Everyone who has ever been connected to journalism knows that most columns from regular contributors or staffers are written to meet contractual obligations, not because the topic of the column needs to be broadcast, or that the writer really has something of interest to say.
Most columns, therefore, are crap. Just blowin' off 'cause they have to. This is surely the case with Wild Bill's article on the disapproval that poker players have for sports bettors.
Like, who gives a shit? Poker is having its innings now, but it will eventually fade again into the background. And if some idiot pokester really did advocate the banning of sports betting, he should know that would simply open the gate to wiping out all online betting. Who needs to hear moronic views like this?
Second, if online sports betting could be "banned," it would have already been done. And, WB, what makes you think that everyone shares your view that sports betting should be okayed in the USA so it can be properly regulated? IE, taxed, tracked, etc. With a few companies exercising a virtual monopoly.
Long live offshore and the fierce competition, with no snooping Uncle minding our ways. Sites like this also help educate bettors as to whom offshore to avoid. The risk is always there, but much reduced in recent years, at least for the aware.
WB, just because you are a writer does not mean you always have something of interest to say. (This goes for ALL columnists - been there, done that.) This was one of those cases. Heretofore, I'll check the title and first graph before reading your musings.
Most columns, therefore, are crap. Just blowin' off 'cause they have to. This is surely the case with Wild Bill's article on the disapproval that poker players have for sports bettors.
Like, who gives a shit? Poker is having its innings now, but it will eventually fade again into the background. And if some idiot pokester really did advocate the banning of sports betting, he should know that would simply open the gate to wiping out all online betting. Who needs to hear moronic views like this?
Second, if online sports betting could be "banned," it would have already been done. And, WB, what makes you think that everyone shares your view that sports betting should be okayed in the USA so it can be properly regulated? IE, taxed, tracked, etc. With a few companies exercising a virtual monopoly.
Long live offshore and the fierce competition, with no snooping Uncle minding our ways. Sites like this also help educate bettors as to whom offshore to avoid. The risk is always there, but much reduced in recent years, at least for the aware.
WB, just because you are a writer does not mean you always have something of interest to say. (This goes for ALL columnists - been there, done that.) This was one of those cases. Heretofore, I'll check the title and first graph before reading your musings.