You would have found a great job writing doctrine for a Soviet Bloc country. A generation too late sadly.

No, you are upset because you must face you have been making points with no logical basis behind them.

You have been suggesting the 180's are inherently unprofitable, show us your proof or shut your mouth about it. I don't need to prove the negative just like I don't need to prove that god doesn't exist, you might prove he does.

Stop fighting me. I am correct, let's move together.

Nah gollyheck, he's actually very lucky to live in this "accepting" generation. People like him were admitted to the psych ward not to long ago

haha

POKER staking contracts don't hold up in court because they are not enforceable under any law. The reason is such a thing would be ridiculous and it would unravel law. We have, and I have done my version of case studies, many such example of these case of backers suing horses being thrown out and laughed out of court.

I understand why, you do not. Ask Gzesh.

The contracts validity you refer to is in your mind only. it is not valid under law. And so it because valid only in a fictitious poker court. For the reason that people like you think that it makes sense, and its reasonable, and moral for such a law to exist. You fail to see and reason that our forefathers did not at all think so.

For example if two player get into a contract where on player is allowed to murder the others family, and irl law say this is wrong, will the poker community uphold such a law?

Obviously not, so your argument of course is really that you think it is moral for the poker community to uphold bad contracts. Where do you get this moral basis? Do you really think that Adam Smiths works suggests that a social poker communities responsibility is to uphold laws where unsuspecting players get trapped into deals that only serve to destroy their life and image?

I have said time and again there are no numbers you call for, you maintain the game is profitable, then it should be easy for you to show. But now, as a poker player you are telling me you have no interest in the profitability of the game. And apparently no one does.

A bunch of angry children, arguing that even though they refuse to look, the game is "probably" profitable. The same kids arguing they are vastly superior at poker than me.

Arbitrary guesses are guesses.

If you argue they are profitable, prove it! I maintain, such proof does not exist.

No, this is not science, in science for us to accept something, it must be proved. We are poker players, we don't jump into unknown games and then later decide if they are +ev.

You are a bad player if you think that is a good strategy.

First we decide the games are profitable...otherwise how can we know we are making a good poker decision in playing?

So show it? Prove that these contracts are valid...otherwise we are functioning on an assumption, which is religion, which is guessing and not poker...

Over and over, you point out that you clearly have not thought about this game, but are just running on pure assumptions. And player after player comes into the thread to admit the same.

Zero players have done their homework, and 99% are not capable...

what is the story here?

I notice post after post of you two with no content to add to the discussion other than that which shows an obvious a lack of knowledge..

Am I to take it your level of comprehension on the subject of variance is so low that you have nothing further to contribute but continually showing that you have nothing to offer?

Well since anyone that offers a reasonable counter point to your's is apparently an idiot with no comprehension of anything "discussion" as you are want to call it is effectively pointless.

Luckily you are so much smarter and better than everyone so you can tell us what is ultimately correct.

Thank you.

Golly, another post with not content, will you continue or at least admit you plan on and/or are not capable of contributing?

@soho

The "free market solution" Smith proposes does not intend to create social institutions that uphold such contracts. The natural order is to let the contracts justify THEMSELVES, and so what will happen as a result is bad backers will no longer arise in droves to create bad deals with unsuspecting horses.

By unnaturally upholding contracts that are not the communities business (nor legal right) we have creating a growing illness.

I am simply pointing out neither law nor Smith agrees with upholding these contracts.

I also wonder if you are aware of the formalization of Smith's works, what seems clear regardless is you are behind in your studies:
Golly, another post with not content, will you continue or at least admit you plan on and/or are not capable of contributing?

@soho

The "free market solution" Smith proposes does not intend to create social institutions that uphold such contracts. The natural order is to let the contracts justify THEMSELVES, and so what will happen as a result is bad backers will no longer arise in droves to create bad deals with unsuspecting horses.

By unnaturally upholding contracts that are not the communities business (nor legal right) we have creating a growing illness.

I am simply pointing out neither law nor Smith agrees with upholding these contracts.

I also wonder if you are aware of the formalization of Smith's works, what seems clear regardless is you are behind in your studies:
What becomes unfortunate is that we fill the community with a type of peoples that you cannot present a logical argument to, even if it clearly brings favorable change to the individual!

OK LETS SAY WE BELIEVE YOU.

WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO NOW

ANOTHER POST WITH NO CONTENT.

@golly, rowniwn IS in fact contributing while your attempt at some sick sarcasm is still not contributing. The least you could do is admit you have no plans to, and better yet you might admit you are not capable.

We want to come to a couple or few very small consensus that are perfectly observable and understandable. If you can exhibit and assert, just for one moment, the intelligence I DO believe YOU specifically have, you can see that I call for a "rake standard" contingent on the simple point that nobody can prove that one exists.

I'm am sorry I am "wordy" but I must address 100 arguments at once.

Simply put IF you "believe" me, or rather if you AGREE because you happened to see the logic...then next I would like to suggest that NO games can be shown to be profitable that have a higher variance than 180s.

This does NOT mean they are not profitable, but it DOES mean that nobody can make claims on their profitability. And this MEANS something. How do we continue the argument if we cannot admit this simple fact sir?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...07&postcount=1

Am I to understand that the player and or backer is not at all clear on how the contract works? Is someone going to argue me that this is +ev deal and the horse has a positive exception?

Do we need coaching on how to enter contracts? I don't know if we follow the clear logic and reason that bad deals destroy the game.

So then what is the reasoning that the community should pool together to honor such contracts that harm the community? Again we cannot argue that status quo is a proof. Just because that is the way it is I should not have to prove otherwise. In fact I have shown it is more profitable other wise. But I want to see the logic that shows the players must uphold these contracts for either legal, moral, or profitably/sustainability?

In other words, or as they say “the cliffs” are that 180’s are not profitable by any significant sense of the meaning of the phrase, and what is seemingly clear (by relating such information to certain average living stnadards) is being a 180 pro is actually a myth. Extending this further it also seems clear that many related staking contracts are thus clearly -ev and therefore invalid from their inception (NOT the Leo kind)!

What is important to the community then is we then have a logical extension that is interesting in the context of not only all fields but specifically in relation to the recent rake policy (and effective rake policy) that the PS/Amaya train has recently put into effect and then rescinded. There might be those of the community that are not a fan of such logic, however this is poker isn’t it? Do we fear fundamental maths? Does it hurt us to have meaningful discussion that involves content? Our reasoning is as follows:

Recently PS raised rake and effective rake policies for the reasons of both providing a bigger and more significant player pool (ie and specifically breaking into the US), and for keeping the integrity and security of the game (in a moral poker sense). In other words it was clearly stated the changes were not directly for profits but were expected to bring an overall favorable amount of players into the economy of the game, thus being beneficial for all involved!

As the players protested such changes, many players were even banned from the “skin”, and certainly many illogical dialogues and arguments were formed and thrown about.Soon after PS, even before announcing to the players, rescinded their rake polices, under the explanation that this was some form of a failed experiment and PS realizes and respects the players feedback.

So then it must be that either the players complaints were heard and/or there was a misunderstanding of how the economy of the game works in relation to the overall economy. Was PS wrong about the % of rake monies the players must incur in order that they may return to join the US player pool? Or more importantly is it that raising the rake and the effective rake did not have the favorable effects of attracting more growth for each field?

Can it be denied that having a rake and effective rake policy that is too high is not favorable for either and both the site nor the players?

We should further extend this logic in relation to the new 180’s revelations that the collective 180 pool is beginning to have. Is there an effective rake standard from the perspective of PS/Amaya that sets the rake as a % (and other “regulations”), or does the site management arbitrarily choose rake %’s?

Put another way if the 180’s games are not profitable or very profitable or reasonably profitable, why should we expect any other field in the game to not be targeted with the same effective rake. And then if they are not targeted with the same effective rake, shouldn’t it be that they are at least more unprofitable or the 180s’ rake % should be adjusted to match the targeted effective rake of some other field.

Obviously this conversation is not very favorable, an so it might make sense only someone with very few posts might bring it to the community’s attention. There are many supporting facts to be linked to but we should hope for some form of dialogue stabilization first. And we should know there are many players that are awaiting an answer to this and would like to discuss it that will gather as the dialogue develops.

I contributed earlier but as I disagreed with you it was not counted as contribution.

My humble apologies.

You must mean this:

No we are saying that the skilled players are not assured of any significant amount of profits because clearly effective rake is so high that the variance erodes any definition of "professional play" or "skilled monies".

I don't know how to say it any clearer, but what is obvious is you have not looked at the numbers, and not read my words and you are not on topic.

Such is not a contribution, sorry. Soho knows the topic. Are there any poker players here that don't base their strategy on guessing?

Alright, let's say you are right ... what exactly do you want? Lower rake? All staking deals to be void? Do you want us to stop playing 180s?

In a vague sense you are correct about some things. You tend to use absolute words that are out of place and make your statements not completely aligned with fact and reality.

what is with you players and your metaphorical theories? I am asking and suggesting that you look for yourselves! Why are we having this conversation with our eyes closed? I even made the sheet and explained what is going on for you. If you don't like it you can make your own presentation and I even gave you the data so you don't need to search the players yourselves.

If we need an aggregate of reg data to make such a proof, then here is the thread for it.

I maintain, a simple and obvious observation, the variance is such that the best player cannot be shown to be the most winning over the longer term.

What should we do with this? Dispel the myth that 180's are a game in which a player can reasonably expect to build a bankroll. Explain to players and backers that 180's are a crap shoot. And begin to discuss the reality of the game.

And further more we need to address the entire scope of what this means. In other words, if the rake % of 180's maintains a certain level of standard, then why should we not assume the same unfavorable standard is not in practice for mtts. And we know mtts are even more impossible to prove.

In other words read this more carefully: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...4&postcount=89

I do have an if "this" then "that... but we are stuck on "this" which is the obvious realization that we are deluded about roi in 180's.

A collective realization would do wonders for the game and the community. It is intensely +ev for all of the players, and the hate and derision is because such a concept of not zero sum poker is scary for us, new, and unknown.

I am conveying the strategy, and formulated structure of a new type of economic perspective I didn't come up with myself. It is psychologically difficult and you don't know the extent, size, and magnitude of it. You are walking into a very very small snap shot. In short you haven't read the 100s of deleted posts that some of the others in this conversation have.

It might be then that my argument is very solid, well constructed, well thought out, very coherent, in its ENTIRETY.

In the small windows of participation in the community I am allowed because I fight my way through the security I must argue vs 20 posters at once. Most of them clearly are not sincere, clearly do not understand the subject, and have only intent to join in a winning discussion with a clear admission they refuse to read the content.

I am not allowed to participate, yet I clearly am the only one that does their home work, I have all the passion, and I fight for the side of the players. Are you aware I am not allowed to participate, do you know what I speak of? I speak of something called "I**** Poker", do you even know the term? Do you know what it represents? You are ignorant to the context of this entire discussion. Its no wonder you are confused on my words and my points.

I fight to look at the reality, and instinctively players flock to ridicule such a proposal...

yet our beliefs crumble.

Some advice that you may wish to ignore would be structure what you are trying to portray differently. Starting off with a succinct summation of what you are trying to say or prove so the general poker public are more likely to become engaged. Although perhaps you think you are so much smarter than all these people and you deliberately want to exclude them, I don't know.
It may also be more constructive to converse in a less confrontational and or dismissive manner right from the outset.

+1

What I am hearing is, "I am still unwilling to address your succint summation you posted as well as the supporting material, but I am willing to admit that you might have a valid point even though I don't like your attitude. In other words, sitting at a poker table, my strategy might be solid, but you don't like my attitude.

However it doesn't stand to reason that I am a terrible player does it? Then what is justifying the accusations I am a moron? Many people in this thread have pointed out a I am dumb and crazy. All of which refuse to address reality. So then I rather accuse you of running out of any logical argument to contradict my claim that there is no proof of profitability or measurement of it. And what you are left with is further continuing to try to point out flaws in the delivery. But never to address the content.

I am not here to fight you, I fight you all plenty on the tables. I am here to lay this down solidly, and then work together to address it.

Also we should note some interesting observations in relation to the global economy and the different currencies with respect to their nations. Oil has dropped significantly in the last while and so many currencies have fluctuated as a result. Russia for example had an incredible dive lock in step with oil. Recently the CAD has dropped in relation to the US for much the same reason. Argentina for example is headed for near hyperinflation.Recently the swiss unpegged from the usd and this cause shockwaves throughout the markets. Many commodities are at long time lows while the usd is seemingly soaring (gold too but trailing)! The recent Euro announcements seem to show/aid this.

And so we might ask what effects does our floating currency system have on the economy of the game. For many players it might seem quite favorable to have the same winrate in relation to the USD. However can it be that many such suffering countries can each benefit from the strength of using the foreign "chip" standard? (Is it really NOT a zero sum game in this described sense?)

What are the effects of all this change and how does it work in relation to a players roi, winrate, and "income level" in relation to their respective cost of living situations. Are these things that have no effect on us, or is our ignorance towards them creating "unnecessary stress" on the economy of the game (and our own relation to it)?

Who can comment on this, and whether or not it is significant. And I don't just mean horse sounds "pffft". I mean who knows about this and why are we not allowed to discuss such important things without ridicule and censorship?