Talk:PokerStars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Forever" music video[edit]

In the beginning of the video, LeBron James is playing pokerstars. The song is really popular right now. Probably should be included because it's a big advertising ploy by Pokerstars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.59.27.71 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

history[edit]

Do any of you know the history of Pokerstars. I recently learned that Howard Lederer helped start full tilt poker. I would like to know who helped start pokerstars and when that took place. Sp0 (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

length[edit]

Why is this page 1/10th the length of the party poker page?

It isn't. 2005 19:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to put your picture up on the little name plate at a table?

Yes - check out http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/features/images/. Rray 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I think I figured it out 10 seconds before you posted- Thank you though! My problem was that I was trying to post a picture on pokerstars.net, apparently you can't do that, I had to install pokerstars.com and it worked out for me. Thank you!

EDITS[edit]

I slightly edited the first line because I felt that "one of the largest" is biased and there are multiple poker sites that are constantly increasing in terms of size and membership, namely FullTiltPoker and PKR. Yoryx 08:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit. Since the article can be edited at any time, this information can be changed when an online poker room actually surpasses PokerStars in size. Rray 13:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact other sites are large or growing doesn't have anything to do with Pokerstars being plainly, objectively the largest. 2005 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are those stupid wikilinks there, for the years, and dates (like April 1)? A wikiarticle about 2007 doesn't has anything to do with PokerStars. --87.66.176.96 (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 1 is wikilinked because it is a browser preference to show a date as either "1 April" or "April 1". If you change your preferences you'll see the date will magically change when wikilinked. The year dates were useless and I removed them or made the links to the WSOP's they related to. 2005 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PokerStars on Linux[edit]

I notice it says in the article: "The Windows client has been reported[by whom?] to work on Linux operating systems using the Wine software."

Well, by Wine HQ itself, and I can certainly confirm it works very well. I have tried it on a variety of distros, and yes, it works fine. In fact it has advantages over the Windows native app, notably being able to scroll background windows, it has a few glitches with multiple windows (easy to fix by the user), but anyway, the user base (on Wine HQ) gives it a "platinum" rating, and yes, it works just fine.

So maybe the phrase should be amended to: The Windows client has a Platinum rating on WineHQ for working under Linux/Wine. (or "working on Linux operating systems using the Wine software".)

Unreferenced claim[edit]

This poker site has some of the worst bad beats ever seen. it is laughable that their "random shuffle" is comparable to a real world shuffle. In reality, there software is programmed to allow the inferior players to keep their money longer, consequently increasing the long term profit of poker stars.

Should this be confirmed from a verifiable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.148.170 (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol. there's a lot of this talk on the pokerstars website too. bad beats happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasemurphy (talk • contribs) 06:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. They do happen indeed. But in a brick-and-mortar room they don't happen that often as at PokerStart, by a very large margin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.71.114.220 (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. the proportion of "bad beats" (provided the dealer in the B&M game is a good one) should be pretty much equal. If anything, the dealing in the B&M is the worse one because it's impossible to achieve the level of randomness in the shuffle that an online game can. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real Money play in the US[edit]

Is it legal to do the real money option in the US and to be able to cash out? I thought it was illegal, or did they pass a law in the US? Thanks.--Bob (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While people can offer opinions, this isn't the Supreme Court so there is no definitive answer to that. 2005 (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Homer Simpson once said, that's for the courts to decide! 66.110.135.112 (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a official link for United States criminal charges paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

Okay, in the lead it reads: "...largest online poker cardroom in the world." - The source backing up this claim is running advertisements from Pokerstars, ergo, conflict of interest, ergo, not the greatest of sources. Can anyone find anything better? ScarianCall me Pat! 18:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the site, the advertisements that appear on each cardroom detail report are for that poker site. Such as for Full Tilt, for PokerStars, for iPoker Network, etc... I changed the reference to the top page which shows traffic, and added another reference from Compatible Poker. I believe this settles the dubious reference, so I removed the dubious tag. --Pparazorback (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see the banner at the top of this? Hover your mouse over the top of the banner and you'll see that the URL says "refer" and "source", that's advertising if I'm not mistaken. That cripples the reliability of that source, in my opinion. You want PS to look good, right? Give it high stats, and then give people a link to it! Perfect!
CompatiblePoker is not a reliable source. It's one of those: "Hey! Use this promo code to get XX% bonus!" - type sites. They're just out there to make money. Reinstating the tag until a decent, unsponsored source is found. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is doubtful you will ever find. The fact is that 99% of any site that will make any attempts at tracking poker traffic will also have affiliate accounts with all the pokerrooms that offer affiliate programs. The fact is PokerStars IS the largest cardroom based on number of players, and has been for quite some time. --Pparazorback (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another reference from Cardplayer.Com which you will claim as dubious because they also have an affiliate account. However, the source is one of the top magazines in the poker world. --Pparazorback (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the inappropriate tag. Pokerscout is the best source available, and there are literally hundreds of others saying the same thing, but without the authority of Pokerscout. 2005 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that is your assertion, and, unfortunately, you're not a reliable source, 2005. How can you prove Pokerscout is "the best source" available? Can you? Or is it just your opinion? And, parazor, I agree that they might be the largest, but we just need better proofing; something without the money-driven affiliation. ScarianCall me Pat! 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "asserting" anything. The Times quotes Pokerscout. The Guardian supports its claim and again. Your opinion can be whatever it wants, but the objective, reliable sources say what they do, and that is what we use in our articles. 2005 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, of course you were asserting it. In your original statement you made an assertion! In fact you made the exact definition of an assertion. Don't challenge my authority on semantics; I'll crush you into the ground ;- Re. Quotes: Well there we go! You could've stated those originally without making yourself look silly by not realising what Wikipedia was about! Silly billy! ScarianCall me Pat! 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

long intro[edit]

I added two headings and moved a paragraph. I believe the long intro problem is resolved, but I thought someone should review this change before I removed the template. Dreamingkat (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owners[edit]

The article says this "Launched in September 2001, PokerStars was originally a Costa Rican company, Rational Enterprises, majority owned by the Scheinberg family". Question: Who owns Pokerstars now? 76.66.174.27 (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same as before only located on Isle of Man now. 2005 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters[edit]

Pokerstars moved its headquarters to the Isle of Man which is located between the islands of Great Britain and Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koguryo18 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Press Conference" edits[edit]

The press conference is without a doubt fake and repeatedly entered into the article as what I can only perceive to be frustration regarding the variance whilst playing the game. I'm treating all such edits as vandalism; any arguments against this approach can be made under this section. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's frustration over the variance, it's conditioning due to selective random reinforcement (how many people try to remember when AQ doesn't beat AK or 66 doesn't make 4 hearts for the flush to beat KK), you'll see people fuss over the same thing on every online cardroomm, but if you look it does happen live, people don't notice as much due to less hands being played. The press release being inserted is obviously a hoax, so yes I agree with you it should be treated like vandalism. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 18:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a Statistics student, the matter of randomness is a very interesting subject to me! if you've the time to read a TL;DR article, you might be interested in this article that talks about Benford's Law and coin-flipping that illustrates the mind's perception of randomness. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link, you might be interested in this book as well: Fooled by Randomness. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 19:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! I'll be sure to get ahold of a copy when I can. Very much appreciated! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Alvarado[edit]

In the "Team Pokerstars Pro" section at the bottom of the page, there's a player by the name of Juan Carlos Alvarado. clicking on the link directs you to a singer by the same name. The Poker player himself doesn't seem to have an article on Wikipedia. I have absolutely no idea how to edit this! JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I got it. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bots[edit]

Does anyone know why there is no mention of the "Bots" scam and the company being shutdown for a time? Its in the news and, I believe, is very conspicuous in its absence. ref: http://www.cnbc.com/id/42070561/ GoldenSockPuppet (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)GoldenSockPuppet[reply]

This conversation is probably better suited for the Computer poker players page because the reference doesn't exclusively discuss PokerStars. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The company was not "being shutdown for a time". The Computer poker players article discusses how bots do exist to some impossible to know degree. 2005 (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current events[edit]

The PokerStars page should be updated to reflect on current events, i.e. seizure of pokerstars.com by the FBI under the UIEGA act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.70.49.30 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italy[edit]

It may be worth mentioning that although Pokerstars trade in Italy it is only through a different website (pokerstars.it). It is not possible to access the main Pokerstars website within Italy because it is blocked, like many gambling websites, by the Italian government. --ЗAНИA talk WB talk] 21:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other licenses[edit]

It is worth mentioning that Pokerstars is licensed not only in the Isle of Man and Italy but also in France, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia and Malta, with Spain soon to follow.

Sources:
http://www.pokerstars.com/press/2010-06-29.html
http://www.pokerstars.com/press/2010-10-07.html
http://www.pokerstars.com/press/2011-12-15.html
http://www.pokerstars.com/press/2012-02-08.html
http://www.pokerstars.com/press/2012-02-13.html

Edit:
"The new dot.eu site holds a license under the LGA, the Lotteries and Gaming Commission of Malta. The main dot.com site remains licensed by the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision.
...
The new dot.eu joins the dot.com site, and Danish, Belgian and Estonian sites that all share the same player pool with different licenses. PokerStars also operates segregated player pools on PokerStars.fr, under regulation of France’s ARJEL, and Italian AAMS-licensed PokerStars.it. A segregated Spanish PokerStars.es is expected to go live in the first half of 2012."
-- http://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room-news/pokerstarseu-goes-live/ Alex O. (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Rake - October 2014[edit]

The edits made by User:DMacks on 30 October, 2014, are a self-evident breach of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by attempting to present opinion as fact. PokerStars has not "attempted to systematically eliminate all winning players," and further, it is wrong to say that PokerStars has implemented "a high rake making the game nearly unbeatable" since the rake for the relevant games is generally lower than other major competitors. I would undo the edits as simple vandalism, but I serve as an employee of PokerStars and it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Aujoz (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aujoz: I reverted the edit, but I do want to note that it was not DMacks who made that edit. It was actually added by an IP in this edit. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 18:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning it up, Apparition11! And thanks Aujoz for handling the COI aspect so well! DMacks (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry for misreading the log. No offense meant! Aujoz (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence[edit]

Wow. Looking at the talk page, I can see that the user "2005" has been battling to make sure that the first sentence is promotional in tone for at least eight years. They have just undone my correction of that, without bothering to give a reason. The first sentence of the article should say what the subject of the article fundamentally is. Later in the lead, it may be appropriate to mention if it is indeed the largest poker website. But the source give did not even remotely confirm that assertion.

I wonder if 2005 works for the website, or has some other paid connection with it. Their long-term ardour for it seems very unusual. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that User:2005's most recent edit was problematic. The IP made a reasonable edit-summary explanation, citing the verification policy, and also a reasonable idea about content. Then 2005 undid it with no edit-summary and no note either here or at IP's talkpage. It is the WP:BURDEN of someone wishing to re-add it to find a different source that actually supports the content (or demonstrate that the previous and disputed source actually does support it). DMacks (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People have been vandalizing this page for a long time. There isn't the slightest doubt the reference supports the line (saying:"PokerStars, the world’s biggest poker site"), so the what is the point of your false comments? There are nearly an infinite number other references that make the same point Pokernews, The Gauardian, BBC, etc. There is nothing "promotional" about stating a fact that is not in the slightest dispute. Do not remove valid references in the future, and certainly do not post falsehoods about the references. 2005 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. People have been vandalising all pages for a long time. If you are accusing someone specific of vandalism, state who, and give a diff. Make reference to the criteria outlined in WP:VD
  2. Someone is indeed posting falsehoods about the reference; it does not support the claim made. Nowhere in the link does it say "the world's biggest poker site". If you can see something on that page that other people cannot, please make a screenshot, and highlight where exactly the claim is supported.
  3. Starting an article with text that sounds like a line from an advert does not accord with the requirement of a neutral point of view. 109.180.164.3 (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reference says "PokerStars, the world’s biggest poker site" (lower left corner, in "Why Does Size Matter?" section). If you are weirdly making the point that "biggest" is not the same as "largest", then you are just being a nuisance, but if you have just been too lazy to read the reference, which states precisely what I've said it does as anyone can see, then fine, you learned something today and we can move on. To repeat the above, both The Times and the Guardian use Pokerscout as a reliable source. So does the Washington Post. Pokerscout says "PokerStars, the world’s biggest poker site". That is a notable fact backed up by multiple reliable sources beyond the reliable source cited. 2005 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anything of the kind. Neither "biggest" nor "largest" appear anywhere on the page. Your attitude here is extremely weird. Do you work for PokerStars or have some kind of connection with them? 109.180.164.3 (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you pretending this nonsense? It says "PokerStars, the world’s biggest poker site" where I said it does. If you are deliberately trying to be a nuisance, grow up. For anyone else reading this, the quoted phrase is in the last sentence of the second paragraph on the lower left of the page, in the "Why Does Size Matter?" section. Then the fact be referenced is also shown in the graph that is the main content of the entire page. I've added other references from The Telegraph and Motley Fool and others that point out Pokerstars has about 66-71% of the total online poker market share which of course means it is also the largest. 2005 (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see this IP address has now been blocked from editing for sock evasion and longterm abuse. 2005 (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Benjamin Spragg" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Benjamin Spragg has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 5 § Benjamin Spragg until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PokerStars&oldid=1210079928"