this weekend I saw this commercial on Fox News Channel for Party Poker. I had the sound down and just caught the tail end of ad, but I saw "come learn to play poker at the largest online shcool"...or some such. Just wondering with all the changes that had to be made on the WPT, and government coming down on poker site adds...is this a new marketing scheme for Party? Anybody see this? Looks like a good idea, come "learn" to play poker... the books must love this site..
I saw the ad....I'm guessing that they attempt to get around the gov't ban with the "poker school" angle. Pretty smart. I assume the "school" aspects of the site are the play money tables.
The real question is are the networks that desperate for advertising fees that it is worth it to even take the risk that they will be fined?
The real question is are the networks that desperate for advertising fees that it is worth it to even take the risk that they will be fined?
what a crappy site....some rules that I found confusing..
1. If for any reason a Player loses his/her connection, play will continue. Blinds and antes will continue to be posted automatically. A Player should log back on as soon as possible to continue play.
4. If a Player is disconnected during the play of a hand, they will be deemed "All-in" (and can win whatever is in the pot at the time of the disconnect).
is this common in online poker??
1. If for any reason a Player loses his/her connection, play will continue. Blinds and antes will continue to be posted automatically. A Player should log back on as soon as possible to continue play.
4. If a Player is disconnected during the play of a hand, they will be deemed "All-in" (and can win whatever is in the pot at the time of the disconnect).
is this common in online poker??
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by max1234:
max,
It didn't use to be that way at party but you have the clowns using disconnect to make cheap calls... they get partially in and then "disconnect" so they don't have to call off the rest of their money.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks...did not know that
max,
It didn't use to be that way at party but you have the clowns using disconnect to make cheap calls... they get partially in and then "disconnect" so they don't have to call off the rest of their money.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks...did not know that
It has to be good for all of us to have Poker taking some "test case" with regards to legality. There are many more americans doing so than betting sports, and its at the height of its popularity right now.
A ruling against poker would just make the gov't look out of touch to your avg non-religiously biased american.
A ruling against poker would just make the gov't look out of touch to your avg non-religiously biased american.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FunkSoulBrother:
It has to be good for all of us to have Poker taking some "test case" with regards to legality. There are many more americans doing so than betting sports, and its at the height of its popularity right now.
A ruling against poker would just make the gov't look out of touch to your avg non-religiously biased american.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
great point...the number of poker players has to be up there.....
It has to be good for all of us to have Poker taking some "test case" with regards to legality. There are many more americans doing so than betting sports, and its at the height of its popularity right now.
A ruling against poker would just make the gov't look out of touch to your avg non-religiously biased american.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
great point...the number of poker players has to be up there.....
Maybe I missed something in the press coverage of the off shore advertising issue, but as near as I can tell, no advertising venue has been fined or found guilty in court for any kind of violation.
Several sites, publications and broadcasters have been subpoenaed, threatened and/or harassed, and I think the Discovery Channel has even had funds frozen, but as near I can tell, there have been no actual fines levied against any advertiser, nor has any advertiser been taken to court, unless it was to fight the subpoenas.
Is this correct?
I thought the whole process that has been going on is Bush morality being foisted on the industry via semi-legal areas of federal law enforcement.
Several sites, publications and broadcasters have been subpoenaed, threatened and/or harassed, and I think the Discovery Channel has even had funds frozen, but as near I can tell, there have been no actual fines levied against any advertiser, nor has any advertiser been taken to court, unless it was to fight the subpoenas.
Is this correct?
I thought the whole process that has been going on is Bush morality being foisted on the industry via semi-legal areas of federal law enforcement.
