Mason, I do and have apologised on the original thread for suggesting that you were using my material or ideas. If you wish I will post a new thread which unreservedly withdraws any such imputation, with apologies.


It really was a mistake. I was surprised because I have been using the reasoning seen in your essay to exlain why big-river/mississipi is a better test of skill than down-the-river, and been either ignored or pilloried for it, both here and on RGP. Since you have read at least some of them and remained silent, I presumed that you must disagree, or believe it to be irrelevant. I think there is a big difference between "touting a game" as you put it, and presenting a complete theory of poker game construction based on established principles, plus some crucial insights of my own, only to have it repeatedly deleted or derided. This has been going on for two years now, and to discover that you have no more understanding of what I have been saying than when I started is a bit of a shock.


These issues are controversial because if I am right in what I say, then books titled "seven-card stud" which are only about down-the-river are likely to be out-of-date in the near future. In fact they are out of date now IMO, since the new game has been around for two years. And it is predictable that there will be a lot of books produced which deal with the new games - like Holdem, BigRiver/M7 produces several excellent variations. So in the future you will be using my games and probably also my insights in your books Mason. Since my theories and the game itself are easily testable now, why wait?


Thanks for the replies from Phat Mack, Marco Trevix and "perth boy" (Eh.. paesano, want a game? Give me a bell on 93876065). My cut-and-paste function doesn't work in IExplorer for some reason so I won't quote you, but to answer your points: Phat Mack, yeah, action is the key, and the three-card flop certainly delivers that. So too does the two-card flip to three starting cards, so Big-river encourages more first-round callers than down-the-river.


As for getting the game onto the tournament lists or into casino play, there are often regulatory problems in introducing anew game, depending on local laws: in Austalia it takes about six months and a lot of money to get a new game registered: they haven't even put holdem or omaha on the list yet at the casino here in Perth!! I've written to tournament directors, poker writers, etc etc. but I guess I'm a better inventor than I am promoter or businessman, because there has been almost zero response. I think that there could easily be a rapid change of sentiment, once the all-round advantages of changing to Big-river/mississippi are demonstrated.