Ceetar

Edgy DC wrote: You getting the idea that Ceetar was at the Beverly Hills game? And maybe brought the blow? I've never smoked so much as a cigerette in my life actually. I'd love to go up against A-Rod in a poker game. Although I haven't played ina while and I'm locked out of playing at the sites I used to play at, thanks to the US government. But I'm going to Vegas in September, I probably should brush up if I want to win any money. Anyone have A-Rods number?

MFS62 wrote: Baseball has been very clear in its no gambling/ associating with gamblers stance since the 1919 Black Sox Scandal. That said, that stance didn't seem to bother MLB when Del Webb and Dan Topping owned the Yankees. Their other buisness was building gambling casinos in Las Vegas. I was hoping that one day we would see this kind of story about Jeter. Sigh. Later Why do you think he's building a GIANT MANSION. he's trying to get away from prying eyes.

One of these days we have to have these arguments at a game or something. too much typing.

Well what sports have an issue with is sports wagering. The concern they have with other forms of gambling is that it could be some sort of 'gateway drug' towards gambling on sports, or may put them in contact with gamblers who may, whether through greed or debt, convince a player to affect the outcome of a game. but there is a difference between an addictive gambler that needs to feed this addiction, and a socialite that enjoys a game of skill that involves the wagering of money. Yes, by definition poker is gambling. It's a game of skill in which you make a series of bets that you have a better hand than all the opponents. (That's vasty simplifying it) But the main point of the game is to outsmart your opponent, to play better than them, to outthink them. And that aspect of it certainly seems to fit more with A-Rod's character than simply betting on an undetermined outcome. People make a living doing this. They have a whole casino with only poker just outside of LA. Gwreck: okay, maybe I'm wrong on that. (or maybe NY is different.) I don't know what the phrase "banking or percentage game played with cards" means either. Presumably this was one those. Sounds like that's what I was saying about the rake though. (being the 'bank'. This is why when you play poker in your house with your friends it's not illegal, because their is no percentage/bank. But I hadn't thought _playing_ in it was illegal.) I actually think it'd be worse if A-Rod was in Vegas than what sounds like was essentially a frat party.

you're getting off of what I said. Yes, if there are additional facts about this particular party that give cause to suspend, okay. But not just because they don't like him playing poker and told him not to. I'm _NOT_ saying that because they didn't suspend him last time they can't suspend him this time. (I'm also not looking to read precident from how baseball handled Ty Cobb, or Mickey Mantle, or anyone else for decades and decades ago. Different world.) The guy won a freaking World Series, and went out with friends to a party in LA with friends and had a good time playing a game he enjoys. (Well, another game he enjoys anyway) This is cause for suspension?

Dunkin Donuts has solved one of life's great questions: Mocha or Caramel?

who knows what the primary issue is? I don't think that's clear. The games are illegal, playing in them isn't. What's illegal is profiting from game play. (taking a rake or a percentage of a pot or charging per hour to play) not actually winning money from another player. Running the game is illegal, playing in it isn't.

sharpie wrote: Ceetar, how is getting "harder to play poker in this country." Idiots lose money on on-line poker all the time, there are Indian casinos within a short reach of most people and there are friendly games everywhere. I don't get that contention at all. (A-Rod's been playing poker since he got to NY, probably longer. If there is really an issue with him playing, they'd already of suspended him) As for poker, they've repeatedly changed the laws about banking (in regards to poker/online casinos) over the last couple of years, as recently as earlier this year. Making it more difficult to transfer your own money from your own bank to an online site. They've never allowed you to use a credit card (the online sites have a merchant code that the cards specifically block) and they've shut down, and frozen assets, some of the more common online bank account sides like epassporte and many others that I can remember the names of. As a result of this, many sites (including ones that only do poker, don't also do casino style games or wagering like some do) have actually blocked US players from playing (PokerStars more recently, PartyPoker a couple of years ago) One of my friends was planning on moving from Las Vegas recently, but this recent change make it less likely he can adaquately sustain a living with the reduced online game. As far as in-person casinos, that at least has gotten somewhat better. They've been loosening the laws in some states, like Pennsylvania, allowing table games and Poker, and who knows, maybe NY will eventually follow suit instead of having everyone go to NJ, CT and PA to spend their money. (aside, was a rumor about a casino at Nassau Colliseum site, which would've been cool imo and a huge moneymaker for the county too) But there are no real casinos in this area (A bunch up in Western NY) so even if they did put in a poker room at Yonkers RAceway, i'm not sure they have to space to really make it worthwhile.

metirish wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: E I'm making a bet RIGHT NOW that this message gets successfully posted on the cpf. ka-ching! I doubled down............. and won Ceetar , I enjoy you very much on the forum but there are times I think you take a position on a subject that is contrary to any other thinking and contrary to the obvious and you refuse or just can't get off your line of thinking. It's obvious to me that this is one of those times.An intervention might be needed. I think I like to poke at loopholes or inaccuracies and people poke back and think I'm saying something about the whole topic when I'm not. Hanging out with people doing drugs and running illegal games is one thing, and not good. (especially if there was real wagering going on) Having his cousin meet him outside stadiums or in team hotels or other such places where work meets home is an issue. but actually playing poker is not. It's also not illegal. (Although I'm sure you could make a case for aiding and abetting the running of an illegal game) It already really pisses me off that they continue to make it harder to play poker in this country. If you want to su spend Alex for something, suspend him for ducking federal investigators with the Galea case. Not for recreational activities.

it's amazing how long he stops at each base before advancing too. I think that might be the main reason he didn't get a triple.

Frayed Knot wrote: My main issue here is it's not gambling ... It's not gambling anymore than Alex putting a pitch in play is gambling for a hit against BABIP. You're seriously sticking with this as your main argument? it's not gambling. it's a game of skill that contains an element of luck. it's not an argument, it's just how the game is. (Presuming he was playing Texas Hold 'Em like he has in the past anyway and not something more random)

metsmarathon wrote: if the company you worked for had a strict policy prohibiting you from, say, taking photos of various foodstuffs in the office and publishing those photos onto a social media outlet, and there were either implicit or explicit dire warnings about what would befall an employee who did just such a thing, and had previously warned you about doing it in the past, would you still do it? if I had a guaranteed contract with no mention of poker AND a really really powerful union? yeah, I would. Especially, to continue the analogy, if the power was out so I couldn't do my work (on the DL). My main issue here is it's not gambling (and this becomes a political issue that I could go on and on about too). It's not gambling anymore than Alex putting a pitch in play is gambling for a hit against BABIP. The bigger issue is the other illegal activity going on there, turning it into an underground poker game into an illegal den of activity that very well could contain things that are a problem. But that's probably not any bigger a deal than Alex being in the same doctors office who was arrested for illegal substances. And they didn't do anything about that. Also, the guy's his freaking cousin. Yeah, he's helped him with illegal activity in the past, but he's probably not the mastermind criminal that people seem to make him out to be. It's one of his close friends and family.

Frayed Knot wrote: Sports stars playing in super-high stakes games IS a concern to the sport and especially so if they are illegal games (which apparently these are) and even more so if he's previously ben warned about them. All games are illegal in which someone profits apart from the actual game. (i.e. takes a rake) but it's not anymore illegal for Alex than it is if he showed up at your bachelor party and played a low stakes poker tourney with winner takes the pot. Who cares how much money he burns? He's hardly the first to do it (and it's hardly 'high stakes' for him either) and it's not illegal. Sure, he's been warned, but you could also warn him against shopping for Pepsi because Coke Zero is an official sponsor of MLB or some such. I don't think the league should be able to regulate a players actions off the field.

Fman manages to keep the Mets from losing at least.

I don't really have a problem with A-Rod playing poker. He's not breaking any laws, he's not gambling. I'd be extremely disappointed in MLB if they suspended him for that.

boxing video?

Not having a great season, and missed a good chunk with an injury to his left hamstring. He's hitting .228 for Binghamton, his first promotion above A ball.

The pinnacle of technological achievement is being able to identify an object as cold.

metirish wrote: They'e won now aven't they? I'm pretty sure they've all but clinched the division many many years ago at this point.

Frayed Knot wrote: Not to spoil a silly argument or anything ... but a minor fact is getting left out of this discussion Gwreck wrote: They still shoot them in the 5th inning. THEY HAVEN'T BANNED THE GUNS!!!! semantics. I heard someone else say they banned them. I don't remember seeing them when I was there, buti was distracted by them suddenly throwing them in teh promenade. fine, let's go back to talking about Collins' bullpen usage.

Edgy DC wrote: I liked lawn darts. C'es la vie. Look, as long as you're writing hyperbole like "let's mix church and state at baseball games and strip search everyone getting on an airplane!" I guess its futile to ask you to back up and take some perspective, but come on. I'm not sure the severity of the event is the point here. (also, you're the one that started in on the Nanny state thing) I was pretty annoyed when Jamba Juice took kiwi juice off their menu too. Obviously it's not a big deal. But I don't like it. It seems reactionary and panicky. And it's probably not actually less dangerous to throw the things. the Promenade's still kinda steep, and sure they won't fall as far..

ended his on base streak in his second game with Buffalo where he struck out twice and grounded into a double play. But now he's got a 10 game hitting streak going again, and his hitting .341/.396/.455 with the Bisons. crazy high BABIP, but whatever, he's smoking the ball. Not really walking a ton and striking out a bunch, but pretty much getting it done.

Edgy DC wrote: One or two idiots fall, let's ban the t-shirt guns! Now it's "one or two." And it's not about bannng, so much as a policy choice. No czar handed down an edict. No municipality handed down a law, so far as I know. A private organization made a policy decision. What skin is it off of anybody's nose really? i like the t-shirt cannons. Is there really multiple incidents of people falling? Or is this simply an isolated incident that people are overreacting to? Or they worried that it might happen at Citi and they'd have bad press? Is this similar to "Someone might write something naughty on a banner, so we're not going to do banner day"?

Ashie62 wrote: I have lingering discomfort in my shoulder everyday. I wish I could shut it down sometimes but I am not that valuable. Your changeup doesn't have much break to it anyway.

Mr. Met makes corporate meetings more exciting.