Economist "A special report on Gambling"

[Longy]

http://www.economist.com/node/16507670

There are 11 articles relating to poker and other forms of gambling. Pretty decent imo given the normal tripe written in the media about the subject.

[George2Loose]

Think dealing the flop down would be a good innovation. Then when you complete the betting on river you turn the flop up to see who wins.

[Rod Paradise]

The throwaway stat that a royal flush is as likely as getting hit be lightning doesn't stand up either.

[Skippy]

The throwaway stat that a royal flush is as likely as getting hit be lightning doesn't stand up either.

I've seen 3 so far in my life, and I remain unelectrocuted.

[EvilPie]

The throwaway stat that a royal flush is as likely as getting hit be lightning doesn't stand up either.

I've seen 3 so far in my life, and I remain unelectrocuted.

According to a reliable source (the internet) it's 606000 to 1 against the lightning strike and 649740 to 1 against the royal flush.

Surely though this depends on your participation in the event or your locality to lightning?

Someone who sits on the top of tall trees in florida in the rainy season playing dominos is more likely to get hit by a bolt of lightning than make a royal flush.

Someone who sits at his pc in Basingstoke 20 tabling unlimited holdem is probably more likely to get a royal flush than be struck by lightning.

Definitely makes a mockery of the article.

[tikay]

I'm sure the authors of the heavily-researched articles will be impressed by the seriousness with which the thrust of their debate has been addressed by the poker cognoscenti.

+1 to the OP, I agree.

Online gambling is huge now, absolutely massive, & I think a deeper understanding of what drives it, & where it's going, is needed.

It's almost beyond imagination that an industry so big, domestically & internationally, is barely 10 years old. Hard to imagine how big it could become if it continued at this rate, & when Governments will eventually decide to both Regulate & Tax, it.

[mondatoo]

I'm sure the authors of the heavily-researched articles will be impressed by the seriousness with which the thrust of their debate has been addressed by the poker cognoscenti.

+1 to the OP, I agree.

Online gambling is huge now, absolutely massive, & I think a deeper understanding of what drives it, & where it's going, is needed.

It's almost beyond imagination that an industry so big, domestically & internationally, is barely 10 years old. Hard to imagine how big it could become if it continued at this rate, & when Governments will eventually decide to both Regulate & Tax, it.

A lot of people seem to be worried that online poker is on the decline not getting bigger,I tend not to worry about things I have no control over so only time will tell I guess.Just realised you where talking about gambling in general not just poker but point still stands anyway.

[Rod Paradise]

The throwaway stat that a royal flush is as likely as getting hit be lightning doesn't stand up either.

I've seen 3 so far in my life, and I remain unelectrocuted.

According to a reliable source (the internet) it's 606000 to 1 against the lightning strike and 649740 to 1 against the royal flush.

Surely though this depends on your participation in the event or your locality to lightning?

Someone who sits on the top of tall trees in florida in the rainy season playing dominos is more likely to get hit by a bolt of lightning than make a royal flush.

Someone who sits at his pc in Basingstoke 20 tabling unlimited holdem is probably more likely to get a royal flush than be struck by lightning.

Definitely makes a mockery of the article.

1 hand of poker compared to 1 year in the USA, unless you're TK at a Blonde Bash you don't only play one hand.
And that's 5 card poker - hold'em's 30939:1.

Pish Stats Usage agreed.