Poker Discussion
|
|
Please help support pocketfives by using our links when choosing to download a new site!
CarbonPoker · Full Tilt · Cake Poker · PokerStars · Ultimate Bet · Players Only · Bodog
Look there are going to be things that are unpopular in online poker. But this move is necessary for online poker. From most of the card rooms standpoint they need to protect their player base. It has become all too common to have people recruiting from other sites in a massive way.
Party Poker used to be flat out ridiculous.
This is an easy fix. Each site should look at having a part in their application where people can go to chat. Separate of the tables. I know that everyone will complain but sites lose millions of dollars unnecessarily by having chat at the tables. If you guys can't see why they would protect themselves from this you have lost your minds.
In the mean time I would be happy to set up 2-3 sites with chat formats for people to log on to. If anyone is interested in helping me with this project let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-20-2005.
02-01-2006 10:30 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
"Second, I'll bet you that this will be changed back." This is what you said. What exactly would they be changing it back to if not to the old system. I am getting sick and tired of paper tigers on here. Either you back up your 1k threat or back out. But I never said they wouldn't allow chat. The gist of my thread in fact was they are right to do it and they should consider some alternatives. People like you just want to attack me for being the messenger. You said they would go back to the old system because of pressure from customers. Now man up and put up your money. All prop bets need the ground rules laid out otherwise people weasel their way out.
|
|
|
|
You really need to work on your comprehension skills. There is NOWHERE that I stated that they would change it back to the old system. I simply stated that they will reimplement chat within 120 days. You said they would not cave on this. I simply disagreed. You seem to be missing the whole reason I wanted to take the bet.
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-20-2005.
02-01-2006 11:05 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
Sounds like you the one copping out. The whole damn thread was about trying to find a better system. So now you are copping out by saying "Changing Back" isn't to the old system. Then what the hell they gonna change back to? Anything else would be different than what was in the past.
Time to put up or shut up. (between you and me this happens often and I know how this ends)
|
|
|
my biggest fuckshitass about this whole thing is that i cant berate the
stupid fuck who sucked out on me and make sure he knows to play me for
moee money
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-20-2005.
02-01-2006 11:26 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
Just a guess but I would suppose you don't have chat at most places;-)
|
|
|
Beanie are you in the buff again whilst writing this?
F
|
|
|
|
Yet again you fail to read my reply properly. When you stated that you wanted to bet $500 I came back and said(I'll quote this exactly for you since you obviously have a hard time scrolling up and reading it properly) "Beanie, therre is no WAY that UB will ignore the COMMUNITY as a whole. I will take your bet and double it to $1000 that they will reimplement chat within 120 days." As everyone can see there is nowhere there that I said "changing back". The post before that I said "changing back" but that was when I just wanted to bet a buck for fun. You had to push the envelope and say it had to be $500 minimum. This is where I stated the $1k bet and that UB would reimplement chat. I have not wavered with my stand at all yet you seem to be making excuses in every communication. (PM or otherwise) There is no shame in backing out Beanie. Just say the word here since you obviously are using every excuse to make it look like I am.
|
|
|
|
How about taking this and going one step further? How about being able to allow chat privledges as well. UB could have some type of PM system where you can allow chat from specific other players. Once you were a "preferred player (PP)" like jsybun suggesed, you can receive chat from other PP but also allow chat from other non preferred players or railbirds. If they want to chat, they send you a PM on the UB system and a pop up box will pop up asking you if you want to allow chat from that player. Now I dont know if only you will see the chat if you allow it or the whole table will, but that can be worked out by the programmers.
For example: You want to rail Beanie at the FT but you dont play enough on UB (you play mainly at BoDog) to be a PP. There will be a button over with the hand history and other buttons labeled "private message". You press the button, and a text box pops up. There will be a field with a pop up menu of the players screen names in it and you select Beanie. You put in your message and press send. If Beanie allows your chat, a box will pop up on your screen that lets you know that your chat is allowed and you can start chatting.
By the way, I only chat a lot when I drink.
|
|
|
|
I guess this is the response I will get from Beanie. Glad he's a respected person in the poker community. I can tell you right now, not by me. Here are the last two private messages I recevied from him that I guess he didn't feel he could post himself. I thought I would do it for him.
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-20-2005.
02-01-2006 11:39 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
Whatever. You are a joke. The original bet offer was the bet moron.
This happens to me all the time. Some numbnuts challenges me to some bet for money he does not have and to save face this is what happens every time. I need to quit taking the bait. Stop wasting my time Scout. I have $1000 I name the neutral party as the pocketfives or Shawn Rice. UB will not go back to the old system where they allow everyone to chat at sit and go's or cash games. How the hell is that me backing out of the bet you donkey.
Man up or Shut up.
|
|
|
|
Correction. I suggested Shawn. Again you like to skew the truth in your favor.
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-20-2005.
02-01-2006 11:43 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
|
|
beanie
(United States)
6,274
Posts.
Joined
01-20-2005.
02-01-2006 11:45 PM
-
In reply to
|
|
|
|
One more thought.... One of, if not the strongest asset has to offer is UlitmateBuddy. Does any other site have anthing even close? Buddy makes it possible for strong realtionships form that would not otherwise happen... e.g. ECREW. Observer chat is a natural extension of that. I understand UB's fear of losing customers. But, several options for limiting chat have been offered & there are probably more possibilities. It strikes me that a company would want to build on it's strengths, not undermine them.
Thanks beanie for getting the discussion going on this.
|
|
|
|
|
Sortable Rankings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|