Online Poker

[moo321]

Ok so basically what you are saying is that banks across America will not allow transfers of money to poker sites (Only poker) because they don't feel like it, or they don't want to, but not because it is illegal?(well at least the 10 I use that eventually denied my card for transfer and I called a couple of them up and they said it was illegal) And your saying that the 5 different poker sites that I talked to say it is banned int he US and that the "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" is in the process of legalizing and regulating online poker? (I know for a fact the US government is doing this) Why would the Fed goverment legalize it if it were not allready leagal? Basically what I get out of everything is that Some of the smartest people in the world and all the bank CEOs and owners of the poker sites are not smart enough to discover what you have discovered, or they are all lying which in turn is giving them less revenue. These are facts. I have first hand knowledge of these. And also the US FEDERAL GOV. did freeze millions of dollars transfered to poker sites to stop the gambling. They did this to prove a point and put many companies out of business. The above in undisputable, but I am proud that you found what no other Harvard, Yale, or West Point graduate cound never find. Still doesn't change anything because the Harvard, Yale and West point graduates don't believe you, nor I.

Ok, so you're not arguing about this, but now you are again? Point by point:

1. What your bank refuses to do does not define what is illegal or not.
2. The Feds froze money because of SPORTS BETTING. Again, SPORTS BETTING is illegal. Neteller got shut down because of SPORTS BETTING. Not poker.
3. Again, go read Nelson Rose's opinion. He's more respected than anyone you cited (although you didn't actually cite anything, you just made outrageous, unsubstantiated claims about conversations you've personally had, with vague claims about people going to Harvard).
4. Again, go read the UIGEA. The law is clear that it does not alter any law. It is an ENFORCEMENT act. It is to ENFORCE the bans on sports betting and state laws about poker.
5. You again failed to cite any prosecution under UIGEA for poker.
6. You again failed to cite any sources of any kind.

I will not address any further response you make that does not address the text of the law AND Nelson Rose's opinion, and that does not cite any sources of its own to support your assertions. I have no interest in further arguing when I support my arguments, and you make ridiculous assertions completely unsupported by objective evidence.

Your argument that you've had vague conversations with "smart people" is ridiculous. CITE SOURCES OR SHUT UP!

 

[ccibball50]

Ok, so you're not arguing about this, but now you are again? Point by point:

1. What your bank refuses to do does not define what is illegal or not.
2. The Feds froze money because of SPORTS BETTING. Again, SPORTS BETTING is illegal. Neteller got shut down because of SPORTS BETTING. Not poker.
3. Again, go read Nelson Rose's opinion. He's more respected than anyone you cited (although you didn't actually cite anything, you just made outrageous, unsubstantiated claims about conversations you've personally had, with vague claims about people going to Harvard).
4. Again, go read the UIGEA. The law is clear that it does not alter any law. It is an ENFORCEMENT act. It is to ENFORCE the bans on sports betting and state laws about poker.
5. You again failed to cite any prosecution under UIGEA for poker.
6. You again failed to cite any sources of any kind.

I will not address any further response you make that does not address the text of the law AND Nelson Rose's opinion, and that does not cite any sources of its own to support your assertions. I have no interest in further arguing when I support my arguments, and you make ridiculous assertions completely unsupported by objective evidence.

Your argument that you've had vague conversations with "smart people" is ridiculous. CITE SOURCES OR SHUT UP!

First off, I was using your logic. Money was frozen for all gambling, even for sites that were sports gambling. It was frozen for poker as well. If the government wanted, they could have just frozen money for sites that offered only what you called illegal gambling. They didn't however because they wanted to freeze poker and blackjack and everything else as well for tax reasons.

Banks are not stupid, the only reason they will not allow the transfer to poker, is because it is illegal. The reason is not according to you that they will lose profits for no reason at all.

I have had first hand experience, and would actually quote a couple of respected lawyers, but I will not because both of them post on here.

All I have to say is All the banks agree with me and all the poker sites agree with me, you and your lawyer you quoted from a blog do not. I chose to listen to the people who have first hand knowledge and deal with this on a daily basis from multiple sources, not just on lawyer and his blog.

Yea your right about me not arguing about this, but I just want people to know the truth.

 

[moo321]

First off, I was using your logic. Money was frozen for all gambling, even for sites that were sports gambling. It was frozen for poker as well. If the government wanted, they could have just frozen money for sites that offered only what you called illegal gambling. They didn't however because they wanted to freeze poker and blackjack and everything else as well for tax reasons.

Banks are not stupid, the only reason they will not allow the transfer to poker, is because it is illegal. The reason is not according to you that they will lose profits for no reason at all.

I have had first hand experience, and would actually quote a couple of respected lawyers, but I will not because both of them post on here.

All I have to say is All the banks agree with me and all the poker sites agree with me, you and your lawyer you quoted from a blog do not. I chose to listen to the people who have first hand knowledge and deal with this on a daily basis from multiple sources, not just on lawyer and his blog.

Yea your right about me not arguing about this, but I just want people to know the truth.

Again, you need to:

1. Respond to the Nelson Rose article
2. Respond to the text of the law
3. Cite ANY source to support your argument.

 

[ccibball50]

Again, you need to:

1. Respond to the Nelson Rose article
2. Respond to the text of the law
3. Cite ANY source to support your argument.

I will not respond to a "BLOG" Hell I'll put up a blog and call it a source. Here is some law for you.

Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 makes it illegal for anyone to gamble in their home if 5 or more people are playing. (thats a part that not that pertinent.)

the US government has taken the position that certain things are illegal, and more importantly, certain things are worthy of prosecution. The Wire Act is the statute most often cited as making on-line gambling a federal offense. The operative subsection reads: "Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Here is your law. This includes poker. You are making a bet in hopes of winning money, and you are knowingly using a wire transfer "which entitles the recipient to receive moenyy or credit as a result of bets or wages," This is clear and cut. Poker is ILLEGAL.

Hey sorry bud this is not my law, but the Federal Law.

 

[moo321]

I will not respond to a "BLOG" Hell I'll put up a blog and call it a source. Here is some law for you.

Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 makes it illegal for anyone to gamble in their home if 5 or more people are playing. (thats a part that not that pertinent.)

the US government has taken the position that certain things are illegal, and more importantly, certain things are worthy of prosecution. The Wire Act is the statute most often cited as making on-line gambling a federal offense. The operative subsection reads: "Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Here is your law. This includes poker. You are making a bet in hopes of winning money, and you are knowingly using a wire transfer "which entitles the recipient to receive moenyy or credit as a result of bets or wages," This is clear and cut. Poker is ILLEGAL.

Hey sorry bud this is not my law, but the Federal Law.

The blog was just a repost of an article by Nelson Rose. So, you need to read it again, and actually think about why the pre-eminent gaming attorney would completely disagree with you.

And, AGAIN you failed to respond to the text of the UIGEA.

And, your citing of the Wire Fraud Act (which I've mentioned multiple times) is faulty. It was determined in Appeals Court in 2001 that the Act DOES NOT APPLY TO INTERNET GAMBLING. http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/mastercard.html

This is why you need to cite reputable sources, instead of guessing, talking to friends (who, if they are attorneys, are probably NOT gambling attorneys), or, for pete's sake, talking to customer service people at online poker sites. Those guys are paid, maybe $3 an hour in some third world country, and don't know **** about anything.

Conclusions:

1. There is no federal law banning online poker, you have been repeatedly refuted on this point, and have cited no reliable sources whatsoever.
2. Your repeated failure to address the fact that UIGEA does not make poker illegal means you accept this fact or you are a troll who knows better and is lying.
3. Any further responses to this that need to address the overwhelming evidence that refutes your argument, point by point.
4. If you do not address the evidence already given, and cite specific evidence supporting your argument, I will conclude that you are a troll that is trying to smoke-screen people into believing that online gaming is illegal.

Your next post is your last chance to address this before I conclude you are a troll. This has gotten ridiculous.

 

[AussieBlackjack]

The problem with these interactive gaming laws is that they are nearly impossible to enforce and since its a relatively new form of gambling the laws are very vague and open to many interpretations.

Before i go on some of this information may be incorrect as i have only very briefly researched this information about australian online gaming law and i also dont really know anything at all about americas uigea so im not gonna comment about that particular legislation. I am just writing this post as maybe a suggestion you could say on how america might/should act in regards to how they word the legislation. I don't know just some thoughts on the topic anyway.

In australia we have similar laws which relate to all online gambling however the law in our interactive gaming legislation states that it is only an offence to provide online gaming services (with exceptions of sports betting and betting exchanges) to australian citizens. It also states that the legislation isn't to target potential customers (australian citizens like me who like playing online) but the actual providers of the online gaming services. This therefore ultimately gives the gambling sites and australian banks the onus of deciding wether to take the risk of allowing australians to gamble at their online sites and in relation to banks wether they will allow gambling transactions (which some do/some don't). However never actually making it illegal for the regular person to play. If the sites do let them play they potentially face a fine of 1 million per aussie who they let play. Although i seriously doubt this would ever happen.

The reality of the matter in australia nearly everyone knows about online gambling and that we nearly pretty much all do it, i know policeman and lawyers in australia who gamble online (who mind you deposit and successfully withdraw) and none of us really care about the law because we know it really isn't going to be enforced. Ultimately its just like those stupid laws we all hear about for e.g. in australia its only legal to have sex with a kangaroo if your drunk...lol

 

[ccibball50]

The blog was just a repost of an article by Nelson Rose. So, you need to read it again, and actually think about why the pre-eminent gaming attorney would completely disagree with you.

And, AGAIN you failed to respond to the text of the UIGEA.

And, your citing of the Wire Fraud Act (which I've mentioned multiple times) is faulty. It was determined in Appeals Court in 2001 that the Act DOES NOT APPLY TO INTERNET GAMBLING. http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/mastercard.html

This is why you need to cite reputable sources, instead of guessing, talking to friends (who, if they are attorneys, are probably NOT gambling attorneys), or, for pete's sake, talking to customer service people at online poker sites. Those guys are paid, maybe $3 an hour in some third world country, and don't know **** about anything.

Conclusions:

1. There is no federal law banning online poker, you have been repeatedly refuted on this point, and have cited no reliable sources whatsoever.
2. Your repeated failure to address the fact that UIGEA does not make poker illegal means you accept this fact or you are a troll who knows better and is lying.
3. Any further responses to this that need to address the overwhelming evidence that refutes your argument, point by point.
4. If you do not address the evidence already given, and cite specific evidence supporting your argument, I will conclude that you are a troll that is trying to smoke-screen people into believing that online gaming is illegal.

Your next post is your last chance to address this before I conclude you are a troll. This has gotten ridiculous.

I dont care what UIGEA says. there are other laws that have to be abided by as well. I am not here to say hey UIGEA says this or that, I am here to say there are laws that forbid online poker. You need to respond to the laws I gave you, not me respond to yours. Your telling me that there are laws that don't do something. I don't have to respond to that, I am giving you laws that do outlaw something. So you do have to respond to that if you want to make a point.

 

[ccibball50]

The blog was just a repost of an article by Nelson Rose. So, you need to read it again, and actually think about why the pre-eminent gaming attorney would completely disagree with you.

And, AGAIN you failed to respond to the text of the UIGEA.

And, your citing of the Wire Fraud Act (which I've mentioned multiple times) is faulty. It was determined in Appeals Court in 2001 that the Act DOES NOT APPLY TO INTERNET GAMBLING. http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/mastercard.html

This is why you need to cite reputable sources, instead of guessing, talking to friends (who, if they are attorneys, are probably NOT gambling attorneys), or, for pete's sake, talking to customer service people at online poker sites. Those guys are paid, maybe $3 an hour in some third world country, and don't know **** about anything.

Conclusions:

1. There is no federal law banning online poker, you have been repeatedly refuted on this point, and have cited no reliable sources whatsoever.
2. Your repeated failure to address the fact that UIGEA does not make poker illegal means you accept this fact or you are a troll who knows better and is lying.
3. Any further responses to this that need to address the overwhelming evidence that refutes your argument, point by point.
4. If you do not address the evidence already given, and cite specific evidence supporting your argument, I will conclude that you are a troll that is trying to smoke-screen people into believing that online gaming is illegal.

Your next post is your last chance to address this before I conclude you are a troll. This has gotten ridiculous.

I guess i should not listen to a lawyer and listen to you who is not a lawyer and just plays online. That is the dumbest thing you have said yet. I prefer to listen to lawyers who research the law and know how to do so and are reputable and some of the best in the world. I do not choose to listen to an averag Joe (you) who thinks he is smarter than all the bank CEO's and owners of the Poker sites. You are out of control man.

 

[ccibball50]

Bottom line, your not going to convince educated ordinary people that online poker is legal when CEO's (who are smarter than probably anyone on this site) and poker site CEOs and CFO, and COOs, KNOW it is not. Party poker lost 60% revenue due to the bill. (However according to you it did not make anything illegal, they just lost billions for no reason). They were in the European stock exchange as a top 100 company and instantly fell to a top 250 company. (but according to you the bill did not change anything) that is rediculous. They lost the money BECAUSE OF THE BILL. and the only way they would lose that kind of money is if the bill made it illegal. I have friends of the highets intelect that will tell you. Hardvard Master graduates, Harvard Valadictorian graduate school graduate, Duke with Honors Graduate, Other Harvard Grads who is in succession to be the President of a country in Africa. Yale graduates. My point is, these people are smarter than you so called lawyer that likes to blog, and definately smarter than you or me. So your He is the top lawyer crap is not going to work.

 

[moo321]

I guess i should not listen to a lawyer and listen to you who is not a lawyer and just plays online. That is the dumbest thing you have said yet. I prefer to listen to lawyers who research the law and know how to do so and are reputable and some of the best in the world. I do not choose to listen to an averag Joe (you) who thinks he is smarter than all the bank CEO's and owners of the Poker sites. You are out of control man.

I cited Nelson Rose, who is one of the pre-eminent gaming attorneys in the US! And you admitted that you failed to even read the article, which is even more evidence that you are a troll of some kind.

I dont care what UIGEA says. there are other laws that have to be abided by as well. I am not here to say hey UIGEA says this or that, I am here to say there are laws that forbid online poker. You need to respond to the laws I gave you, not me respond to yours. Your telling me that there are laws that don't do something. I don't have to respond to that, I am giving you laws that do outlaw something. So you do have to respond to that if you want to make a point.

In your last post you cited UIGEA! Now you don't care what it says?

Bottom line, your not going to convince educated ordinary people that online poker is legal when CEO's (who are smarter than probably anyone on this site) and poker site CEOs and CFO, and COOs, KNOW it is not. Party poker lost 60% revenue due to the bill. (However according to you it did not make anything illegal, they just lost billions for no reason). They were in the European stock exchange as a top 100 company and instantly fell to a top 250 company. (but according to you the bill did not change anything) that is rediculous. They lost the money BECAUSE OF THE BILL. and the only way they would lose that kind of money is if the bill made it illegal. I have friends of the highets intelect that will tell you. Hardvard Master graduates, Harvard Valadictorian graduate school graduate, Duke with Honors Graduate, Other Harvard Grads who is in succession to be the President of a country in Africa. Yale graduates. My point is, these people are smarter than you so called lawyer that likes to blog, and definately smarter than you or me. So your He is the top lawyer crap is not going to work.

Your continual failure to respond to evidence from reliable sources that completely refute every new argument you make leads me to the conclusion that you are a troll or you are not interested in the truth.

This discussion is over. It has been shown by overwhelming evidence that online poker is not illegal at the federal level, and neither are money transfers for online poker. I will not respond to anything else you post here, you have been given ample opportunity to engage in a constructive discussion and have failed to do so at every point.

 

[takinfromindians97]

Once I heard some advice given to a complete beginner. As a general rule of thumb with more than 5 players only play blackjacks and hands that add up to 20.

what about pocket aces

 

[AussieBlackjack]

what about pocket aces

lol if you are as good as phil hellmuth thinks he is you wouldn't even play pocket aces in certain circumstances

 

[ccibball50]

I cited Nelson Rose, who is one of the pre-eminent gaming attorneys in the US! And you admitted that you failed to even read the article, which is even more evidence that you are a troll of some kind.




In your last post you cited UIGEA! Now you don't care what it says?




Your continual failure to respond to evidence from reliable sources that completely refute every new argument you make leads me to the conclusion that you are a troll or you are not interested in the truth.

This discussion is over. It has been shown by overwhelming evidence that online poker is not illegal at the federal level, and neither are money transfers for online poker. I will not respond to anything else you post here, you have been given ample opportunity to engage in a constructive discussion and have failed to do so at every point.

Go talke to the CEOs at the banks, all of whom are smater than you, me, or that lawyer. I have give you info from some of the samrtest people in the world, even a president in Africa. 90% of all I have give you info from are much smarter than your renound lawyer you talk about. So I tend to believe the smartest in the world.

 

[AussieBlackjack]

Go talke to the CEOs at the banks, all of whom are smater than you, me, or that lawyer. I have give you info from some of the samrtest people in the world, even a president in Africa. 90% of all I have give you info from are much smarter than your renound lawyer you talk about. So I tend to believe the smartest in the world.

Just because someone is smarter then you doesn't mean they are right and they are the be all and end all on a particular subject even if they are top of their field especially when it involves law, politics or religion and even more so when the legislation can be vague or interpreted many different ways.I am sure there are many other lawyers, CEOs, judges,police agencies and other people in the industry who have widely different perspectives on the issue.It is after all in the end just their opinion.

Also i didn't read the source about this president in Africa but why on earth would a president in africa know about or even care about the UIGEA and internet gambling for americans in general????

 

[ccibball50]

Just because someone is smarter then you doesn't mean they are right and they are the be all and end all on a particular subject even if they are top of their field especially when it involves law, politics or religion and even more so when the legislation can be vague or interpreted many different ways.I am sure there are many other lawyers, CEOs, judges,police agencies and other people in the industry who have widely different perspectives on the issue.It is after all in the end just their opinion.

Also i didn't read the source about this president in Africa but why on earth would a president in africa know about or even care about the UIGEA and internet gambling for americans in general????

He is one of my freinds who has researched online poker gambling. I cannot quote him because he does not want his name on this site, however I will give you anyone elses name you want that I talk about. (he obtained his MBA at Harvard)

Anyways I agree with you about the smartest always being right. The only reason I brought these people up was becasue Moo kept talking about some lawyer who is supposed to be so smart. So I brought up a bunch of people who are smarter than the that lawyer.

 

[callipygian]

lol if you are as good as phil hellmuth thinks he is you wouldn't even play pocket aces in certain circumstances

There's really only two situations in which I can imagine not playing pocket aces.

(1) Very early in a tournament (e.g. first hand) someone goes all-in ahead of you. You might not want to play AA because of the high variance (in this case, infinitely negative variance as you get busted out if you lose).

(2) Very late in a tournament (e.g. bubble) where you're the short stack in late position. Multiple people have gone all-in ahead of you with at least 1 caller who has them covered. Again, because of the infinitely negative variance of busting out and the high probability you will cash if you fold, folding is the right play.

 

[AussieBlackjack]

There's really only two situations in which I can imagine not playing pocket aces.

(1) Very early in a tournament (e.g. first hand) someone goes all-in ahead of you. You might not want to play AA because of the high variance (in this case, infinitely negative variance as you get busted out if you lose).

(2) Very late in a tournament (e.g. bubble) where you're the short stack in late position. Multiple people have gone all-in ahead of you with at least 1 caller who has them covered. Again, because of the infinitely negative variance of busting out and the high probability you will cash if you fold, folding is the right play.

I disagree on both facts, firstly if i was dealt pocket aces first hand early in the tournament i would be jumping up and down for joy as it gives me the best chance for a very quick double up. However i could probably understand someone folding pocket aces first hand in a freeroll or in micro stakes tournaments but even then i believe it is a very very silly move. The higher up in stakes you go the more sillier it is to fold pocket aces if dealt first hand in a mtt, actually at any time really. I think also if your run the math you will have more neg ev folding pocket aces first hand in a mtt then if you play and bust out as we know that pocket aces are going to win the majority of the time.

As for your second argument, whether it is right to fold or not depends on whether you really care that much about making the minimum you can make out of a tournament.I mean think about it this way sure you can fold your pocket aces on the tourney bubble and say guarantee a win of maybe $50, if your happy with that then by all means do it but what if you call with your nut pre flop hand and you triple or quadruple up (say through 4 people) and now am in the top 5 of tournament with a good chance at final table and taking out the major prize,not only that but knocking out 4 people and being 3 places higher up in the money.Wouldn't you rather that?The only time your example would work is if the tournament was say a satellite to a bigger tournament and all places paid were exactly the same.For e.g. saying top 10 payed a wsop main event package and nothing else.

 

[callipygian]

i was dealt pocket aces first hand early in the tournament i would be jumping up and down for joy as it gives me the best chance for a very quick double up.

Even if you were positive your opponent had A6 vs. your AA, you'd be risking a 6% chance of busting out of the tournament immediately. Depending on your estimation of how you intend to fare in the tournament, that is exactly the variance you want to avoid.

The better of a player you are, the more this move will appeal - players who are playing EV+ for a tournament will want to play as many hands as possible and reduce variance in the early rounds; players who are EV- for a tournament will gladly jump at the chance to score positive variance at the risk of losing it all on the first hand.

I think also if your run the math you will have more neg ev folding pocket aces first hand in a mtt then if you play and bust out as we know that pocket aces are going to win the majority of the time.

Nobody contests that folding AA is an EV- move. You're reducing variance, not increasing EV.

Take a blackjack analogy - if given the chance, would you plunk down your entire blackjack bankroll on doubling hard 11 vs. dealer 6? This is an incredible score for your EV, but a large fraction of the time you're going to bust out completely.

Obviously, if you're running a SNG with a small fraction of your bankroll, it's no sweat to bust out early, STT or MTT. Your "long run" will involve multiple SNG's. But if you're playing in a major tournament (e.g. WSOP ME) which only comes around once a year, you should consider folding AA in that spot.

whether it is right to fold or not depends on whether you really care that much about making the minimum you can make out of a tournament.I mean think about it this way sure you can fold your pocket aces on the tourney bubble and say guarantee a win of maybe $50

I don't think you're fully understanding me here. I'm not talking about the SNG's that you can play 20 a night. I'm talking about the fly-to-Vegas, $1,000+ buy in, multiday, televised tournaments where the buy-in are a large fraction of your bankroll.

I disagree on both facts

Out of curiosity, if neither of the examples I gave are examples of when to fold AA, what are?

 

[ccibball50]

There's really only two situations in which I can imagine not playing pocket aces.

(1) Very early in a tournament (e.g. first hand) someone goes all-in ahead of you. You might not want to play AA because of the high variance (in this case, infinitely negative variance as you get busted out if you lose).

(2) Very late in a tournament (e.g. bubble) where you're the short stack in late position. Multiple people have gone all-in ahead of you with at least 1 caller who has them covered. Again, because of the infinitely negative variance of busting out and the high probability you will cash if you fold, folding is the right play.

I agree with the first statement, but if it is late I would probably call because It would be a chance to catch up if I were trying to go for it and win the tournament, however if 3 or 4 people were all in with a chance of putting out 3 players, I might fold to try to place higher in the money. Everything is situational in poker.

 

[AussieBlackjack]

Even if you were positive your opponent had A6 vs. your AA, you'd be risking a 6% chance of busting out of the tournament immediately. Depending on your estimation of how you intend to fare in the tournament, that is exactly the variance you want to avoid.

Well look at it another way if you are willing to fold pocket aces first hand of the tourney because you are afraid of busting out due to a suckout on the first hand shouldn't that mean you should fold pocket aces at every stage in the tournament until you make the money?What if you get pocket aces 20mins later in the same mtt,are you going to fold then?I mean bad players can get lucky and still be there 20 mins later or even make it to the bubble and still call you down with nothing.I mean you would be hard pressed to be sat at any table with someone who isn't willing to call with 88s and try and catch an 8. I mean at what point is it right to play pocket aces then in a tourney?Also saying you would fold pocket aces first hand in a tournament means you should really fold every hand first hand because your not going to find a better hand then AA and if you do play something lower then you run the risk of coming up against AA in which you got to get lucky to win.

I don't think you're fully understanding me here. I'm not talking about the SNG's that you can play 20 a night. I'm talking about the fly-to-Vegas, $1,000+ buy in, multiday, televised tournaments where the buy-in are a large fraction of your bankroll.

I must admit in this situation i would fold pocket aces as well to guarantee me a win here because even a small win there like you said would be still substantial to your bankroll. Even having said that this i believe folding in this situation should only be thought of if indeed minimum guaranteed is a quite substantial boost to your bankroll but as soon as your bankroll becomes big enough i even think it quickly turns into a situation where you should call anyone even in the WSOP ME on the bubble with AA.I think you would be hard pressed to find any top pro or even semi top pro who will fold pocket aces in this situation.

Out of curiosity, if neither of the examples I gave are examples of when to fold AA, what are?

If you read the last line of my previous post who will see that i say that i believe the only time you should fold pocket aces at all times is if your on the bubble and all the places are getting paid the same like in satellite tournaments. For e.g your in a tournament (satellite) top 5 get say a WSOP ME entry but nothing else, so wether you come first or 5th there is no difference. Say in this same tourney you are down to 6 players,and 3 people go all in and you are dealt say pocket aces. I believe in this situation it would be completely right to fold in this situation as since all places paid are the same and if one gets knocked out you are guaranteed top prize anyway for that tournament.