WHO THE HELL CARES ABOUT THE BOYCOTTS ? and whether or not they were GTO'd

It's observable that the problem of moving the population from today to decentralized poker is comparable to the problem of player's boycotting. It's a standard game theory problem/observation, and its perfectly explained in the book Gzesh recommend.

Trying to solve it by convincing self interested players to unilaterally deviate en masse, is to remain ignorant to the nature of the problem in the first place (WHO lead the player's boycotts?).

Any rational player cares, because decentralized poker is an obviously more profitable environment. We want to understand this problem of the players boycott, so we might extrapolate a solution to move the population (ie "...Coercion or some other special device.")

If you say this one more time without showing your work / logic as to why this is true, I am going to have you arrested and thrown in a Chinese jail.

It's implicate PTLou. It's part of our vision. IF we can move the players to a special equilibrium the games will run on a free market for operators. But this free market can only exists if you can get the players to move enmasse. The premise supports the conclusion and the conclusion the premise.

If my uncle was a girl, she'd be my aunt.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Who shaves the barber, if the barber shaves all people that don't shave themselves?

I have issued warrant for your arrest.

You are reduced to trolling again.

Who lead the boycotts? It was an irrationally based movement.

A relevant interview from Calvin Ayre:

The benefit you list last, as a second part of your item #3 on the list is actually the single most important issue and what the decentralized poker is all about.

Decentralized poker's biggest benefit is providing a game that is profitable to the point that it is worth while to play professionally. Right now the rake is rapping the players, too big of a chunk of the winnings is being eaten away by it. Moving up the stakes is nearly impossible/takes forever which hurts the entire ecosystem. Operators keep pushing the games of chance. Their main objective is to keep the biggest portion of every deposit, preferably all of it. Which is of course understandable as centralized legacy operators are for profit entities. But it's turning poker into a game that almost isn't worth to play professionally anymore. Competition could correct this but under current circumstances real competition is nearly impossible. Legacy model can’t make the game much more profitable do to their high operational, security and payment processing costs. Yes, regulation of crypto payments can help but it is highly debatable how much of the savings would be passed on to the player by an operator like let’s say Amaya. Unless that is it is pushed by the competition and decentralized model is our best hope for the emergence of such competition.

Another under emphasized important benefit in terms of security is the impossibility of a super user account. This is not as big of a concern for most as most people have faith that the operators do not abuse their access to such account. Most people also believe(or rather hope) that it's completely un hackable. However, everything is hackable. The only real solution to eliminate the threat of a super user is to render such an account completely impossible.

Transparent, more secure RNG is a cherry on top.

Therefore any new entry into the market that can create competition has to also adopt a new model. And to think that it would not gain traction is to be stuck in an old paradigm thinking. It's to only see what IS and not what CAN be. For comparison, a lot of people didn’t think that file sharing can transform the music industry the way it did. Outrage like the one created by Amaya recently is enough of a force to make players seek out better options. Decentralized model can be the best way to bring those options to fruition.

And there are more than enough players out there to support a model that offers better profitability and security for a player. Anyone who want’s to play this game professionally in the future understands or will understand these issues soon.

you assert that

#1 the nooseprotocol ushers in this new era of friction-less movement of account balance between sites, then

#2 the boycott could be GTO and successful, and then

#3 competition in online poker market would flourish.

I wont argue with #1 and #2 and will for now say OK.

#3 will STILL not happen. There are simply too many other non technical factors that effect competition in online poker market (as is the case with almost any market.


Call Trump if you want to get out of jail. But you better thank him if he gets you out of your Chinese prison.

I like your post. It was on point and easy to understand.

For the points in red, I simply ask specifically how does decentralized directly lead to those. I am not connecting the dots.

A legacy operator could chose to improve on the things in red, or not.

A decentralized operator chose to improve on the things in red, or not.

There is nothing inherent in a decentralized / p2p / blockchain / nooseprotocol enabled ssite that helps with things in red.

IMO those are operator decisions having to do with game types, rake, rakeback, player mix, etc etc not the tech stack.

A not insignificant portion of the industry is now in crypto and there are large mechanism being created to facilitate this movement.

Coinpoker just sold 6 million for its startup. Virtue is on the horizon. This is after a couple years of many crypto sites arises serving different layers of regulated to unrelated markets. Many players are playing that would be playing if it wasn't for crypto.


And now we have different sites building different components of the noose protocol. No one is going to jail. You are ignoring observably reality and acting as if its 3 to 5 years ago.

Noose, fyp

I observe reality in this area every day, it is my business. (My former businesses, 10 - 18 years ago, were operating an online poker network and helping our software company provide poker software to various licensees.

The laws have not materially changed in the last 3 - 5 years, new technology generally does not get a pass just because its new.

Decentralized P2P gaming certainly has a shot at a creative defense argument, much the way that publishers of OFC apps could argue they are not running OFC P2P real money gaming, just providing an app. Building in a mechanism for an exchange of real value, or "moneys worth" on the game outcome, however, probably invokes gambling laws virtually anywhere they might otherwise apply.

Free advice: Don't confuse theory (or what you think should be the outcome) with reality. Get outside legal advice:

"Judge: George Jung, you stand accused of possession of six hundred and sixty pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute. How do you plead?

George: Your honor, I'd like to say a few words to the court if I may.

Judge: Well, you're gonna have to stop slouching and stand up to address this court, sir.

George: [stands] Alright. Well, in all honesty, I don't feel that what I've done is a crime. And I think it's illogical and irresponsible for you to sentence me to prison. Because, when you think about it, what did I really do? I crossed an imaginary line with a bunch of plants. I mean, you say I'm an outlaw, you say I'm a thief, but where's the Christmas dinner for the people on relief? Huh? You say you're looking for someone who's never weak but always strong, to gather flowers constantly whether you are right or wrong, someone to open each and every door, but it ain't me, babe, huh? No, no, no, it ain't me, babe. It ain't me you're looking for, babe. You follow?

Judge: Yeah... Gosh, you know, your concepts are really interesting, Mister Jung.

George: Thank you.

Judge: Unfortunately for you, the line you crossed was real and the plants you brought with you were illegal, so your bail is twenty thousand dollars. "

I agree with all the above because they are all just facts.

time out. my "jail" reference was simply a joke about me putting you in jail just cuz you are at times annoying It had nothing to do with anyone going to jail for running crypto/decentralized/noose protocol based sites. I dont believe anyone HAS to go to jail for running crypto/decentralized/noose protocol based sites.

gzesch is correct. If you plan to opoerate a real money gaming site of any kind. Get some sound legal advice so you don't end up like Micon on an unplanned vacation in the Domincan Republic.

Micon ran a centralized server based model out of nevada. I have no idea why you keep asserting and implying you know what you are talking about. You don't understand what decentralization means or what this tech is yet you keep giving advice about it that is based on your ignorance on the subject.

No one is going to jail in for any significantly relevant reason. Many crypto poker sites exist today. They aren't getting shut down, their owners aren't going to jail, and neither are their customers. Some comply some don't. Many more sites are being launch now with hybrid models, some that will comply some won't. This trend will continue as it breaks the status quo. No one is going to jail, no one is stopping the process. The tech is being built and there is no question of needing funding.

You can literally check the internet poker sub and verify the truth of this. Its observable and undeniable.

Thanks. In return let me say that I like all of your posts because they drive this what I deem to be very important discussion and allows Nooseknot to share his ideas, thank you for that

Decentralized model leads to points in read by opening the market for new entries and that's all. But that's more than enough. And by opening the market I mean an environment that's outside of traditional regulation, technology that is relatively cheap and most importantly greatly reduced operational/payment processing cost.

It doesn't mean that decentralized poker automatically will have lower rake. But it provides a platform for those idealists that care about the game and fair competition enough to design and provide a game that is structured to their liking. As an example, let me refer to the publicly stated motives of Phil Galfond for starting a new poker site. He stated that his goal is to create an environment where the dream of moving up the stakes like he himself once did is real for anyone skillful enough to do so. The fact that he hasn't yet delivered speaks volumes to the reality of costs of the centralized legacy model.

And speaking of legacy models I don’t think they have any 1. Incentive nor 2. Flexibility(which is even worse) to change anything. Amaya is in direct competition with skill players for the same deposits, pressured by the obligations to shareholders to deliver ever increasing profit. Of course they will only allow a bare minimum of those deposits, just enough to sustain enough action to be taken away from them. Or a new entry into the US market Global Poker. Their rake is the highest rake out there, I believe in the history of online poker. As far as the flexibility goes, legacy model is to costly to have much of it. I’ll refer again to Phil’s comments in Joey’s podcast where he admitted that the processing costs are making low rake unrealistic. Again, crypto payments will change that for the companies but will not make them pass those savings to players on their own. It needs pressure to do so from outside, from the competition which can only appear if the cost of entry is affordable. It is not under the legacy model.

sounds like we were saying the same thing. you just seem to be having reading comprehension problems today

The problem is simple, it is player liquidity required for poker. It is not simple to address but is not insoluble; it is difficult to move players off their existing sites under the most favorable of circumstances.

My company launched a poker business in 2001 when 100+ concurrent players online was remarkable, but profitable enough. (Paradise had like 300, omg.) The keys to any successful decentralized poker launch in 2018, assuming such a product user experience will be competitive otherwise, would be keeping both operating costs low and player expectations reasonable. This perhaps gives a launch staying power for organic growth and benefiting from non-poker channels driving blockchain modeled businesses forward.

I'm not sure you know what you're disagreeing with, or perhaps my point wasn't clear. I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm saying that the fact that it is decentralized poker, in and of itself, isn't likely to make a mass move happen. And I don't think the security it promises with possibly an uncompromisable RNG and software will be enough either. But what you mentioned in a later post, much lower rake, if achieved, could definitely have an impact.

The "trolling" (I'd call it some light-hearted joking) was probably brought on by you reverting back to your old ways of unclear language and beating on the same point multiple times without making it clear why it matters.

Who cares? I guess there could be some benefit to learning from the mistakes of past boycotts as you are trying to move the herd to a different poker site now as they were then (although a boycott usually lacks a destination for those players), but the two experiences are so different that I don't know that there's much that carries over. But either way, why does it matter who led (past tense of lead - English is a ****ed-up language) the boycotts previously?

If decentralized poker can truly do this, then yes, there is the potential for a mass migration.

I think all three are just cherries on top, at least when speaking in terms of what will bring players over.

Sure, but to assume it will gain traction just because it's better is to be stuck in wishful thinking. Not saying you're doing that; just pointing out that "If you build it, they will come" may not be enough.

Well, if it doesn't, I think you'll have a problem with it going anywhere. Not that you couldn't have a decentralized site with the same rake that could carve out a niche for itself, but I don't see any reason it would become a dominant player based on decentralization alone.

This, this, this.

lol get a room you two

PTLou has already been thanked by multiple posters for keeping the discussion going.

Don't really have time to address the little points, appreciate all the dialogue though (might come back for it).

Just wanted to simplify perhaps. We can imagine two sites equal in every way where one is the status quo (ie de facto monopoly), and that there is zero friction for players to transfer rolls (ie instant and no cost). The profitability is the same. If the good players on the status quo try to leave the games they leave behind a more profitable feild.

How do we change it so a good self-interested players can "unilaterally deviate" and gain? How do you get to escape velocity (there would be a tipping point no doubt)?

That is the question I mean to paint with all the assumptions and noose protocol talk etc. It's game theory. Why didn't the leaders of the boycotts consider this question? I think the problem outlined was never really addressed/discussed.

Give them a reason to move.

First off, you keep talking about leaders, as if these boycotts were some well-organized campaigns, which most of them weren't. Secondly, a boycott is completely different than players moving somewhere. A boycott simply means you'll stop playing on Site X for a set period of time. "Game theory" never entered into anyone's head - people were pissed off, and some stopped playing on a site for a period of time. That's it.

As for your question - who cares? Why they did or didn't consider something is irrelevant now. If you have some bigger point you're getting at, it's time to do so.

Yes I'm expecting us to be more accurate than that.

I don't mean to actually call out any leaders. It was an analogous situation in that self interested players had no real incentive to cooperate. There was either bad or immoral players calling for a boycott that couldn't possibly work and no talk about how to actually solve the problem of moving the masses. In the case of the boycotts the players just wanted to show their collective muscle, regardless that they had no real option to migrate to, it was futile.

Today that situation would be different and probably won't occur again (or it will have a major impact on the status quo site going forward). Certainly there would be great migration to the different sites that have arisen and new projects. The players could transfer their rolls into sites and actually "invest" those rolls into these emerging competing models.

In today's environment the players have reasonable leverage and options.

OK, sure, that was rather flippant of me. But if you want to get more specific, there could be any number of reasons/incentives for players to move. And it doesn't necessarily need to be a decentralized site that flips things around. Stars has been king for quite some time, but it wasn't always that way. Previous to them, I believe Party had quite an edge in terms of market share, and they lost it to a centralized site - there's no reason the same can't happen to Stars. And I believe people who talk about a monopoly are a few years behind the times - my recollection is that Stars had a much bigger market share previously.

Just because you don't think the boycotts couldn't work doesn't mean the players were bad or immoral. And you're not correct that they couldn't work - at least one did, and Party backed down on an unpopular change. Players had options to migrate to, but that wasn't what they were looking for. They wanted changes.

If players were to organize a boycott today in the same way, I expect they'd get similar results. I see no reason why they wouldn't.

Here's the thing - I think a mass migration has to happen organically. As I believe has been alluded to a few times in this thread, when a lot of regulars organize to boycott/quit/move, an incentive is created for them to stay, and the momentum is arrested. If a site grows organically and attracts both regs and recs, the incentive to stay at other sites diminishes. But that growth from a small to medium site is always a challenge; I think Gzesh said it best:

I think you are doing yourself a disservice with the continued talk of the boyocott and basically derailing your own thread. I understand how you consider it germane and interesting.

However I thought your goal ITT was to gain consensus and publicize the discussions about a new way to run a poker site using several new, disruptive technologies. Technologies that are not currently being used by any legacy site. Technologies that are not being used fully or "properly" by any of the new, non-legacy sites coming to market. I'd stick to that stuff and let go of the boycott discussion.

IF you want to research more about how disruptive technologies work, again, I'd think less about boycotts and more about these things...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_innovation

and the related

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle


Or, if above business concepts are TLDR, here are the cliffs.

I'm more interested in Bitcoin sites that will be popping up soon, but Ethereum has more growth potential than Bitcoin, since one BC is worth a lot now. That alone makes ethereum based sites worthy.

I'm just liking that blockchain tech is being applied to online poker. I feel that this is what will make online poker return in a big way, and in a way that can't be easily stopped by the government. Much like torrents improved on Napster/Kazaa, I think these programs/sites will learn from the mistakes that were made by old-school poker programs/sites. It would be great to see them succeed, and online poker to return to, or exceed, it's former strength.

Not sure why you're asking this question under the condition of equal profitability?

The boycott sparked due to the threat to profitability and disruption of that equilibrium which has never been restored. We are still in a deviated state and are falling deeper into it. Self-interested players would not be deviating but restoring the equilibrium by moving towards greater profitability and they would be doing that by definition, out of self interest.

The field they would leave behind is progressively less and less of an incentive as it becomes less and less profitable, at least above hobby levels. That's why the issue of rake and game security is and will be more and more important.