I like the idea and would probably use a site like this if it's not US only which the most pay for stream sites are.

That would be cool, but you're talking about XXX,XXX,XXX venture here. Movies and TV shows are not cheap to license. They are getting more expensive every time Netflix tries to renew their rights to stream. I'm also not sure that many people want to chat during a movie... maybe a comment here or there... but most people probably just want to watch a movie and maybe have a very occasional comment. Otherwise, it's distracting or just plain annoying.

I agree, but I think it would still be cool to create, "Movie Clubs" where everyone can sit down and watch the same movie at the same time and discuss it, allah book clubs IRL.

Yes. Duty officers can levy a tax, fine, or confiscate a good if they feel it was imported for a commercial purpose. There is a UK TV show that has the border/tax patrol people at the English Channel inspecting lorries and private cars and confiscating people's cigarettes and such.

But that's the whole point of the retirement visa angle. There are special allowances made for these people and they are sometimes very generous - specifics and exemptions depend on the country. So it would be perfectly legal as long as it follows the retirement visa allowances, stipulations, and restrictions.

It might be cool to do something similar to Soundcloud, where not everyone is watching at the same time, but you can read other people's comments at specific points of the movie.

Maybe a technology that can be created and sold to one of the big guys.

Are you talking about Soundcloud? I don't know what patent to which you're referring, but I believe they've been around longer than Timeline.

I didn't know Timeline had anything like that.

Open a convenience store with nothing but generic and private label products. Try to eliminate all the major brands from being in your store like Coke,Pepsi, etc. In this way you can build up unknown brands while still being able to offer lower prices. To compensate for the lack of brand power in the store you keep your prices at 80 percent of what they would be in a normal convenience store.

It would appear that such a store would not be profitable but if you consider that major brands are able to have pricing power because they advertise you'll come to find that you can source comparable products at prices far below what someone like Coca-Cola might charge at wholesale. Let your location and the expectation of high prices at convenience stores give you your profits.

For example, lets say I can buy 2 liter bottles of Coca-Cola wholesale for 1.40 on average. I might be able to source a generic version of that for .20 cents a bottle. A 2 liter bottle of Coke in a convenience store sells for over 2.00 retail in most places. If you offered a generic version for 1.30 for a 2 liter bottle that you got for 20 cents you would be making 1.10 per bottle. In the Coca-Cola situation you would have to charge 2.50 cents to get the same margin per bottle.

Even though you might get that 2.50 cents per bottle you zap your customers per transaction purchasing power. There will be customers that will only buy from your store if Coca-Cola is available but if you can make up that lost business with larger per visit transactions from the other customers it would give you a big advantage down the road if you can build up the generic brands by adding more store locations.

Aldi and lidl do that for a lot of products

Flying Vancouver to Vegas monthly and buying up broken/water damaged macbook pros/iphone 4gs fixing/unlocking them and selling them up in vancouver.

What is the consensus on starting a niche social network site? The reason I ask is because a lot of times I get on Facebook and think it would be cool to have something similar to this but just for certain topics.

Forums.

How come those electronics are more expensive in Brazil than America?

I have a bunch of ideas. In the spirit of this thread and because I don't know if they're actually good ideas or not (or if they already exist) - I'm simply throwing them out there so that people can give feedback upon them, rate them, improve upon them, or point out flaws I didn't see initially with them.

First idea is Chinese phone apps. China is the largest and fastest growing economy in the world. A lot of the apps we have in the west are presently not available in China (in Chinese). I think that creating a small company in Hong Kong that specializes in catering to the Chinese market in applications for phones and mobile devices would be a great idea.

Second idea is a user friendly 'seeking investment/looking to invest' website that is aimed at helping small start-up businesses receive capital from anyone who wishes to get a piece of the idea and future profit. Potential start-up businesses can be as specific as they wish in explaining their business plan, running the numbers, and expanding upon reasons why they are looking for investment and why they should be invested in by potential investors. Those seeking investment can set how much they wish to be funded and what % of the company and future returns they would be willing to give up in order to receive the investment as well as state how many potential investors they are looking for (some could say they only want one investor for 50% of their business, where as others may be willing to piece out 50% of their business to up to thousands of potential investors) Think dragons den meets chipmeup meets microlending - I haven't thought much further than this on that idea, but I think it has potential for people who A) can't get a large enough investment on their own/don't have the know how/connections. and B) investors who are looking to start small/ want to be selective and/or have limited starting capital / just want to try something new or are willing to take risks on 'out of the box' investments which would not normally be considered by regular business investment companies. Site makes profit from automatic 0.5% share in investment, capped at value return which would suit the general market.

Thanks for any feedback

Second idea is called 'crowdfunding' and there are several sites trying to do get this off the ground right now. One of them is crowdfunder.com

I know nothing about app market and how all that stuff works. Maybe this could be a B2B service that you could provide to prolific app makers who don't necessarily want to vet and hire their own translators/etc.

Why Dual Holdem?
As Holdem poker becomes more popular, Dual Holdem is a natural solution and evolution of the game. Dual Holdem expands the limitations of live games, and enhances the experience, profitability and overall enjoyment of online and electronic tables. It should be clear why Dual Holdem is the next big thing in poker, but below is a summary of why you should not delay to operate Dual Holdem.

• 50%* More hands per hour at live tables, and hence increased rake.
• More action and fun at live tables, less waiting and grinding
• If implemented online, the ability to play more hands with the same people.
• Ideal for users with smaller screens and mobile devices to play more hands at the same table.
• Makes the game more interesting and strategic.
• Ideal for multi entry tournaments and heads up games.

Please share your thoughts .

Absolutely hate it. Using the same chips, players would switch chips between the two stacks and it'd be impossible to stop -- a dealer can't watch 9 players at once. You would need two completely different chip sets (a la roulette but even worse) which casinos won't want to do for an experimental game.

In general, this would add soooooo much unnecessary confusion to the game it's impossible to understate. Keeping a casino game running at a decent pace with 7 ******s is hard enough as it is, I can't imagine this adding 50% more hands/hr. Wouldn't be surprised at all if it actually resulted in less hands/hr (though I'm hoping you've proven the 50% number so I'll assume I'm wrong, just saying).

I guess some full-time players would like this (and I emphasize some, I used to play full-time and would certainly try this for fun but really don't see the attraction of it), but recreational players would absolutely hate it. They play live to kill some time, blow off steam, as a hobby, etc -- not to maximize their hands/hr or $/hr (they don't even know what these things mean). Ideas that change poker to make games more profitable for good players and thus kill the fish quicker are never going to work.

And I see this being even less successful online. I can already play 25 games at once, why would I want to play 2 of the games with the exact same people?

I'm assuming you're trying to take the excitement of Rush Poker to live poker, but I just don't see it.

Hi scrolls thanks for your comments. Just to clarify the chip stacks are distinctly different and players will not have the option of redistributing their chips. As far as wether people will enjoy the game is concerned we will agree with you that begining live players may have some trouble however our research suggests that both pros and regular recreational players take to it very easily and enjoy it.
It takes a few hands of getting used to but once one gets the hang of it the game flows very well and offers more action.

As far as online applications are concerned, there are several reasons why this may be an excellent solution.

1) Ability to play more hands with sub standard players. We all know that the greatest profitability come from the fish at the table. Having the chance to play more hands with sed fish = muchos deniros :P.
2) Excellent for those with smaller screens who want to maximize their hands per hour. Many players do not like having one or two game windows open, this would appeal to them.
3) Interesting strategic situations arise in both live and online games which enchance the game.

This has nothing to do with rush/zoom/fast forward or anything you want to call it. Dual holdem doesn not sacrifice any of the games original charachteristics such as opponent based reads etc.

You have patent pending on something people have been doing at home games for years? That is money down the drain right there...

Have you actually played your own game? I have. It seems like it would be faster since you're getting 2 hands at the same time, but it's a clusterfak to deal and keep order. It's much slower in my experience. And online doesn't matter - if people want more action they can open up an additional table.

hi dc_publius,

I would agree with you that trying to play this game without a professionally trained dealer and proper table design would be a disaster. However, our intention is not to market the game to people playing home games. We are targeting casino environments which would greatly benefit from our game.
In addition, opening more tables does not provide the same kind of action, umungst the same people, with wich you have a history etc.

As far as money down the drain is concerned, time will tell even though we have gone through great expence to ensure that our concept does not even come close to anything already patented or even disclosed.

I am fairly sure, that a group of people connected to a certain rakeback system had the exact same idea patented years ago and sold it to a live casino group, who did not put any effort into running it.

The idea was also about live poker with two decks and two dealers.

I do not know, which patent region it was.

conjunk, along with what scrolls said, "i meant check on blue and raise on green" type of angling would get pretty annoying.

Many casinos do not even run auto shuffler to speed things up. I'm not so sure that they want to invest in new tables and train dealers in a new game. Poker just isn't that profitable, and aren't many poker rooms closing anyway?

Also, aren't casinos allowed to only spread games that are officially outlined by state regulatory agency? This would mean that the casinos would again have to invest quite a bit of time, effort, and money into a poker game which no matter what probably isn't going to make that much money compared to other casino games.

Loc, this type of angleing is avoided by simply stating that players act only with their hands, and that all verbal announcements are void, and should not be made.

Aside from this dc, no tables must be changed since only the felt must be reprinted to a spec which already exists. As far as profitability is concerned the higher amount which they will be raking will act as an incentive to replace some of their tables with these higher yielding ones, rather than just close down.

Only clear plus with this game is the fact that the change is implemented into the gameplay and the rules are not changed.

I can think a lot of new hit formats, but no real success stories with change implemented into the "traditional" rules.

PTG Poker should be running pretty well in card rooms if looken from the perspective of how much licences they have sold.
Double Hold´em on Party was and is a complete failure.

So, I give you that.

At the same time, the only change is two hands at the same time, that do not affect each other. So, the value of this patent is not much, especially when they screwed Full Tilt out of a patent for the Rush due to various reasons.

Two years on and one-Black-Friday-scandal later, the poker landscape is a little different. Full Tilt's patent-pending warnings haven't proved an impediment to rival firms rushing to release their own versions of the game, and, regardless, Full Tilt is not really in a position to argue its case. 'Rush Poker itself was patent pending with the patentable element being the algorithms and mechanics/logic of the gameplay,' explains Steve Cutler, Unibet's head of poker. 'All the competing products have been developed by changing those algorithms.'

Steve Cutler´s opinion on that is really idiotic and a lame lie, but still one could argue about the inventive step in rush poker.

But I have literally heard that same idea has been already sold to some live casino years ago, and it did not hit off.

Some people definitely would love to play multiple hands live on the same time, but it will be tilting as hell, if there happens to be drunk guys.

Also, If you ban verbal actions, which is the standard of conduct in live games, you will break too far away and actually start limiting socialising and gameplay one way or another.

I once saw a guy multitabling nlhe and omaha cash between two tables in Riga and he seemed to enjoy himself very much, although everybody else were really pissed because of waiting after him.

Also, I can quarantee to you that you have not thought of every scenario, every revenue model, all the drawbacks, all the positive sides and so on.

If you want to sell and idea, you literally have to have every aspect that can be imagined covered, that way you can sell your own competence.