David Peters broke owing money to many people
https://x.com/DylanLinde/status/20464123...
I deeply regret doing business with David Peters. Last summer Davi
You should stop calling people fools considering you constantly misuse words like "lie". It is laughable.
You have been given numerous examples of places where it is better to pay higher rake to get a higher win rate. This is absolutely true.
Is paying higher rake generally a good idea? Probably not. Is it even likely a good idea? Again, probably not.
However it is also clear it could be.
Nuance.
If Daniel's biggest sin is taking a nuanced situation and making it seem more certain than it is, then you should also realize that you have committed the exact same sin by calling people who point out the nuance to the discussion "liars".
Do you consider yourself a scumbag?
And I'm glad fools like you exist. You admit you are defending a lie in your first sentence. For higher rake to be good you need to be able to write that it is never a coincidence. A little curious as to whether you are a fool and believe what you write or a dishonest shill that knows they are lying. My guess is fool as shills know better than to write your first sentence.
I’m sitting in a dead poker room today on a Thursday (six 2/3 games, one 3/5), when Wednesday afternoon was off the hook (ten 2/3, three 3/5, two 5/10 and a 10/20). The main difference was there was a high hand mystery promotion where instead of $400 the winner could gamble on picking envelopes containing $200 to $3,000). Promotions make a big difference. Promotions require higher take to pay for them.
If your room charges higher rake but has lousy promotions and an impossible jackpot, it’s bad for the games. But if it has good promotions and jackpots getting paid often, it’s great for the game. If your room has low rake but weak promotions, unless you have a constant flow of tourists the games will devolve into a bunch of nit regs and lousy action.
Commerce owned the limit holdem games in LA two years ago, they had a special enclosed high limit section and weekends averaged six or so 20s, three to four 40s and the 60 always ran at least one game. Their jackpots were so easy to hit I saw at least one almost every weekend I played there. I think it was September where they tried to deny paying one jackpot because only 4 players were dealt in, but were forced to pay because their jackpot language did not clearly state 5 handed was required.
So they doubled the jack pot drop, raised the requirements to quads over quads, and within a week all the limit games went to the bike and never returned. It wasn’t the extra dollar a hand, it was the impossible to hit jackpot. About a year later they instituted easier to hit small jackpots to try to bring the players back, and I went a couple times to see if it worked. It did not, and the complaints I heard from other players were that the commerce funded the new jackpots by reducing the main jackpot, so it was a shell game. Even fish aren’t dumb.
The best game I ever played was a time game that charged $100/hour and the two whales who ran game took it to cover expenses and some of their losses. Hard to complain about paying $700 a day to net $5k.
I remember there was that one poker site that tried to be a rake free room and it was a disaster
I’m sitting in a dead poker room today on a Thursday (six 2/3 games, one 3/5), when Wednesday afternoon was off the hook (ten 2/3, three 3/5, two 5/10 and a 10/20). The main difference was there was a high hand mystery promotion where instead of $400 the winner could gamble on picking envelopes containing $200 to $3,000). Promotions make a big difference. Promotions require hig
Yea commerce hit a lot and the regs always talked about "let's hit the jackpot!". Sadly in my 18 months playing there i never got a table share.
Not sure what game(s) you were playing at the home game but I dunno if even NL holdem provides a big enough edge to make up for that rake. Thats outrageous, but I can understand going for 3-4 hours if they allowed to see if you can break a few people.
Guess it depends on how much money was on the table and their propensity to rebuying.
Yea commerce hit a lot and the regs always talked about "let's hit the jackpot!". Sadly in my 18 months playing there i never got a table share. Not sure what game(s) you were playing at the home game but I dunno if even NL holdem provides a big enough edge to make up for that rake. Thats outrageous, but I can understand going for 3-4 hours if they allowed to see if you can br
It was 100/200 mix with half the rounds limit games, a couple 200/400 single draw rounds and a couple NL single draw rounds w/$2k caps. It was easily profitable with its typical lineups.
You are a liar. You don't get to ignore that even you admit paying higher rake is "probably not" a good idea then claim higher rake is good is true. Even you know it isn't true. Now I agree the statement higher rake can in the right conditions lead to a more profitable game for some players but that is NOT the same as claiming higher rake is good. It isn't a nuance it is a lie and a deliberate one designed to mislead suckers.
Shocker
“Higher rake is good” is not a lie if it sometimes can be true.
It’s similar to saying a “Higher cover charge is good”. The happiest cover charge I ever used to spend was the $30 to get into Sapphire section of the Rio pool back at WSOP long time ago. Ladies got in free so ratio was 10 to 1 and I had my own dedicated waitress.
But he was talking to adults who were gambling online voluntarily who should be capable of listening to his arguments and deciding on their own. They could then choose to play or not, but it wasn’t a lie nor was he engaged in anything unethical.
went from Nero to Hero to Zero
^ that is very well done
Late to this one but I have played with David a few times. He's a nice guy at the tables. I'm a semi- reg/fish/pretty solid, studied player with money. David talks and responds when asked questions...a nice guy at the tables.
The only thing that struck me and I guess has been discussed is what are his leaks?
His wife
Dice
Sports betting
Buying big dumb expensive home(s)
Cash games
Cars/collectibles
Food/wine
Hooktards
Drugs/ alcohol
I have no idea about any of the above. Maybe it's all the above??
Where did he piss off the bulk of his money? Just curious....
It's also possible that Peters made a bad business decision or two. Perhaps he was involved with starting a company and lost everything he put into it.
