Leggo Poker Every Tool You Need To Win

sauce123

Apr
29
2011
euphemism and nerd burn
Posted in Poker | View Comments (14)
 

Euphemism: "Liquidity Problems". I hate business-speak, it's sterile, elliptical and imprecise not to mention just plain ugly. Trolling the internet after black friday I even found myself using this awful phrase in order to get people to respond to my emails and try to make myself sound professional or something. "Liquidity" means having cash. "Liquidity problems" means having no cash but implies that the business having said problems likely has other assets it is trying to convert to cash in the near future to solve its liquidity problem. The poker sites don't have assets worth shit- a couple servers tucked up on an indian reserve in Canada, some advertising and operating dollars and a few support staff scattered across the globe and a moderately valueable piece of software. So when my beloved sites have "liquidity problems" really what they are is busto.

Nerdy philosopher joke: To which I have to thank W. V. Quine, an academic of the old school who writes (to borrow a great phrase from David Foster Wallace) with almost Himalyan condescension in attacking the ontology of one of his colleagues which admits possible and impossible things: "This tangled doctrine might be nicknamed Plato's beard; historically it has proved tough, frequently dulling the edge of Occam's razor." Burn!

Digg this Post! Add Post to del.icio.us Bookmark Post in Technorati Spurl this Post! Google Bookmark this Post!
Comments 14 Email Blog Entry  
Comments
04-29-2011
JamesMa is offline JamesMa
JamesMa's Avatar
lol did a site tell u that they had liquidity problems? I think most sites remain fairly liquid since you already mentioned, they have very low levels of nonliquid assets but when an entire country is trying to cash out at once I can see why there are issues
04-29-2011
d2themfi is offline d2themfi
ehh ur first paragraph isnt really true imo. I think most sites other than stars probably take player deposits and invest them in various financial assets, although I wont speculate on what type of investments they make. But either way its certainly possible in a case like this where people are cashing out all at once, that the poker site would incur big penalties/taxes/etc for "cashing out" their investments (whether it be a high rate CD, money market, or riskier investments). A site like cake I actually think is just busto, but FTP id imagine has a lot of depositors money locked up into various investments, not all of which are completely liquid IMO
04-29-2011
sauce123 is offline sauce123
i think that's insane, the site are not taking depositor's money, spreading poker games and charging rake on them, not giving interest on balances AND investing some portion of the player balances ALL AT THE SAME TIME. which is what you're suggesting. i mean maybe they are, but to expect that as standard is a bit much.
04-29-2011
d2themfi is offline d2themfi
Why wouldnt they? Its the same concept of fractional reserve banking which has been the standard of banks worldwide for close to a century now. I actually thought i was common knowledge that most of the big ones did this, especially FTP and AP (dunno about euro networks, but Id assume any privately owned site would be doing this)
04-29-2011
sauce123 is offline sauce123
sure, its the same concept as fractional reserve banking. but they aren't a bank.
04-29-2011
d2themfi is offline d2themfi
What differences b/w banks and poker sites would cause them not to implement such a policy/strategy of reinvesting player funds? Unless I am missing something, the only cause for a "run on the bank" is a scenario exactly like this. Idk I just assume people are greedy, and are going to make bad decisions when wealth is on the line. It makes perfect sense to me that poker sites would do this in most cases
04-29-2011
d2themfi is offline d2themfi
That said, it pisses me off a lot that FTP has not gotten us our money yet. I dont want anyone to think I am trying to justify a pokersite who does this
04-29-2011
sauce123 is offline sauce123
yea i think its totally plausible, but that doesnt mean i think its overwhelmingly likely or standard. let alone just or even good long term business
04-29-2011
Probability is offline Probability
Probability's Avatar
i didn't read through the comments but while sites dont have a high book value they do have a ton of goodwill that is definitely worth something. they are not going to walk away from their brands.
04-30-2011
Oskar_123 is offline Oskar_123
I know that partypoker and pokerstars have the players money separate from the companys money, the only reason not to have it this way is to be able to invest using the players money so I assume that's what all other pokersites do. This is probably why pokerstars are the only/first ones to allow americans to get their money back.
04-30-2011
LouisLouis is offline LouisLouis
I'm pretty much 95% sure that the pokersites are not allowed to invest the players money and that there are specific rules with regards to how to handle the players money. Not sure though if these rules apply for all sites, but pretty sure this is the case with Malta licenses... Also I'm not sure who would be regulating the sites.
04-30-2011
ActionFalko is offline ActionFalko
Just a random note:
Has anyone ever here noticed that Sauce wrote 3 days before Black Friday a blog called "Signs of the apocalypse"?
Just wondering
04-30-2011
ActionFalko is offline ActionFalko
Shouldve checked the comments before posting, just saw that he is a confimred Prophet.
07-20-2011
doppelgangerbirdman is offline doppelgangerbirdman
I appreciate your attitude, but I am much older and the rule I always had was "the smart money goes in the pocket." If you can get 50 cents/dollar for FT money then you should take it; particularly, since you say you can write off 100 per cent and move on. If so, a 50 per cent loss should be even less troublesome. Take it.
 
Recent Blog Entries by sauce123