Sites Have Motivation to Reward Poor Players. Period.

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
You make a good point.

You could also just as well say that all grocery stores have a motivation to empty your bank account or run your credit card up to the limit as soon as you buy with a credit or debit card. They have a motivation to actually charge you $2000 for $20 worth of groceries.

For some odd reason, they don't do this. I wonder why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris,

First, thanks for reading and understanding the argument. You're already well ahead of the vast majority of posters in this thread.

The answer to your question is simple: detection and regulation.

If the grocery store charged you $2000 for $20 of groceries, you would notice. Even if not at the store, you would notice it on your credit card bill later. Furthermore, the store has certain regulations that keep it in line, i.e. health regulations, pricing regulations, and a variety of consumer protection statutes.

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.

Finally, I want to reiterate something (not to you, but in general):

<font color="red"> I am not accusing any site of engaging in these "playing field leveling" activities. </font>

We are talking about the motivation and ability to do so.

[Hornacek]

What grocery stores sell the best tacos?

And speaking of tacos, is it just me or does Tostitos demolish any other chip?

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
I just hope he isn't representing UMD graduates =[

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't like fellow alumni with rational thoughts?

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
I just hope he isn't representing UMD graduates =[

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, and one more thing. My name is engraved on the fountain. Is yours? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

&lt;------

<font color="red"> <u>JUST BECASE SOMETHING IS RATIONAL DOESN'T MAKE IT A GOOD DISCUSSION TOPIC.

IE: ITS A PRETTY RATION ASSUMTPTION TO MAKE THAT SOMEONE WHO IS GOOD AT MATH IS MORE LIKELY TO SOLVE A MATH PROBLEM THAN SOMEONE WHO ISN'T, FEEL LIKE DISCUSSING?</u> </font>

Does underline, bold, italics, red font and capital letter do it for you?

[Tilt]

[ QUOTE ]

Why would poker sites go out of their way to pay someone to fiddle with the algorithm when:

1) A regular deck of 52 cards gives bad players the chance to suck out on good players.
2) If they get caught, they lose ALL their business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Q:Why would a company falsify accounting reports knowing that if they get caught they will be ruined?
A: To boost short term profits.

Q: Why would an airline violate shipping standards for hazardous materials if they know that a crash that exposes this would wipe out their business?
A: To boost short term profits.

Q: Why would an insurance brokerage engage in an anti-competitive bidding scam knowing that if exposed it would wipe out half its revenues?
A: To boost short term profits.

Please see Enron, ValueJet, and Marsh-McLennan for further details regarding the above. And those are all examples from HIGHLY REGULATED INDUSTRIES.

I am NOT saying (as the OP is) that the general motivation is to rig the deck, only that it will be in some site's interests to do so eventually. I reiterate, there ought to be an independent review which could be through on-site audits or through sampling, to provide some oversite. I think it is in the site's interests to have this.

[webmonarch]

It's not a good discussion topic for what reason? Because I am obviously right?

Furthermore, I've seen several pretty rational responses and questions in this thread. They're a bit hard to find in between the taco gibberish, but there is clearly room for some pretty intelligent discussion. If you don't want to participate, don't. In fact, I kind of prefer that only people who have read and understand the original post respond. It's better.

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
I am NOT saying (as the OP is) that the general motivation is to rig the deck, only that it will be in some site's interests to do so eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, very nice post. Now we're getting somewhere.

I think that you are right, that the more likely scenario is a site doing this intermittently to reduce the chances that they are caught. Particularly, as you say, where there may be a short term need for some soft of cash flow boost.

On the other hand, having an extremely slight advantage given to certain players over the long haul would serve the same purpose, especially, as you point out, if there is no independent regulation.

[Hornacek]

I guess I'll say something useful:

Its quite evident that it would be in the site's best interest to do this kind of rigging. I agree that it would be harder to detect than your general run-of-the-mill extortion in a business.

However, being a CS Master's graduate has given me the insight that making this kind of "rig" be favorable towards fish yet undetectable at the same time would be very hard to accomplish successfully.

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.

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.

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.