So you want there to be less 'current' options for US players playing online? (Cake & Merge 'gg')
I'm not a huge fan of Bodog, but I certainly don't mind having the option to add a another tourney or two to my screen from their site. TONS of soft players making it very +ev (along with other stuff mentioned, good support, payouts, etc.). Too bad it sucks for HEM/PT3 cashgame players.... but really.. you can only play 4-tables on there anyways???
I guess it's a huge downfall for some of ya? I personally don't mind that they've implemented something on their site that perhaps makes it even softer???
This is going on a derail here, and I've posted much of my thoughts on this in other threads, but since it's being suggested that I'm not appreciative of US-friendly sites, I figure another explanation is in order.
PO, it's really more of a principle thing with me. Yes, it's a soft game. Every time I break down and play on there while just goofing around, I marvel at how soft it can be.
And yet, I'm tilted beyond belief almost every time I play. Their software sucks donkey balls. And even that I could tolerate -- to me it's not even as bad as UB's software was (aside from the fact UB gave you HH's and a replayer). Merge doesn't give me a native replayer either and has a pretty crappy HH reviewing page, but at least I can save a real HH to review or replay in my tracker.
Speaking of, a lot of you get hung up on those of us that get hung up on Bodog's anti-tracker/HUD policy. You make it sound like it's all about the HUD, which shouldn't matter because the soft fishes and 4-table limit. But you miss the point. It's not about the HUD itself. I can hold my own pretty doggone well without a HUD on 4 tables against the typical Bodog fish, thankyouverymuch. It's about the fact I can't review my game. I'm not allowed to use a tool at my disposal that every other site allows -- even Cake -- to study and improve my own game. And it's because they have no interest in players improving themselves to the point of being a winning player. In fact, they've stated that the concept of winning poker players runs completely counter to their business model, and so they take steps to discourage winning players from sticking around.
And therein lies their fatal flaw, IMO. That's the straw that broke the camel's back with me. Their attitude towards winning players sucks. To be blunt, I have a broken stupidity filter, and as such my tolerance for it is just very very low. And to me (obviously not everyone), theirs is a stupid business policy. But it's theirs to make, and so I vote with my pocketbook (or BR, as it were). Combined with the aforementioned software issues, I'm perfectly happy to take my business elsewhere, limited opportunities though they are. I consider pretty much every other site available to US players as a better option than Bodog, and I'm not shy about sharing that opinion.
But that's just me -- I'm sure others see the $$$'s in the soft play and have the fortitude and patience to overlook everything else. More power to you. However I play to also enjoy the game, not only for the $$$'s, because this isn't my profession. And because I'm somewhat of an idealist at heart. So yeah, it's a pretty big downfall for me, because I really don't enjoy myself there, even when I'm winning.
That's not to say I never play there -- sure I do. Just not seriously. Mainly CC events and such. If it looks like my BR is getting terminally low for those, to avoid depositing I'll suck it up and swim with the fish long enough to build it back to $50-$100. But otherwise, no, I'm not going to give it undue respect just because it remains open to US players. If it were the only site left, I suspect I'd just give up
online poker until I had other options.
Finally, my point that brought this discussion up here is not that I want to "eliminate" Bodog as a choice for US players, as you implied by your first sentence. My point was made in response to the idea that FT sold their software to Bodog. Because of Bodog policies, they would cripple much of its functionality, so it would be a waste of good software.
