**** OFFICIAL STTF **** THREAD: June Edition: cuz it's muh birth month ****

[MadScientist]

I don't believe you retroactively change the rules of the game being played. If a land based casino runs a game that actually is beatable based on the kooky rules they thought up, they have to honor the winnings won by players. I believe that pokerstars had a glitch a few years ago wherein if you rematched someone at HU SNGs and clicked accept at the rematch screen even without sufficient funds in your account, it let you play anyway and awarded the winner funds that the loser did not have. I spoke to an employee at pokerstars that said they would pay the winners anyways after the glitch was discovered (to a loss of hundred of thousands of dollars). Is my memory correct?
I believe this is a similar case.
However, as I think of it, in the real world, if a slot machine pays out too much due to malfunction, then the casino will invalidate the winnings...
FWIW, I don't believe he will see a single cent.

[MrBump]

Originally Posted by microbet

Since it's just old guys posting now....

Hey, I resemble that remark !

[Gramps]

[Josem]

Originally Posted by MadScientist

I don't believe you retroactively change the rules of the game being played.

Sure, but it is the contention of the site that the rules weren't being followed.

Their contention is that the rules were, pay $x for each entry into this game.

The program, however, only charged $x/6 for each entry into this game.

If a land based casino runs a game that actually is beatable based on the kooky rules they thought up, they have to honor the winnings won by players.

But the rules don't appear to have been followed?

I believe that pokerstars had a glitch a few years ago wherein if you rematched someone at HU SNGs and clicked accept at the rematch screen even without sufficient funds in your account, it let you play anyway and awarded the winner funds that the loser did not have. I spoke to an employee at pokerstars that said they would pay the winners anyways after the glitch was discovered (to a loss of hundred of thousands of dollars). Is my memory correct?

It depended on the individual circumstances.

Here's the 2p2 thread on that issue: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...-stars-551657/

There was a very comprehensive discussion of that, and PokerStars' response, in the August 2009 PokerCast which you can listen to here:
http://pokercast.twoplustwo.com/poke...p?pokercast=84

Discussion starts at 27:40 or so.

[Josem]

In that case, players who deliberately tried to take advantage of the bug had the money debited.

If players weren't trying to defraud the bug were able to keep the money the won.

[NJD77]

Josem, can you just clarify what you mean when you say "it should be fixed".

Do you mean "financially fixed" as in reimbursement? Or are you talking technically fixed?

[Josem]

Originally Posted by NJD77

Josem, can you just clarify what you mean when you say "it should be fixed".

Do you mean "financially fixed" as in reimbursement? Or are you talking technically fixed?

I mean that when there's an error, it should be fixed as much as possible, in every sense.

In the example of an error in the rematch function, I think that:

a) stopping further action
b) fixing the bug
c) removing money won by players who "abused" the system
d) allowing players who incidentally benefited without deliberately trying to abuse the system to keep the money

...is a reasonable way of fixing it as much as possible.

In the situation where the player allegedly was charged for only 1 in 6 entries into his "lottery", it seems to me that applying those charges after the fact would seem like a reasonable way of resolving it, up to the point of the player's remaining balance (eg, just like the site shouldn't rack up multi-million dollar debts in situations like this, neither should the player). You could probably also make a reasonable argument about resetting the player's balance to what it was prior to the error too.

[GtrHtr]

so you're saying online poker is "fixed"...

[GtrHtr]

Originally Posted by lacky

that's a pretty good description of what I do now, minus the poker part.

I think a lot of people in the 17-25 age range (maybe even older) have always had issues with this stuff, perhaps more now but who can tell.

cake is right and I'll add 2 things; people who want to improve at life generally do it, coaching not part of the equation except when coachee perhaps didn't have a role model, and still that is usually a loose/loose.

Secondly - I have always lived by 2 simple rules which the most important I learned early on, but finally realized it when I was about 21. Never quit. Quitting is a habit that becomes easier over time. When you break it down, it can be a complex mental or physical challenge or something as simple as being lazy. Once you start quitting, it becomes easier along with the lying to yourself about it. Some of you will read this and over analyze it - which is probably a bad sign. Simple rule #2 some other day.

[microbet]

So you start giving us your rules of life, but then you up and quit right in the middle.

"Some other day"

"manana"

I've heard it all before.

[bones]

Originally Posted by microbet

So you start giving us your rules of life, but then you up and quit right in the middle.

"Some other day"

"manana"

I've heard it all before.

Gets easier every time

[GtrHtr]

Originally Posted by bones

Gets easier every time

winner and code breaker extraordinaire.

#2 is the golden rule, which I've failed at enough. Treat others as you would want to be treated.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by GtrHtr

Secondly - I have always lived by 2 simple rules which the most important I learned early on, but finally realized it when I was about 21. Never quit. Quitting is a habit that becomes easier over time. When you break it down, it can be a complex mental or physical challenge or something as simple as being lazy. Once you start quitting, it becomes easier along with the lying to yourself about it. Some of you will read this and over analyze it - which is probably a bad sign. Simple rule #2 some other day.

Couldn't agree with this more. I actually think starting something when you're not 100% committed to it is worse than waiting until you are, because the psychological cost of quitting is so high.

[Inyaface]

RE: Coaching. I had been really lazy about getting in a routine of going to the gym. Have a trainer once a week and now go 3-4 times every week (although Vegas has got me pretty lazy).

I can't see how in circumstances like this a coach isn't a good thing. Part of being proactive and getting things done is knowing when you need help to be proactive and get things done.

[SiQ]

^ that.