Sites Have Motivation to Reward Poor Players. Period.

[ChoicestHops]

Can this happen? It's possible. Is it happening? No. Partygaming and others want to keep the bad players, of course, so there's plenty of games going around. The fact is many bad players are winning short term. Short term can be 10,000 hands. This fact right here is why it's not rigged. There are many bad players who are winning short term but who will not end up winning in the long term. This feat is what keeps the fish in the sea.

This reeks like a bad beat post. You e-mailed Stars asking them why you got bad beats? No one wants to hear it, because it happens to all of us. In conclusion, you decide that is in the best interests of online gaming for it to be rigged to keep the bad players. Poor arguement in my opinion.

<font color="blue"> Okay, let's talk. 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>
<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>
<font color="blue">
Alright, I'll admit it. As a poker site, we would love to see every player win all the time. 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...but I assume you understand that's what they're saying.</font>
<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. 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.</font>
<font color="blue">
Okay, let's talk a bit about math. Let's assume we're Full Tilt for a moment and at a full table instead of a heads up one. 9 players sitting around a table, each starting with $500 on a $5/$10 NL table going 60 hpr. Evenly played, that's 25 HOURS of straight play to rake away all chips from players (assuming max rake of $3 per every hand).

How evil. And yet, what did these players get for this 25 hr marathon of poker? 4,500 FTP. This would nearly get you a shirt (okay, not so good) or 9 seperate 1-9 shots at winning a free $216 seat for their $200K tournament. Hey, let's at least talk about what they're giving back?

Of course, on the heads up, you're only talking 5 1/2 hours of play for the 1000 FTP you'd receive. But then, you know going in that your cash lasts longer on a full table.</font>
<font color="black">
The Sites do NOT want to have say, Paul the Pro and Fred the Fish sit down at a NL table and have Paul take all of Fred's money in one hand. Why? First, the rake is less. Second, Fred just lost his money and may not want to return/reload at the site, etc. Both are bad for the sites.</font>
<font color="blue">
As one of the soon-to-be "the Sites", I'll also admit that of course we'd like to see Paul and Fred duke it out for those 5 1/2 hours. If you, sir, know of a way to guarantee that Fred doesn't try to bluff with an all-in when Paul flops the nut hand, please be so kind as to enlighten us all. </font>
<font color="black">
So, what to do? Easy. Level the playing field. Give Fred a little bit extra on the odds, make sure Fred gets AA a little more often, etc. A rational Site would create the most even playing field possible, so that they reach the utopia I set out above. If done in a minimal and random way there would be virtually NO chance of players picking up on the modifications.</font>
<font color="blue">
"Easy. Level the playing field" Again, let's talk a bit about leveling the playing field. How would you propose to do that when human beings are the ones folding/betting? Let me give you a scenario and you tell me how our developers can level the playing field...
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
Yep, this is only one scenario. I assume your "minimal and random" algorithm would choose to ignore this. 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. Or do you plan to have this algorithm take over the betting for all players to insure that the playing field gets leveled?

Again, we're just talking a bit more about these things...</font>
<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>
<font color="blue">
Sure is, as long as you can prove how this miracle system would work and not be detected.

I'm always up for an honest debate.</font>

[webmonarch]

First, awesome response. I knew the smart people would eventually come out of the woodwork.

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, I'll admit it. As a poker site, we would love to see every player win all the time. 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...but I assume you understand that's what they're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, understood and agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, let's talk a bit about math. Let's assume we're Full Tilt for a moment and at a full table instead of a heads up one. 9 players sitting around a table, each starting with $500 on a $5/$10 NL table going 60 hpr. Evenly played, that's 25 HOURS of straight play to rake away all chips from players (assuming max rake of $3 per every hand). How evil. And yet, what did these players get for this 25 hr marathon of poker? 4,500 FTP. This would nearly get you a shirt (okay, not so good) or 9 seperate 1-9 shots at winning a free $216 seat for their $200K tournament. Hey, let's at least talk about what they're giving back?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, funny. Second, agreed. Of course, we cannot forget that the players all received the "entertainment value" of the playing time. The players understand the "deal" so to speak, that the longer they play the more it costs them. That's fine, and perfectly correct.

[ QUOTE ]
As one of the soon-to-be "the Sites", I'll also admit that of course we'd like to see Paul and Fred duke it out for those 5 1/2 hours. If you, sir, know of a way to guarantee that Fred doesn't try to bluff with an all-in when Paul flops the nut hand, please be so kind as to enlighten us all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course we can't stop the bad play. What the sites could do is make the play "easier" for the people that are less sophisticated. For example, the sites notice that Fred the Fish is a pretty consistent losing player. Paul is a pretty consistent winning player. Assuming that such programming is possible (I have personally done extrememly limited programming, and do not claim to be an expert on this) the site could arrange that Fred get AA and KK as 1% of the hands that he is dealt (compared to the statistical average of 0.45%). Furthermore, the site could deal Paul AA/KK only 0.33% of the time. I mean, you can play with these averages as you prefer, but the benefit would be placed with Fred, and the burden with Paul. Paul will still get dealt AA/KK with enough frequency that he would not notice he is getting less than the statistical avaerge. Fred would not notice that he is getting it a bit more often, etc.

I mean, you could do a lot of different things, but this is one such example.

And while the difference just between Fred and Paul wouldn't mean much, doing the same for THOUSANDS of Freds and Pauls would lead a to a much greater effect.

Paul would be able to make up the detriment over the long term of hands because of his superior skill. Fred would have a better chance of keeping his money longer.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, let's talk a bit about leveling the playing field. How would you propose to do that when human beings are the ones folding/betting? Let me give you a scenario and you tell me how our developers can level the playing field...
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
Yep, this is only one scenario. I assume your "minimal and random" algorithm would choose to ignore this. 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. Or do you plan to have this algorithm take over the betting for all players to insure that the playing field gets leveled?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with you at all on this point. There are many situations where it would be harder/more complicated to promote an edge for one player. Of course, in this scenario, if you wanted to, you COULD arrange that Fred the Fish flop the nuts. If he pushes and everyone folds, the site won't make as much on the hand, but they are more likely to retain the customer long term, and eventually make any money lost on this one hand in subsequent hands.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure is, as long as you can prove how this miracle system would work and not be detected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said before, I don't think it would take a miracle. It would simply require small edges to certain players over a longer term, as I described above.

Regardless, great post. I appreciate your thoughts and expertise. Sure beats posts about tacos.

[webmonarch]

Hornacek,

First, I think this is much better than your taco post. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the negative implications, if caught, would be disastrous. A previous poster stated that other companies would do this for an increase in short-term profits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are right about this. Certainly a site like Stars or Party probably has limited interest in this, because thy have much to lose. On the other hand, if a site has the option of folding its business or slightly modifying the odds, I think you may see a bit more motivation.

[ QUOTE ]
Poker sites are huge cash cows right now (at least the big ones). I see no reason to try to increase short term profits at the risk of losing long term wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The question is: if there is a astronomically small chance of being caught (and I think there is, given the lack of regulation), is the opportunity cost of that smaller profit still potentially worth the extrememly limited risk of being caught?

I think we can agree that at some point, the economics of it all would encourage a Site to do it. For example, if a site knew that there was ZERO chance of getting caught it would make business sense to do it.

[ QUOTE ]
In short, you make a valid point about the REASONING a company would do this, I agree with you. I just disagree in the likelihood of this actually happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully, as you submit, the very limited regulation and market forces are enough to prevent any site from doing this.

Are they? Who knows? I think we agree they probably are, but I think we can also agree that there are certain scenarios where they would not be.

Q'Doba has excellent burritos... chicken mole, black beans, rice, habanero salsa, corn salsa and lettuce. Perfect burrito and you don't even need cheese or sour cream, though they do offer that too.

[oreogod]

I wonder how many tacos Lee Jones can invest in with the money he pwned out of your ass in bad beats. That email is a goddamned lie.

Seriously, u should email stars about this.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
why no Del Taco sir?

[/ QUOTE ]
He probably ate there once.

I like how this site deletes posts from certain people

BUT LET ALL THESE LOSERS CLOG UP THIS THREAD WITH TACO TALK

NOT THAT I CARE EITHER WAY ABOUT THIS POST OR TACOS BUT JESUS WARN THIS PEOPLE ABOUT CLOGGIN UP THE THREAD

LIKE U WARNED ME WHEN I CALLED G. BUSH AN IDIOT.LOL

[FlFishOn]

"Sure is, as long as you can prove how this miracle system would work and not be detected. "

IF you are who you say you are AND you can not see your way clear to the answer to this problem THEN poker may not be your game.

I'm available to consult and I promise 2 potent software cheats, nearly undetectable and profitable.

[webmonarch]

I think your status on the site is extremely accurate.