Sports betting.

If I am reading this correctly when playing on Bodog you can not see the players users name nor see who ur playing against? Is that correct

Outstanding work Kyle.

I have to say though, there's clearly a non-zero chance that this was developed as it is intentionally, that select connected people were given HUD capability, and that capability will be maintained even when they re-obscure the user IDs.

After UB/AP, you have to consider that possibility.

WAT??? Oh God. It's you again. READ THE OP (original post).

Only because games were juicy as ****. The software was close to unplayable, but you put up with it. Now it actually is unplayable.

I'm not Becky, but I'm pretty sure Bodog knows the answer to this and their market strategy is based on it. A net-winning player generates zero rake. You might even argue that they generate negative rake equivalent to what they win. Rake is paid by losers, despite it coming out of the winners' pots.

Taking it to the next level makes it hard to quantify that exactly though, because if you remove winning players it will change the amount of rake generated by all the other players, and change some losers into winners. So I think the simple answer is best: zero.

so winners pay no rake.. good to know

i feel there is no use in answering your question after you somehow make post #127 in a thread and still don't have the slightest clue about its content.

since i want to be nice anyway: the answer is yes, and no.

He has 100% agreed to it through e-mail. Unless he decides to back-out now, which would look a lot worse imo, since there's a thread about it in the Internet Forum.

Agreeing to it is one thing, but actually legitimately answering the questions is a reasonable amount of time is another and no chance its actually gonna happen. He will dance around every important question asked leaving us with nothing

the idea that rake is paid out of anything other than winning players profits is ****ing ridiculous. the most basic example is this- losing player sits down with $100 at a HU table. he then loses his $100 to the shark. the shark wins $100 minus whatever rake is paid in their match. when the shark loses his $100 to the fish and the fish leaves the table, the fish wins the shark's $100 minus whatever rake is paid in their match. likewise, if two net winning players sit down to play each other in a HU match, the person paying the rake will be the winner of the match.

the idea that grinders and winning players pay no rake and are effectively undesirable is so ridiculous it makes my head asplode. deposits are the lifeblood of a winning player's withdrawals and effectively where his paid rake comes from, but the bottom line is you need games to convert those deposits into rake. high rake revenues for a site are only brought through high traffic on the site and high traffic is impossible to facilitate or achieve without a collective pool of dedicated multitabling grinders who win, but more importantly create games against fish and other regular players/grinders alike.

and let us not forget, winning poker players are known to dust off just as much in pit if not moreso per capita than the avg recreational poker player, and last i checked, bodog had a sportsbook/casino in their software.

and not even gonna get into what i think about the calvin ayre PR spin blog/article re: kyleb exposing them. how low of them to even disparage his site and his motives, and characterize the whole situation in the manner they have. pretty scumbaggish imo.

****ing idiots, the day they fold will bring a smile to my face

and it goes without saying that losing players aren't the only ones who deposit on sites, and that net winning players can have a -EV (effectively becoming a losing player) in certain games. this is an oversight that their model seems to be making, and treating winning players like a bunch of undesirables is going to be the downfall of their poker operation.

and GL going to the DOJ to file suit against the "hackers" who breached your ****ty software, as if that isn't possibly the most laughable part of this whole development

Well, you said there was "no way" he would agree to it, and he has...now you're saying there's "no chance" he'll answer the questions legitimately...

I agree that he'll obviously try to spin the questions in his favor, but he hasn't exactly takent he PR-route thus far (i mean, this is the guy who referred to winning players as "predators" while linking to an article about extortion).

And... some of the questions are a bit hard for him to dance around, like this:

"I recently spoke with two Bodog customer service representatives on the phone who informed me that Bodog withdrawals have been "higher than they ever have been" due to the update, as well as the fact that withdrawals tend to rise around the holidays (for people to purchase Christmas gifts and such). According to this article, only "two people have closed their accounts"...how can this be true, given what I've heard from two Bodog employees first hand? Are withdrawals really higher than ever, or were those representatives fabricating information? "

A lot of them put him in between having to choose between the company lying/releasing misleading information, or employees (and him) misspeaking. Both of which are ****ty options. It'll be interesting nonetheless. The questions were sent to him/Ed @ Bodog two days ago.

Just because he agrees to an interview does not mean he has to answer all questions in the interview. I can easily see him sending answers back to only questions he wants to answer. Never underestimate how bad this company actually is.

I hope you are right though and that he answers everything since he agreed to the interview. Id love to be proven wrong lol. Either way thanks for taking the time to compile the questions and see if we can get some answers

I don't think that's realistic. I work at a PR company and I've never seen a situation where someone agreed to an interview, and then omitted certain questions (assuming the subject was informed of the general content of the questions beforehand). Jonas is going into this knowing exactly what our issues are (he reads the forums). We'll see, though.

Additionally, whatever questions he doesn't answer (if any), I'm posting anyway, and making a note that he refused to answer it... which wouldn't look good for him.

I think the most productive and positive aspect of the answers will be saving them for future generations to teach at universities across the nation as great examples of spin and propaganda.

That being said, I do applaud Arcadian for asking the right questions and trying his best.

Well we both know the PR company you work for is signifcantly better and we also know that Bodog doesnt give a f*ck about what the public thinks obviously. Like I said before though Im 100% rooting for you and that this moron answers these questions

True. But bodog doesn't view poker the way you and I do. They view it just like blackjack. There are basic strategies to help you minimize your losses, but in the end, the house get's all your money.

Notice they have even added the blackjack link to the poker program!

Withdrawing players have no business there, it hurts bodog's revenue; Jonas ODDman said it himself.

Given this mentality it makes perfect since to proliferate the games with bots so as to give the recreational player a full (no half empty tables) poker experience.

From Jonas & Ed this morning: "Don't worry, we're not afraid of debate! We'll be straight"

We shall see, haha

And when two net winning players decide to battle it out because we all have egos the size of the universe, all that money that we pay that goes to the site? That is? Fairy dust?

How about a winning player who just despises table selection and as such plays virtually all his hands - for the sake of argument let's say literally all his hands - against other net winning players. This player - pays magically pays 0 rake?

And yes I perfectly understand their world view. Just like I understand the world view of somebody who thinks the world is flat.

Guess we will. Although it's still my opinion that any defense of these changes has to be spin of some kind as it can't be logically and factually defended.

Found an ironic quote in the about section of Calvin's blog:

At CalvinAyre.com, everyone has a voice. And I want to hear it.

LOL. Yeah right.

Btw, can someone tell me when and where the interview airs plz?

^ it'll be a written one. Ed/Jonas said they'd have it back ASAP (and have been VERY responsive thus far). So I'd say within a week. That may mean tomorrow, or a few years from now, though. Haha.

Lol & Jonas reading the forums like he claims. What, does he read them sarcastically or something?

It is pretty clear our opinions are worthless to them, not sure why they even bother to attempt appeasing us.

Can we make this an anonymous thread?

That way I don't have to worry about anyone abusing the thread because I don't know who the abusers are.