i made a difference! mwahahaha!

earlier i was at a table and busted some guy out. he got all phil helmiuthy on me and he began saying such things as "I'm 17 and i make more money then your parents" and went on for 20 minutes on the rail talking about how great his life is compared to everyone there. So it was no issue for me to report he admitted to being underage. I probably wouldn't have reported him if he hadn't been an ass wipe. heres the response letter i got from PS...

Hello Adam,

Thank you for your report of this chat.

Poker Stars is committed to responsible gaming, and as such underage
players are not allowed on Poker Stars. The minimum age requirement to play
on Poker Stars is 18 years of age.

Most often such chat is done in jest by players who are of legal age, but
we take no chances in such cases. Poker Stars treats such chat claims just
as airport security treats "jokes" about bombs -- serious and factual
until proven otherwise. As such, I have closed this player's account
pending reception of proof of age.

Thank you for your cooperation in protecting the integrity and security of
our games.

Regards,

Nathan J
Poker Stars Support Team

do you think its genuine, or just a typical response.

genuine response, but I dont really like snitches

just my personal opinion

doesnt mean i dont like you, just snitching is something that I have never done and dont plan on doing

but yes genuine response im sure

I agree, but I don't consider this guy a snitch! If your underage and playing poker, good for you, many pro's did this and this is how their careers got started, but keep it to yourself. Don't make yourself a target. It was this guys own fault!

If the kid hadn't opened his trap he wouldn't have put himself in the situation to get busted. WP

word.

OK OK!! I admit it - I'm 8 years old and play poker for a living pweez don't turn me in pwetty pweez!

I have no problem snitching in this situation. I pay the poker site (via rake) for the opportunity to play within a controlled environment according to the rules they set out. As a customer, I have no problem alerting management when that agreement is not being followed. I want what I paid for.

I'll let it slide if it is just abusive chat for the most part, but I've had guys tell their table-buddies what cards they just folded while the hand is still going on.

This. ^^ Good for you. I've known people to be underage and play, but they weren't an ass like this guy. He was asking for it.

OK, I will not turn you in. But you deserve a spanking for this.

There is a reason for an age limit on gambling and poker. Most minors don't have the discipline to manage money properly. I think the accused "snitch" did this boy a favor by protecting him and his family from future costly mistakes.

There is also the aspect of keeping online gaming clean. Reporting violators (meaning those who break ANY rule or law) helps the sites cover themselves and avoid those stories by parents who say their kids got addicted to online poker and then they go to Congress to testify about it.

Careful, I've heard those Brits like a good spanking.

I wonder where you heard that you filthy american boy - rrrrrRRrrr!

But in all seriousness I would only accept this kind of punishment from AG.. did I say that out loud

The little biitch deserved it, lol owned, thats awesome.

I hope his funds got locked

Yea, he got what he deserved. Brat.

O.K. I agree that you should report this behavior, but I would shrug it off and let the kid lose his money to me.

Normally if I want to get back at a player, I look up their horrible sharkscope and pokerdb stats and rub it in their face!

Lie or Die!

lol

Assuming the OP story is true, the kid got the whoopin he deserved.

I disagree. If a kid is old enough to own money and spend money, he should be able to gamble by buying a CD (will the songs on it justify the money spent?), junk food (will the temporary good taste justify the money spent?), investing in the stock market, buying any product, and gambling. Any purchase is a gamble. We're allowed to pay for entertainment but we can't pay for entertainment when we have a shot at winning?

But the law is the law, and the law says you have to be 18. I personally would fight for a lower age but they should need parent permission. I played when I was under 18 (hopefully statute of limitations is up now), it was always with my own money and I managed it fine. I lost everything I put on there, but I think I got better and it was worth it. But it takes an idiot to brag about their illegal activities on something that can be monitored. Also, pokerstars wins twice on this. First off they get to keep any money in the account (which was a lot if he was telling the truth, doubtful though), and second they can use it as an example of how they "protect" minors.

That said, if they wanted to, it would be quite easy to simply require a photo ID be faxed in to prove they are of age and using their real name (prevent multiple accounts).

'If a fish didn't open his mouth he wouldn't get caught."
I think an old saying among defense attorney...about chatty clients

most (mst) KEY

ADJECTIVE:
Superlative of many, much.

1. 1. Greatest in number: ..won the most votes.
   2. Greatest in amount, extent, or degree: ..has the most compassion.
2. In the greatest number of instances: Most fish have fins.

Spoken like a true ex-juvenile delinquent. You broke the law, sir. Also, while breaking the law by gambling under age, you violated any gambling site's terms of service and lied on the sign up agreement by stating that you were over 18.

What happens when a kid can't manage his money like you and drains his family's finances due to addiction? Online gaming gets blamed and his family's public complaints strengthen the anti-online gaming sentiment. The online gaming industry needs to keep its hands clean now more than ever.

Those purchases you mentioned have a set price. You can't compare buying a CD or junk food to gambling with no limit on funds, which includes the stock market. It appears you really need to get a hold of the big picture. A child having to go without gambling for the first 18 years of his life is NOT the end of the world. You will find that out many years from now.

NH OP.

And I've seen a lot of kids (but also adults) with gambling problems and it's no fun. An aunt in my family had herself barred from the casino and now puts on wigs and stuff to get in anyway: surprise, surprise, she started going to Vegas with her first husband (who was filthy rich, trustfund kid) back when she was 16.

And yes, she did marry at 16.

Nice story, no proof of causation. Correlation does not equal causation.

I said this was true, even mentioned hoping the statute of limitations was up. But I didn't exactly pretend the information was factual, I also said I was from Bobville Alaska zip code 12345. Deposits and (potential, they never actually happened) cash-outs went through transfers to friends.

First of all, how does a KID drain his FAMILY's finances? I used my own spending money, money that I could have used to walk into a store and buy anything else with (well not cigarettes or alcohol, but that's another story). It would have been fine for me to drain my family's finances by going and buying a junk car from a crooked car dealer that broke the first couple miles out of the shop, but play a game with that money where you have a chance of winning money? Never. Everytime I played I treated the money I put online as gone. Basically I didn't need it, it was expendable. If I lost my entire BR I would be financially secure still.


I had a set price too. I put on $50 at a time, through my friend. What's the difference between a $5 trip to the vending machine every day for 10 days and putting $50 online which usually lasted longer than that. Both can be addictions, both most of the time aren't, and both of them find you $50 in the hole. Only difference: one is legal, one is not. I never said it would have been the end of the world, I just don't think it's necessary to restrict it. It wouldn't be the end of the world if people between the ages of 40 and 45 weren't allowed to eat dark chocolate. Would you support such a law?

now if an adult who knows how much he money he has and knows how much he can afford to lose can go bankrupt gambling, losig hundreds of thousands of dollars more than he has then what would happen to a child.
children are niave and dont really know the value of money. he might put 50 on the account get that up to 200$ and then lose it .he would tell himself that since he was able to make so much out of his 50 he might deposite 100 next time then 150 then 500 and the amount he puts in get larger as he gets older thinking he can beat the system
yet he keeps on losing and losing and thinks he is too good to be losing
depositing 4 digit sums and losing that.he is too young and foolish to know when to stop.so it continues and continues and he loses and loses and soon enough he is addicted and in debt,all this before 23? thats no way t start of ur adult life is it


1 question whould u like ur child to have a gambling problem?

I think this is getting blown out of proportion here. zachvac wasn't irresponsible with his "illegal" under-age activities. I smoked cigarettes when I was underage. Shoot me for that!

The reality is that there are underage people playing and some are even very good players. The OP was about a kid who could not control his emotions. This reminds me of Phil Helmuth. Should we ban Phil Helmuth from playing because he has the emotional maturity of a 5-year old?

Of course in the OP, that kid voluntary revealed he is doing something he knows he is not supposed to. This would be like me walking in the principal's office with a lit cigarette. I am sure zacvac wasn't bragging online he was underage. He had a more responsible attitude than many adults.

Also, if all kids are that irresponsible at 17, why are they allowed to drive cars with the potential to kill someone on the road?

The bottom line is that we have all broken various laws. I don't consider an underage poker player to be a bigger threat to society than a gang member or hard-drugs user at that age. So let's keep things in the proper perspective.

OK, first off, let me put this out there. I think the parent should have the ultimate say. I already said I wouldn't mind it if you needed parental permission to gamble under 18. My parents know I play poker, and although they weren't crazy about the whole online thing, they said as long is it was my own money and my grades didn't suffer, it was fine. I held a 3.8 through high school and although sometimes my sleep suffers, my work that I have to get done does not.

I think everyone here is taking the wrong attitude though towards this law. The question isn't "why should we let a kid gamble?", it's "is there any reason we should ban kids from gambling?". Adults sometimes have problems eating right, let's ban adults over 50 from eating candy bars, because we don't want them to have a heart attack. My grandpa died in his 40s because he smoked. Why should I and other kids have to lose their grandpas so early? Let's ban adults from smoking.

Now here's my support for the whole thing. First of all, minors cannot spend what they don't have. How many banks do you know of that approves loans to kids? And if a friend loans money that the other kid can't pay back, it serves him right. Kids can't go into debt, so the worst that can happen is they spend everything they have. Out of most of my friends in college, they pretty much all had summer jobs at least. Most of them have to call their parents when they need money. When I was back on Thanksgiving break, my mom was telling me about how our neighbor asked her about sending me money, because their kid kept begging for money. Basically most of these kids have already blown all they could. They bought new cell phones, paid for nights out, etc. Meanwhile I'm paying for all my books (which for those not familiar with cost, was ~$700 for me last semester, hoping for it to be a bit cheaper this semester because I'll be able to sell a few of my books used, but it's still a good chunk of money, over a thousand bucks each year at least), and my parents have not sent me a dime.

So basically, if I had been the irresponsible kid you talked about earlier, the worst I could have turned out as is the typical college kid, spending all the money I earned and having nothing left. Plus I would have learned a valuable life lesson before I was old enough for it to really kill me. Losing a couple hundred bucks, being all you have, as a minor is not the end of the world (although I'm sure it feels like it). Being an adult and losing 6 figure sums on a gambling problem and having to declare bankruptcy could destroy your life. I would think it's better to learn the lesson the hard way early than the hard way later. I think poker taught me money management, it's a lot of fun, and now I've gotten good enough that it's a good flexible side job. Meanwhile other people gambled by spending their money on nights out, and whatever else a teenager can blow their money on. I'm sitting on a stable money supply, they're sitting on their parents.

My point isn't that poker is good for everyone, but they can't spend what they don't have, and they can spend everything they have on anything else, so why not poker? Get addicted to candy bars and you're fat and broke. The point is the law shouldn't be aimed at saving people from themselves. I realize that minors are treated differently and I can understand laws such as cigarette and alcohol bans for minors. But just because a person CAN get addicted and blow all their money doesn't mean they will, and if a kid can own their own money (this is up to the parent), I see no reason why they can't spend it however they choose. If they earned it and could blow it all on junk food, they should be able to blow it on poker. And the fact that not everyone gets addicted and blows money is the ultimate argument against a universal law. Why should the actions of some have an impact on the laws that have to be followed by all? (this deals with attempts at overall poker bans as well, just because some people can't control themselves the government has to protect EVERYONE)

Sorry this got a bit long, but I just don't understand the gambling ban for minors. If a kid wants to spend money and they have their parents permission, I see no reason to stop them. At worst it's a good life lesson on money management.

zachvac, since your parents knew about your poker playing, let's extend the argument further. You can join the military at age 17 with parental permission!

How is it possible to trust a person to be responsible enough to handle weapons and kill other people but not good enough to play 1/2c cash games online?

Hell my cousin was allowed to handle a weapon to hunt when he was like 12 I think (they live on a farm in Illinois). Making a mistake there is WAY more drastic than a mistake in poker. One slip and you could kill yourself, at least the worst thing in poker that can happen is you go broke. I guess you COULD commit suicide from the depression, but that's not an automatic thing.

Some of you seem to feel that children are just little versions of adults. They aren't. Minors, even older teenagers, do not have the same brains as adults, physically or mentally. They are still developing and highly prone to poor judgment and developing addictive behavior. The rush of gambling is not good for them, plain and simple.

Anecdotal evidence of exceptions, which I'm sure there are, do not disprove the trend.

Where's the line? You're telling me there's a magical change at 18 where they suddenly have the wisdom to make good decisions?

I just don't like this logic, the government banning something because it is "not good for them". Heard of the obesity problem in America? Kids are doing all kinds of things that aren't good for them, and parents are letting them. It's not the role of the government to stop people from doing something that's not good for them. What are parents for?

Laws should not be based on trends. Trends say that young blacks commit more crimes per capita than the average American. Let's let the police arbitrarily search young blacks without a warrant. Never mind the anecdotal evidence of exceptions, a trend is a trend.
[/sarcasm]

The trouble is that there is obviously not a set age where people become more responsible, it differs with each person and this makes the government applying age limits on things like online poker and also driving, drinking etc. a very imprecise and often far too rigid system. Here in England there is a big teenage binge drinking/drugs problem, and there is a lot of scientific research going on studying addiction and how some people are more prone to it than others, and there are even suggestions of "addiction genes". I predict that fairly soon there will be some big developments in this field but in any case I think it is too much of a generalisation to say that poker or indeed the gambling urge is more damaging to minors than to many adults - there is just not enough information or statistics available for this claim to be made.

I definately think that the idea zach put forward that learning these lessons early may be actually more beneficial than in later life where there is a potential to do more financial damage is a valid one - but I 'm sure there is variance between different people, which I guess sides with zach's idea of making the parents more responsible than the government.

My son is 11 now and has been hunting ( shooting a gun, which is legal ) since he was 9. Of course, he was under parental supervision at all times. Yes, mistakes can happen, but if properly educated on handling guns makes that %age go down which it couldn't be high to begin with.

I do not believe people who are underage needs to be gambling. It's alot more hurtful to get in debt at such a early age when most of them still live with their parents. They haven't even had a chance to get out on their own and learn how to manage money yet!

Wow, I've said this before, how about the parent teaches their kid about money management and gambling as you have about hunting? This logic is horrible, "they don't need to" is not a logical argument. You don't need to be allowed to eat chocolate, why shouldn't the government ban chocolate?
Another point I've also made, a minor cannot go into debt. I've yet to meet a bank who will offer a loan to a minor. A minor gambling can only harm themselves as much as anyone else without money management who buys things because they can.

So just to make the laws in this country clear:

A 9-year old kid is allowed to hunt with a gun. He could easily intentionally or unintentionally turn around and kill you, other people, or himself. You're allowed to go into the military, where the mental damage is usually high (I'm sure you've seen the suicide rates of Vietnam vets), your goal is to kill people, and you have a chance of being killed, at 17. You can smoke a cigarette, which has been proved to cause cancer and reduce life spans by decades, killing some people in their 40s and 50s, at 18.

On the other hand, you can't (legally) drink alcohol, something adults regularly do at parties and special occasions, with no proven long-term effects if done responsibly, until age 21. You can do something that has been proven to kill at 18 but can't do something that is advertised and done frequently by adults until 21.

You can blow money on an HDTV, an arcade, an amusement park, ma