AlexeiVronsky
Rock Star
Silver Level
I'd say that there's no real value to the vast majority of freerolls, except as entertainment. While there is an absolute increase on average income from a freeroll, in general the average amount of value from that freeroll is far less than you would make by working for an equivalent period of time. So when you consider the opportunity cost you're probably losing money by playing freerolls unless you're concurrently doing something else that makes you money. While it may be technically fraudulent it's essentially meaningless as you're not significantly denying anyone else the opportunity to win money as there's tons of freerolls across numerous sites, far more than anyone could reasonably play, and most of them with better average payout per player than on pokerstars.
The age question is basically a matter of opinion, if you want to say that an arbitrary age of 18 or 21, is requisite to play poker, that's fine you're entitled to your opinion. I personally don't see what the seemingly arbitrary age of 18 has to do with anything, and I don't think 21 makes any sense as the source of that as age of majority is from british parliamentary law as to when people were capable of carrying their own armour into battle. If you're going to make an age of majority based on rationality it should be age 26 when the pre-frontal cortex is generally fully mature.
And argument from legality has little merit for me as I don't believe the governments have the right to dictate our lives nearly as much as they do. I'm capable, as are many others, to determine how I choose to live my life and so long as I don't threaten others from being able to do likewise there should be no problems. Instead the legal system dictates and severely limits personal freedoms for the advantage of power elites and codifies laws on morality that should be determined by individuals. The regulation of poker is an example of this, it's a consensual activity that does no harm to the majority of players. The minority of players who have a gambling problem will run out of money, and they have no one to blame for the problems but themselves. If they're stupid/weak enough to lose all their money they deserve it, and whoever takes the money they lose deserve it for being better than them.
This leads me to gambling addiction. This is generally caused by a flaw in someone's brain chemistry. To say that a younger person is going to become a compulsive gambler simply because they played, for instance, poker when they were younger is simply false. They'll become a compulsive gambler if their brain chemistry is off. It's actually probably better to identify such a problem younger in any case as it can be more easily treated when they're under the supervision of another person who claims responsibility for them. And failing to claim personal responsibility for addiction is dangerous. There's a wide variety of things that people can become addicted to that aren't necessarily bad in and of themselves, it's only a problem when it becomes excessive, you need to maintain discipline and restraint which no one can do for you. If someone has a problem they're going to find a way to meet their desires regardless of legality, therefore the best method is to find ways of mitigating or ceasing the destructive behavior. Simply making laws is no good for this, as it tends to compound the problems instead of dealing with their root causes and solving them.
So basically I don't see why this is such a big deal to people, he played in a freeroll, then made some real money off of it with (presumably) good play at other games. Who he is, and whether he is who he claimed should have little relevance to this. The only real point of contention is that he played in a freeroll he wasn't intended to play in. As there are such a large number of freerolls he could have played in for his nationality, even if on a different site, it's odd that he would decide to do this, but he's not really denying anyone else the ability to beat him so does it really matter what country he's from? (Again though I'm an anti-nationalist, because I think the group mentality that arises from this conception of in-group is dangerous and leads to far too many deaths and atrocities.)
The age question is basically a matter of opinion, if you want to say that an arbitrary age of 18 or 21, is requisite to play poker, that's fine you're entitled to your opinion. I personally don't see what the seemingly arbitrary age of 18 has to do with anything, and I don't think 21 makes any sense as the source of that as age of majority is from british parliamentary law as to when people were capable of carrying their own armour into battle. If you're going to make an age of majority based on rationality it should be age 26 when the pre-frontal cortex is generally fully mature.
And argument from legality has little merit for me as I don't believe the governments have the right to dictate our lives nearly as much as they do. I'm capable, as are many others, to determine how I choose to live my life and so long as I don't threaten others from being able to do likewise there should be no problems. Instead the legal system dictates and severely limits personal freedoms for the advantage of power elites and codifies laws on morality that should be determined by individuals. The regulation of poker is an example of this, it's a consensual activity that does no harm to the majority of players. The minority of players who have a gambling problem will run out of money, and they have no one to blame for the problems but themselves. If they're stupid/weak enough to lose all their money they deserve it, and whoever takes the money they lose deserve it for being better than them.
This leads me to gambling addiction. This is generally caused by a flaw in someone's brain chemistry. To say that a younger person is going to become a compulsive gambler simply because they played, for instance, poker when they were younger is simply false. They'll become a compulsive gambler if their brain chemistry is off. It's actually probably better to identify such a problem younger in any case as it can be more easily treated when they're under the supervision of another person who claims responsibility for them. And failing to claim personal responsibility for addiction is dangerous. There's a wide variety of things that people can become addicted to that aren't necessarily bad in and of themselves, it's only a problem when it becomes excessive, you need to maintain discipline and restraint which no one can do for you. If someone has a problem they're going to find a way to meet their desires regardless of legality, therefore the best method is to find ways of mitigating or ceasing the destructive behavior. Simply making laws is no good for this, as it tends to compound the problems instead of dealing with their root causes and solving them.
So basically I don't see why this is such a big deal to people, he played in a freeroll, then made some real money off of it with (presumably) good play at other games. Who he is, and whether he is who he claimed should have little relevance to this. The only real point of contention is that he played in a freeroll he wasn't intended to play in. As there are such a large number of freerolls he could have played in for his nationality, even if on a different site, it's odd that he would decide to do this, but he's not really denying anyone else the ability to beat him so does it really matter what country he's from? (Again though I'm an anti-nationalist, because I think the group mentality that arises from this conception of in-group is dangerous and leads to far too many deaths and atrocities.)
