention of how the thousands of micro stakes games feed into the small stakes,which feed into medium stakes,etc,would have given a bit of perspective,and saved people from thinking that everyone playing poker online was buying in for their last thousand dollars each time they played...

those are the only problems i can remember off hand,but i know there were loads more things that were just ridiculous,the program was sloppy and riddled with inaccuracies,fallacies, and outrageous presumptions and implications,and was completely lacking any perspective,all of which made it a particularly dishonest piece of television,especially for a program which as far as i know has a good repution...

This is unfair.

As far as I gathered the premise of the programme was that perhaps it is not a good idea for the UK to be encouraging gambling by introducing the gambling act. It wasn't an analysis of how to play poker, nor did it purport to be. Its focus was on how the US had recently approached the issue and how the UK were coming at it from a different, and perhaps worrying tack.

robinlacey

a147pro wrote:

This is unfair.

As far as I gathered the premise of the programme was that perhaps it is not a good idea for the UK to be encouraging gambling by introducing the gambling act. It wasn't an analysis of how to play poker, nor did it purport to be. Its focus was on how the US had recently approached the issue and how the UK were coming at it from a different, and perhaps worrying tack.

i don't think this in any way invalidates my point...

i have no problem with the program examining whether online gambling should be a cause of concern for britain,regardless of what conclusion they come to...

(needless to say i am of the opinion that regulation is far far better than prohibition,whether it be to do with drugs,gambling,fast food,alcohol,or whatever else)

however,the program purported to be giving a realistic portrayal of what the online poker part of online gambling is like...in this they failed,for the reasons i stated above,and they instead painted a dishonest and manipulative picture which they had clearly decided upon prior to getting the actual footage...

i am not saying that the program should have been about how to play poker, (i also don't see how you could possibly have thought that this is what i was saying) but in the segments dealing with poker it should have been far less sensationalist and given a more reasonable account of how the game works online...

since posting this i have become even more aware of how over the top the program is,i read a thread on twoplustwo by the poker player in the program,who said he played .50/1 and 1/2 with the $2k he was given-even though i know something about poker,i presumed while watching the program that he jumped in with the full 2k at one or two tables,so you can imagine what people who don't know anything about the game would think!

add this to the fact that the pro sensibly played with the 2k within limits at which he could afford to lose,never risking most of the presenters money,and doubled the money as he was asked to,and was then encouraged to move up to stakes far higher than he should have been playing (and far higher than he normally plays!) and it becomes quite clear that the program makers had an agenda in wanting the player to lose in order to back up their point...

i also sincerely doubt that the presenter put up his own money for this stunt,(although given how much he was acting like a degenerate idiot i suppose its not impossible),and i think they poker player was deliberately made to look like a cocky upstart who could lose his money at any time,and according to his thread on twoplustwo he was payed 6k plus expenses to be the fall boy on this...

the thread is here

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8181619

Ste05

Very well said Robin....

a147pro

Yeah, I don't know though. Cant belive they paid him 6 grand. Stll think the point of the programme was essentially political, vis a vis the Gambling Act. The whole thing was leading up to the interview with whoever the labour hack responsible for the legislation was.

Doubtless it didn't reflect the average, or indeed my internet poker experience and I suppose it was sensationalist. But as the guy on 2 plus 2 says, he won playing sensibly then lost it all playing too high stakes, which was pretty standard for him and for all of us at some point or another. It was clear tiltage, I lose therefore I up the stakes. It was entertaining but I wasn't mislead, when I saw your man lose and the presenter having to go outside I just thought, like the player, thats poker, you get outdrawn, you run flushes into flopped full houses, some fool creams you with an underpair that turns into a set. The same fool pays you off other days. Get on with it, its all relative. I agree you public will see what they want to see but anyone who knows anything about the game wouldn't have been surprised (in fact we'd all be screaming BANKROLL).

And if that keeps the more sensible gamblers off the net and leaves us with the donks that give me a windfall every now or then, I'm happy enough!

Thought the guy of Bodog was hillarious, just turnin upp with his entourage of hotties completely taking the proverbial. When your man asked him what the best thing about his life was and he just kinda looked over his shoulder at missy in the pool behind him...

hotspur

I enjoyed the programme and think it was probably the most accurate documentary/current affairs type programme I've seen on online poker and online gambling. I think it captured quite well the relationship between emotions and winning / losing.

And no offence robinlacey but if you presumed while watching that he had jumped staright to 1 or 2 tables with the $2k then you either didn't watch the whole thing or you weren't paying good attention. It was obvious he was playing lower. And when the presenter decided to *really* gamble at 10/20 (in order to lose it for the narrative obviously) he pretty much said this is very stupid because we could easily lose it all. What more do you want?

Of course it was going to end up with the guy going busto because it was used as an example of what *can* happen to some. Calling the programme dishonest and inaccurate because it wasn't a genuine naturalistic experiment is pretty naive. Actually a more nuanced but less simplistic version could have ignored the financial "busto" aspect and explored the psychological and emotional response of the presenter losing $4k to horrible beats! I tell people who ask me that the problems most often manifested through online poker playing are not financial.

ArmaniJeanss

Hotspur, I'd agree totally with RobinLacey on the dishonesty of this program.

3 examples.
The Ban in the States - I would say that the average viewer would believe having watched the program that this was debated in the US Parliament, put to a vote, and the members of Parliament after due consideration of the seriousness of the matter decided that a ban was right and proper. No mention was given of the way it was tagged onto an unopposable bill in the 'SaveSpringfield/$10M for the perverted arts' method seen in The Simpsons.

Peter Dicks, the 2nd bloke arrested.
The impression given was that Loiusiana authorities were hauling him down to do some jail time for his crimes - the quite boring fact that he was quickly released on bail and that a New York judge ruled soon afterwards that there was no basis to send him to Loiuisana and that he is a free man, that was quietly overlooked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dicks

The mention of Sweden clamping down on it was lumped in with the ban in the US, and there was an implication that Britain is somehow out of line with 'proper' countries on this matter. I'm fairly sure however that Sweden plans to regulate and effectively nationalise it with a government run poker network (I can't find a link, but it was talked about here last spring/summer).

The program was littered with half-truths and distortions, much like most other sporting Panoramas recently (the farcical Football Transfer investigation, the horse-racing investigation etc).

hotspur

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

The program was littered with half-truths and distortions, much like most other sporting Panoramas recently (the farcical Football Transfer investigation, the horse-racing investigation etc).

You're somewhat right about the points you brought up but I put them down to ignorence on the part of the programme makers rather than being dishonest. Not only have most recent Panoramas been like this but they always are, as are pretty much every other media's treatment of social issues. They're not experts; they are broadcasters and journalists who don't know what they are talking about and do a bit of googling and BS research before each project and want to present a certain point of view in a very limited time span.

I've seen most programmes about online gambling and most have been way worse than this. I expect crap from these programmes and so I judge them in that context. So maybe my point is "he's pretty tall for a pygmy!"