Are You Still Promoting Absolute? - Page 2

ramchip · #11 10-23-2007, 05:45 AM

I have built up my sites by offering a good service and being honest to my players. I have turned down the chance to promote some sites simply because I did not think the the player was getting a good deal.

Working this way I have the respect of all my players as they realise that I put their best interests first and my players reccomend me to their friends so I get a steady stream of sign ups without advertising.

I have also made deals with sites that are in most cases better than the deals offered by PAW as the sites seem to like how I run things.

There are 1000's of rakeback sites and I believe I have an edge over some simply because most just want to get players signed up and thats all.

I'm not at all happy how Absolute have handled this and their first statement which stated that they had investigated cheating claims and found no evidence was a complete joke.

So I'm happy for those who don't want to mention the absolute scandal on their sites as I'm sure that those like myself who have will reap the rewards long term.

TheDonk · #12 10-23-2007, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramchip

So I'm happy for those who don't want to mention the absolute scandal on their sites as I'm sure that those like myself who have will reap the rewards long term.

I have no problem with anyone who reported about this while it was going on. If all my time weren't spent building this new site, I would've written an article on one or more of my sites as well.

My point is that as of now, today, there is plenty out there for people to find. To be continually writing articles to stick at the top of your page just perpetuates this thing. It keeps negative news in the headlines longer, and does further damage to our business. At some point we have to let this go and get on with some positive discussion between ourselves and our visitors.

I respectfully disagree that you will benefit in the long run by writing more articles about this. For a few players, you may be right. For others, you are giving them reinforcement that playing online poker is bad, and that everyone will steal their money. The truth is that maybe 1 in 10 million online poker players were affected by this. Now, it's up to us to decide if that's worth destroying millions of potential customers. I don't think it is.

ramchip · #13 10-23-2007, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDonk

I have no problem with anyone who reported about this while it was going on. If all my time weren't spent building this new site, I would've written an article on one or more of my sites as well.

My point is that as of now, today, there is plenty out there for people to find. To be continually writing articles to stick at the top of your page just perpetuates this thing. It keeps negative news in the headlines longer, and does further damage to our business. At some point we have to let this go and get on with some positive discussion between ourselves and our visitors.

I respectfully disagree that you will benefit in the long run by writing more articles about this. For a few players, you may be right. For others, you are giving them reinforcement that playing online poker is bad, and that everyone will steal their money. The truth is that maybe 1 in 10 million online poker players were affected by this. Now, it's up to us to decide if that's worth destroying millions of potential customers. I don't think it is.

I suggest you check you facts as 1 in 10 million is miles out. I think long term that the Absolute Fiasco will be good for online poker as sites will have to spend more time and effort proving that their systems are secure.

TheDonk · #14 10-23-2007, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramchip

I suggest you check you facts as 1 in 10 million is miles out. I think long term that the Absolute Fiasco will be good for online poker as sites will have to spend more time and effort proving that their systems are secure.

Lol, of everything I said, you chose to pick on my math. Truthfully, you just wanted to argue with me, so that's what you picked isn't it?

Do you know exactly how many people play online poker in the world? They say there's something like 20 million in this country alone. So let's say 100 million worldwide, or 50 million - who gives a shit!? You missed the whole point. The point is that 1 player in a 'shitload' was personally affected. When people write these articles, do they ever mention that the percentage of people affected was absolutely miniscule? They never do, and so readers make these things out to be much more than they actually are.

Do you really think this is worth the poisoning of millions of players? How much of the industry do you want to destroy over this? Let's take something that affected .00001% of the people who play online poker, and see if we can destroy 10% of the market - brilliant idea!

Really, before you reply, think about what I'm saying. Don't just argue for the sake of arguing.

ramchip · #15 10-23-2007, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDonk

Lol, of everything I said, you chose to pick on my math. Truthfully, you just wanted to argue with me, so that's what you picked isn't it?

Do you know exactly how many people play online poker in the world? They say there's something like 20 million in this country alone. So let's say 100 million worldwide, or 50 million - who gives a shit!? You missed the whole point. The point is that 1 player in a 'shitload' was personally affected. When people write these articles, do they ever mention that the percentage of people affected was absolutely miniscule? They never do, and so readers make these things out to be much more than they actually are.

Do you really think this is worth the poisoning of millions of players? How much of the industry do you want to destroy over this? Let's take something that affected .00001% of the people who play online poker, and see if we can destroy 10% of the market - brilliant idea!

Really, before you reply, think about what I'm saying. Don't just argue for the sake of arguing.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it. It has been proved that Potripper played in at least 1 mtt and cheated. There are strong rumours that cheating has taken place on the cash tables although Absolute have not addressed this yet although the evidence is damming. There are more rumours that this could have been happening for up to 3 years and and the total amount "stolen" is over $7,000,000.

As I have said I believe long term this will be good for online poker as sites will have to prove they are more secure which will give the industry more respect.

It is up to you if you continue to promote Absolute and for those that do I understand and I have stated why I will not be promoting them until the investigations are complete.

Darko · #16 10-23-2007, 08:44 AM

i bet more cheating goes on in real life play then in online poker.....should we all stop playing poker offline ?

Admin@PP · #17 10-23-2007, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darko

i bet more cheating goes on in real life play then in online poker.....should we all stop playing poker offline ?

Well...If I heard that a certain offline poker room had some cheaters there, I sure the hell would tell everyone I know NOT to play there!

GregK · #18 10-23-2007, 12:56 PM

As for your opening statement...
Ford didn't email customers, call'em Donks & tell'em their Firestone's were fine & go drive 100mph lol

I hate liars...
Man up, take it on the chin, fuck'in pussies!

(sorry ladyholdem) lol

ramchip · #19 10-23-2007, 01:11 PM

More suspect accounts at Absolute!
www.potripper.co.uk

kaus · #20 10-23-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darko

i bet more cheating goes on in real life play then in online poker.....should we all stop playing poker offline ?

Not directed at you Darko just making a point

Casino Rama Scam

I am going there tomorrow, Should I stay away, I mean it happened recently within this year with employess. I have yet to see that place slow down as far as buisness goes even after this took place.

I would agree with the donk here. It happened its done its over - the guy has been caught. Do you close your bank accounts when you here about issues with other customers having thier accounts drained. No of course not, banks have insurance you will get your money back. AP is correcting the situation as best as they can. Will I promote them ...no because I dont care to. Not a big fan of the room at all but i will not make an issue of the cheating instead I would rather point out what id happen and what is happening now. The KGC investigating - the lengths that are being taken to fix the problem and make a point on the security measures that will now exist within the room(once these are known) Than drop it. Let the players be the judge themselves but emphasizing it will only scare those who are first time players and are skeptic to play as it is let alone make a deposit.

There are cheaters in every room but at a different degree, example - players who collude with MSN while playing the same game. So why dont you continue to report that? Because its small fish, its not a massive amount of money or an employee.

On a side note, we had a bunch of people over lastnight playing cards, I brought up the AP thing. Only one of my firends had heard about it and only because they were discussing it on cake Poker. Now the others I told them what happened, and they could care less - why? It doesnt happen often.

Its a one time occurance that can happen in any business.

Ramchip - might I also add reporting "gossip" does no one any good