Re: Moral question - bots
schneids,
the size of the ante is obviously an issue.
a one cent ante in a $1/$2 game would have hardly an impact.
on the other extreme, a $100 ante in a $1/$2 would make the betting meaningless and nobody would play.
the purpose of the ante is to defeat playing for free. colluders need to play for free (trust me on this). colluders must wait for the right pocket conditions to make a risky pot jack worthwhile. (you still have to actually get good cards). and in holdem there is nothing that guarantees good cards in the next 10 hands or even 20 hands.
colluders want to play for free as long as possible and then jump and jack when the conditions are right and the conditions are most certainly not right each hand or even every 5 hands. maybe 1 in 10 hands in a 10-chair game.
also, another mechanical change to the game that would allow end-users to perform their own collusion detection (instead of relying on the opc staff to do it for them) would be to require that every dealt card be revealed after the showdown.
please do not flame me for saying this, im not saying i like this, im just saying that it would be a very serious threat to team players (trust me on this). if this happened then every end-user potentially can become a poker policeman (instead of only the opcs) armed with collusion detection analysis software.
it's a mixed debate between limit and no-limit over which format would be impacted the most with a forced reveal.
having done a sufficient amount of team play (more than anybody here is willing to openly admit to), i can tell you that a forced ante and forced reveal would make teaming a very unattractive proposition.
winholdem support.
|