Your ignorance of why free markets function and what connotes a free market for X are misguided and just flatly incorrect. something being 'free market' by whatever standards you propose to use does not necessarily make such a thing inherently good. You make way too many bloody assumptions.

Also bitcoin did not create a free market for currency nor is it a true currency alternative in the long run unless assumptions are made.

EDIT: Not to mention the fact that there already exists a free market between sites offering platforms which accept wagers and players who can move between sites etc. Its a monopolistic market to some extent, but it's still as free as it can/will be. What you want is a site run by players whose motives aren't profit driven, thus changing their preferences and ending up w/ a different rake allocation. And guess what, those who want lower rake, want lower rake! OMG minds blown

What about trust. What about the value of Na.j coins in usable currency?

Nothing you have linked is journal published in anything resembling an academic journal. In fact many of your papers cite wiki articles of lectures given, not even the actual papers related to the lectures.

Yes, there are government regulations, those won't change as a result of this thread and is a different topic entirely. Cool story bro.

You defined it as 'ideal poker' because the word 'ideal' connotes the notion of 'the best form' and are thereby just creating a circle jerk with yourself by telling everyone you have envisioned the future of poker because it is ideal (surprise, forboon is question beggin!)

I remember the other thread, you said some stupid stuff about smith and obviously hadn't even read the primary sources. Just throwing out names that you respect and forcing your opinions on those individuals theories does not make either you or them inherently correct. It just means that instead of having an actual argument that you can express in it's analytically logical form that you have spent way too much time online in a frenzy and latched on to anything appealing that got you to your ends, because that is what is more important to you, your personal biases and beliefs, not valid argument...and then use that information to try and bully 2p2 into agreeing w/ you BECAUSE NASH AND SMITH

You have both too much knowledge and not enough at the same time. Everything you write reeks of an individual who has an irrationally placed belief in their convictions but entirely lacks the courage of one's own conviction to allow for debate and the possibility that one could be wrong.

My poker knowledge may be b-grade at best, fine, but your professed knowledge of economics and even ability to form a cohesive argument are both non-existent.

It is amazing how if one does not accept validity or logical structure as central to reason that one's arguments can never be proved wrong in ones own mind. Welcome to the world of Forboon

Soho redirects you to his prior post on the alignment of supplier and consumer preferences and how what your asking for has nothing to do with market but a change in supplier preferences as there is already a freedom to change sites within the constraints of government/banking regulation from the demand side (which is effectually what forces the limited price taker behavior on the part of suppliers).

Soho also believes you are now just being an obstinate ignorant ass who has probably watched too much Ron Paul television. God I abhor some forms of libertarian.

How would I convert my Na.j coins into money to pay my mortgage and buy food? Would the exchange rate between Na.j coin and my currency we wildly unstable due to the small pool of Na.j coins initially in existence?

.

Your inability to define an argument in your own words without constant reliance on a limited set of poorly cited sources says enough.

I've already stated why what you just said is wrong in clear and firm enough terms that I'm just going to point you back 5-10 posts. Guess what, you're still wrong and all the bullying in the world won't change that.

Actually you should be because the way in which you do it is by stating it as fact even when it is no where near being such and then berate all those who disagree despite their points being equally valid.

Not only that but the applications of your sources verge on non nonsensical and contradictory. This in itself is infuriating as all get out as whenever someone disagrees not only with your initial premises (which you then berate them for being religious) but with your arguments from those premises then you just redirect people to your premises and point them out despite their objection to the VALIDITY of your argument not the truth of its premises.

Granted the fact that most find your premises questionable at best doesn't help you either

Also Smith/Nash/Hyeck are a very small fraction of academic economics and there are many prominent economists (if not the majority actually) who disagree with them on many points.

I again redirect you to my prior posts in this and the other thread where I actually commented on why you are wrong substantially and not just getting upset at you creating another account here.

And I didn't read my textbooks so jokes on you.

I know you didn't, we've discussed this. but what is ****ed, is I DID read your textbooks. And the community doesn't yet realize this.

You quite obviously didn't. If you were as correct and smart as you claim to be you would be able to efficaciously dismiss critiques itt without so many appeals to loosely linked secondary sources and in addition would actually use words correctly and not make nearly as many mistakes in methodology etc etc...

Two plus two isn't going to listen to you it seems, why don't you go try another forum where they will be more receptive to your points. You have been judged by the community. You choose to impugn everyone else's ability to judge rather than accept their critiques. If you believe we are so wrong then go elsewhere, we are fine in our standing as judges of good argument, it is you who has the problem presenting a sound argument.

Since you obviously don't respect our intelligence just go elsewhere where all the people who are smarter than you post.

Cliffs?

Selling 5k naj coins. PM if interested.

I`ll give you $5.
(but I don`t have naj coins wallet atm)


#freeBorfoon
c`mon, let him be.

This free market already exists. Yet the effective rake online is 80% and always has been.
Just because something is optimal does not mean the market behaves this way. Just like players don't always play gto. The actors might not understand what is ideal and you might also not understand what is ideal. I.e a player might perceive a gto poker strategy not as ideal for his perspective.

It might be ideal for stars to exploit the market as well as they do today just because they can.

I'm just going to leave this here....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

#freeborfoon

Can someone explain what this poster is trying to say? Im very confused at this.

I only understand part of it. He (as well as myself) believe that online poker is overraked. We come to this conclusion by looking at the effective rake.

Effective rake = losses - wins. Or rake vs losses/wins.


I personally believe that the effective rake in online cash games is around 80%. Of course this varies at different stakes and at high stakes the effective rake is close to 0.

Forboon also believes he found a solution with a poker coin. That concept however he has not been able to explain to me and I cannot imagine (how) it can work.

He plays poker for a living and is a solid 180 winner and gets staked a bunch.

http://www.twitch.tv/forboon

The revolution is upon us!

Not sure if you have clearance to bump a borfoon thread. Its like opening up the sealed box from Indian Jones.. some things were meant to be left alone...

Did watch his twitch. Didn't understand a word. Would watch again

#freeforboon, borfoon, norfoob, rofnoob etc.