Recommending a restaurant or movie is a different story, because it's a matter of personal taste.Originally Posted by Steve-O
I think you're 100% wrong on the bolded part above. You assume that your experiences (and those of a few other people's) are everyones. There are people who have been double-billed who won't use a certain gas station or restaurant, that's THEIR decision and their experience, and no matter how many bad reviews on Yelp or wherever else they post there are plenty of people with good experiences at the same place, and you're not going to change their mind on it even if you are right!
... except for that last part about it being hard to blame them.
Am I surprised? No.
In general, poker players aren't the most principled bunch. Sure, there is a small percentage of players with a real conscience, but unfortunately the poker community is riddled with a lot of shady types that will do anything for easy money. Some of those people would sell out their own grandmother if the money was right.
Therefore, it's hardly surprising to see poker players (especially broke ones) happy to sign on the dotted line for "online pro" sponsorships, regardless of the reputation of the company they're shilling for.
A few of them, like Joe Sebok, greatly suffered as a result of their decision. Unfortunately, most other pros associated with shady sites have skated away unscathed. For example, has anyone really criticized Melanie Weisner for signing with Lock?
I can tell you that I would never sign a deal to be a pro for a shady site. And if I was a pro on a site that developed a bad reputation while I was there, I would abandon ship immediately, even if I was giving up a lot of money or benefits as a result.
Professional poker is hard -- especially these days -- so I don't blame pros for taking sponsorship deals. I think that sponsored pros should use a negative check-off system when deciding whether to represent a site. They shouldn't be required (or expected to) do major investigations into the site they're representing to prove it's clean, but should never sign with a site with a bad reputation or clear indications of dishonesty. Furthermore, anyone who is a pro (or manager) of a site that is later discovered to be shady should quit immediately.
Though I am not exactly in high demand as a sponsored pro (being a 40-year-old guy who only plays tournaments during the WSOP), I can tell you that I would adhere to the above standards regarding any offers made to me. I actually was briefly a sponsored pro for both Interpoker and Sun Poker, during the 2005-2006 online poker peak when sponsorships were easy to come by.
You can state your claims and what you know of the business but to call out other people for using it or promoting it, or giving positive feedback, when you don't even consider their experience with the same business, is nuts! Melanie Weisner? Really? We all know people who we trust who other people think are shitbags; regardless of who ends up being correct in the long-run both parties are entitled to their own opinions based on their dealings in the present, and based on those experiences both parties can be correct at the same time.
Wearing a patch does not make you the FDIC for the site, it simply says I recommend this site... just like people can agree or disagree on a restaurant or movie, or even on the integrity of a business. I've never said "Fuck Roger Ebert, he told me that movie was good and it was a waste of my money!"
Maybe a movie appealed to Roger Ebert, but I hated it. Neither of us is wrong there -- we just had different criteria for what made us find a movie enjoyable.
Same with a restaurant. What tastes good to one person can be completely disgusting to another person. Again, it's a matter of personal preference.
When you wear a site's patch (and being featured on their website), as you pointed out, you are telling people that you recommend that site.
That doesn't mean that you should be expected to spend your days investigating every facet of their business to make sure they're not shady, but at the same time, I feel it is unethical to promote a company that you know is unethical.
You should never associate your name with something that you know is bad.
While you and I know that pro endorsements are meaningless when it comes to the reliability of poker sites, the average casual player doesn't. For example, Annette Obrestad just signed with Lock Poker. Casual players will see Annette with a Lock patch, and might say to themselves, "I like Annette. She's really dedicated to the game and seems like a nice girl. If she's associated with Lock poker, it has to be good."
I don't put site pros in the same category as a guy like Joe Sebok, because Sebok actively peddled lies for UB. Still, I think that willingly promoting something that you know is shady is unethical
I don't understand guys like Gank, who seem to genuinely care about the little guy (hence his dedicated involvement in Occupy Las Vegas), yet promote companies like Lock. Maybe they convince themselves that guys like me are just lying or exaggerating.
Reply With Quote