Sites Have Motivation to Reward Poor Players. Period.

[blackize]

[ QUOTE ]
The other thing about the store vs. poker is the "identifiable value." That is, if the store only has bad vegetables, you'd know they were bad, and you would go somewhere else. In poker, that's not really the case. You expect to have some bad runs and unlucky breaks. Because there is no "standard" unlucky streak or whatever, players have less (indeed, probably zero) ability to determine that you are not getting good quality from the provider, especially if the modifications are so tiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Using this logic I could argue that the fish will inevitably keep redepositing because they would rather chalk up their losses to bad luck than admit they suck at poker.

Now I do believe that it is possible for internet poker to be rigged. I don't think they would do it because of the easy access their consumers have to the data(pokertracker). Tons of us around here have 100k+ hand history DBs that could easily oust the rigged sites.

If the game were rigged I don't see how it would help the fish at all. If they make it so gutshots, 3 outers, flush draws, and straight draws come more frequently it benefits the fish as well as the sharks negating the motive for rigging the game to begin with.

To have the fish be the sole beneficiaries the poker sites would have to track the play of each person at each table and then somehow alter the cards that come out once the hand has started based upon if it is fish vs fish shark vs shark fish vs shark or whatever. This becomes increasingly hard to do as pots become multiway. I mean who gets the help if there are 2 fish and a shark on a flop of KJ2 where the shark has AK, fish1 has AJ, and fish2 has AQ?

I feel that actually implementing a rigged game that benefits the fish is incredibly difficult to do ESPECIALLY given the fact that they are being closely monitored by the sharks who are keeping large databases of hands.

In fact, why don't we settle this once and for all. We pool our hand history databases so that we have millions of hands logged and then find a statistician to analyze it.

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You know what's good?

Satsuma mandarin oranges. They're in season only during november and december, at least here in the US. They are seedless tangerines, basically, and they are very good. Try them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these the same thing as "Clementines?" They're hit or miss. They're either awesome, or not good at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] clementines.

[gabbahh]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">My company is building a new poker site and as the designer, I'm intimately familiar with the entire site, from business decisions to code. Just letting you know who I am.</font>


[/ QUOTE ]
So you are a liar?
[ QUOTE ]

<font color="black">
First, Stars claiming that "it makes no difference to them who wins" is laughable. It DEFINITELY makes a difference to them who wins.</font>


[/ QUOTE ]
So you work for PStars? So you have read their business mission?
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">
That's pretty much a given. What Stars suggests is that when it comes to the game code, there is no logic imbedded to make certain one player wins over another...
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
If above is true, noone would ever win...
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">
but I assume you understand that's what they're saying.
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's assume you are an idiot. I think that is safe.
[ QUOTE ]

<font color="black">
The Sites maximize their earnings when they have players that are as evenly matched as possible playing as many hands as possible.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Sites maximize their earnings by acquiring and maintaining customers. Marketing 101.
[ QUOTE ]

If the sites had their perfect utopia we would all start with, say, $500, and play heads up for hours and hours until the rake would have eaten all of our money, save for a couple cents won by whoever won the last hand.


[/ QUOTE ]
So all players going broke is what a site would want. Very funny.
[ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">
Okay, let's talk a bit about math.
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
You wouldn't understand even basic math. Trust me.
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">
Let's assume we're Full Tilt for a moment and at a full table instead of a heads up one.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's assume you are a retarded idiot.
[ QUOTE ]

Give Fred a little bit extra on the odds, make sure Fred gets AA a little more often, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
A fish_detection_agent which changes the odds_agent and the random_card_agent... Of course...
[ QUOTE ]

A rational Site would create the most even playing field possible, so that they reach the utopia I set out above.

[/ QUOTE ]
Utopia is not rational. A rational site would like it's customers to come back. The way to do this is not by rigging the site in the favour of bad players WHO ALREADY THINK THE SITE IS RIGGED ANYWAYS. You should talk more to the bad players: almost all think the site is rigged, and not exactly into their favour. Bad players compain about the sites being rigged, good players do not. Yes... A conspiracy of the good players?
[ QUOTE ]

<font color="blue">
Let me give you a scenario and you tell me how our developers can level the playing field...</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh boy here comes the pain.
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">
10 players see the flop [5s, 7d, 9c]
10 players see the turn [2h]
10 players see the river [Jd]
7 fold and 3 go all in and two of them were short stacked
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah man, this sounds like a play money table alright. Lot's of rake.
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">
I assume your "minimal and random" algorithm would choose to ignore this.
</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's assume you never programmed in your life.
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">
My guess is that your algorithm would be stacking cards so that the short stack player gets the nut hand on the flop. Great. He goes all in on the flop and everyone bails.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe he doesn't go allin? How does this prove to level the playing field?
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">
Or do you plan to have this algorithm take over the betting for all players to insure that the playing field gets leveled?</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your point?
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">
Again, we're just talking a bit more about these things...</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought you were going to expain how to level the playing field? To me, you just explained that you are an idiotic retard who doesn't know squat about anything.
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="black">
Simply put, a Site claiming that it "makes no difference to them who wins" is a laughable, misleading and completely untrue statement.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]
You are putting it simple. You gave no prove, your reasoning is flawed, you are lying. Please when you say that someting is untrue, come with arguments, instead of pretending to be a software designer. I know you are a losing playing who is too stupid to look to himself, instead you claim the sites are rigged. As an argument you are claiming to be the designer of a new poker site. Who do you think buys this crap?
YSSCKY.
[ QUOTE ]

I'm always up for an honest debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing left to debate. A lie is a lie. You are an idiot. You def do not know anything about software construction. You have given not even one valid argument to support your claim that sites are rigged. What's left to discuss?
I feel sorry for your mother and father.

[Hornacek]

that is the single most dominating piece of whoopass i have seen doled out upon one person on this site .

VERY NICE HAND, SIR!

[OrianasDaad]

While I cannot claim to know with 100% accuracy what the original poster intended, he has stated numerous times in this thread that he intended a discussion of whether or not this would be in the best interest of a poker site. I'll take that at face value.

My argument:

Poker sites make money by maximizing the amount of rake they take in.

Long-term multi-tabling expert players generate more rake than your average short-term recreational non-expert player. I'll assume that the relationship is inversely proportional.

Your suggestion (the OP) is that it is in the sites' best interest to "level the playing field", or rather make the game into an EV neutral game, with a slight house advantage. With most sites raking 5-10% at the lower limits, this would make the game worse than roulette, from a gambling perspective.

I would be willing to wager that a group of long-term expert players would notice that they cannot win a signifigant amount over the long term. A signifigant statistical difference would probably spell doom for any poker site.

Aside from that, programming something like this would be a nightmare. The poker AI for something like this would be an insanely good player. It would be more likely that the site had some bots running. They would be easier to program. Look up "opponent modelling".

If you look at the bots that are out there, you'll see that these are fairly easy to beat in both full and short-handed games.

Smaller sites won't have a strong enough base of long-term expert players to sustain this type of activity.

Consider what type of cards a player with a VPIP of 85+ would need to break even against an expert player in a ring game.

The idea just isn't feasable, yet.

Edit:

Here's what I said earlier in this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
One skilled, long-term multi-tabler, pays as much rake perhaps as at least two or three single-tabling fish.

This has been discussed before. I've always maintained that it was in the poker-room's best interests to keep feeding the sharks.

Since there are alot of paranoid freaks out there, I don't see the poker-rooms screwing with their algorithims too much, but I could be wrong. I don't think it's in any sites' best interest to have it where nobody wins except in the short term.

Mostly, I disagree with what you posted. Pokerstars support has it right. Here's your homework assignment:

Go back into PT and look at your flop and turn winning %'s for those string of bad beats. How bad off were you really? Remember, a poker-player who is dishonest with themself is a losing player, so please avoid stretching the truth at all.


[/ QUOTE ]
Mostly the same thing in fewer words. Why such wisdom was ignored is beyond me.

This would have been more effective if everything in the post you replied to had been written by the same person. The text in blue was written by Grummin in response to OP text which is included in both Grummin's response and yours as the text in black.

[gabbahh]

[ QUOTE ]
This would have been more effective if everything in the post you replied to had been written by the same person. The text in blue was written by Grummin in response to OP text which is included in both Grummin's response and yours as the text in black.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry my bad. Grummin is an idiot. OP a troll.
However final point still holds: nothing left to discuss.

Fair enough.

Now about tacos, do you guys find that you prefer ground beef, steak or chicken tacos? I'm torn between steak and chicken myself.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
First, Stars claiming that "it makes no difference to them who wins" is laughable. It DEFINITELY makes a difference to them who wins.



[/ QUOTE ]

Logical fallacy.

Essentially you're argument is:

There is a reason why they could care who wins, ergo they do care who wins. You go on to say you don't know whether they have acted on the fact that they do care who wins, but that it is clearly the case that they do.

You are wrong. The second thing does not necessarily follow from the first thing.

Maybe it would make more sense to you if PokerStars had said: because we choose to run an honest game with a deal as random as we could make it, it makes no difference to us who wins.

You can extend your logic to pretty much any corporate activity. MacDonald's runs a promotion, get a game piece with every big mac you buy (no purchase necessary write in and get a free game piece). One lucky game piece will be worth 10 MILLION DOLLARS to the lucky repient!!! (PS, there will be one guarranteed winner, it makes no difference to us who wins.)

Bullshyte!!! The marketing department can surely identify a particular profile of person who they'd much rather win than some other profile, for marketing purposes. Obviously, then, they could send the winning game piece to a region or store where the demographics suggest they have a higher likelihood of getting a winner that meets that profile. Heck they could even search among the write in requests for a person that actually does meet the profile and send the winning game piece to that person. So when they say it makes no difference to them who wins, they are clearly lying, whether they act on it or not.

I simply disagree that because there is a potentially motivating factor for something, means that a person or entity automatically is driven by or takes into consideration that motivator.

So I run a home tourney. Clearly I could mark the cards or sneak extra tourney chips into my stack or lace the pringles with LSD. But you know what, I have no interest in doing so. What's that you say? I clearly do have an interest in doing so because it would help me win and thus make me money?....Um, no, I still have no interest in doing so, thanks for playing.

Zetack

[CORed]

I'm rather partial to Chubby's (Denver area Mexican fast food chain) beef and bean special burrito.