Because that is how you construct an objective framework from which the problem can be properly analyzed.
You have to understand that as good players leave, the field they leave becomes more profitable. That is the nature of the problem.

Understanding the problem solves it.

the problem can be shown to be provably secure in the equilibrium state if one could first show the equation estimating how many marshmallows are in the bowl.

To construct an objective framework you have to include all aspects of the problem you are analyzing. By equating the profitability of both models you're omitting an essential component and creating an entirely different problem from that of the current markets.

I understand your argument about the profitability of the field. My argument is that because the profitability of the field at higher stakes is progressively diminishing as the game evolves, profitability to be gained from a better structured game outweighs that of the "softer" field.

Also, there’s a reasonable probability that at least portion of that field will also move if the model created is successful. Which is the only relevant eventuality because if it’s not successful everything is a mute point.

In poker, game theory etc., an objective framework doesn't intrinsically include all of the details of an observable event. The objective framework is devoid of these details and is created as a framework to observe all possible events with all combinations of details.

I just ran that through google translate for us humans here on planet earth.

I'm not negating this and that's what I meant by saying that you're creating(or rather trying to solve) a different problem, not of the current state of the markets but of a framework for all possible states of the markets. I encourage and salute your pursuit of this GTO solution, but IMO, If objective is the betterment of the current markets it's more productive to focus on the specificity of these markets. Or will you say that it’s not possible to bypass the GTO solution of having an objective framework you’re after(or perhaps already found, please share if so)?

Seriously, I've done and know a thing or two about poker markets, crypto, online gaming, gaming and crypto-related regulation, gaming product and software development, marketing, payment processing, etc.,

BUT, wtf are you going on about ?

I have no idea what all these fancy words you sling are meant to convey when strung together in your stream of consciousness style

Thank you for bringing your expertise and experience to this forum.

I'm trying to participate in a discussion on a topic that is important to me, on a public forum in the best way I can. I'm disappointed you don't like or understand my way of writing.

I’m also disappointed that you chose to attack it but out of the respect for this discussion I will refrain from posting further as your posts are more valuable to the community.

^^

dont be so sensitive. he was just messing around and busting your chops while making a point.

We need you to translate what noose says sometimes.

But when you speak to noose in his native tongue its hard for us ley people to follow.

Plus what you all are talking about is pretty far OT

I agree that it is and should have not followed noose in that direction, not ITT. I just wanted to understand why he took that angle and how is it relevant to his ideas expressed earlier.

I'll gladly try to “translate" noose into my own brand of gibberish as long as someone finds it somewhat valuable. And as long as esteemed posters like Gzesh don't think I'm diluting the discussion to the point where it's not worth their participation.

We always analyze our spots AFTER considering the GTO framework:

When you can see that others are starting to get lost in your language, it's time to make it more clear, not less.

That's why I quoted/cited Wil Tipton explaining the crux of game theory and how and why we apply it to poker.

I thought you will say that, you had to based on the GTO approach you're proposing, that's why I ended my post with that question, but:

The main question was/still is how and most importantly why we apply it to implementation of decentralized model, not poker. A lot of people ITT are already familiar with it’s approach as it relates to poker.

That's what I was hoping you will explain as frankly I don't see it. Entirely possible that I just lack adequate knowledge to grasp it.

And due to the popular demand, if you choose to share your thoughts on this topic maybe a separate thread would be most appropriate titled something like "Decentralized poker model's implementation and player acquisition GTO style"

I promise, this was my last reply to this more esoteric branch of the discussion ITT.

And for those who care a short and simple summary of it would be:

Noose introduces GTO into implementation of decentralized model and player acquisition but doesn't explain hows and whys. His starting point is the objective framework required by GTO, which means two models, legacy and decentralized in equilibrium, or of equal profitability to the player.

I propose that the only way decentralized model can succeed is by offering players increased profitability compared to the legacy model and that's what is most productive to focus on. Which in the context of GTO is an exploitative approach, because I'm basing my approach on the specifics of the current market. In that same context such approach is impossible without the objective GTO framework. I fail to grasp how and why GTO relates to the main topic discussed ITT while getting reamed by Gzesh for poluting this thread with incoherent gibberish.

Which gets you nowhere, because:

Exactly. The misunderstanding isn't what GTO is, or how it apples to poker, but how it applies to the situation at hand.

But rather than trying to explain that, I'd suggest steering clear of GTO here. I don't think it applies that well, and even if it does, there should be a clearer way of making your point.

has lack of bot control been addressed?

seems like an obvious leak

In this thread players are also unable come up with number for the cost of a poker site, would be nice if they were familiar with this dialogue: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...ed-bq-1696390/

You are not speaking gibberish. I am quite impressed with your understanding of the future of poker.

I have to take some time to compartmentalize this and make sure I can express myself without it being grueling

But in a basic sense I am rendering the problem as a small game and attempting to relate it to emerging crypto computer science and specifically network theory. I'm quite confident I am able to do this in a way that will be seen as useful. The conflict going on between the many different crypto coins that are each supported by their own network is relevant (ie metcalfs law).

If it can be rendered a game then it can be solved as such. I have some ideas its just difficult for me to paint the picture in the way I am saying and so that others can follow. I also don't want to keep saying the same thing over and over. I do feel the dialogue so far is valuable, I will take some time to think about a different or expedited approach.

Yes it has, please get familiar with the thread and ask questions as you are (you are very welcomed and encouraged to participate!)

just grunched that thread in 90 seconds. I saw almost NO numbers and 99.99% words. Sort of hard to talk about costs with all words an no numbers.

The answer to your question has to be in ranges not a "number" (Doug taught me about ranges so I use them for all sorts of things)

range is $1,000,000 - $5,000,000

would agree. hope he posts more.

Speaking outside of just online poker, and instead looking at overall economy... Its a massive land rush for new coins. There is a TON of money to be made launching a successful coin.

Coin guys correctly concluded that online poker players would be simple minded and low cost targets to help build market for their coin. If that is true, then in practice, they don't care about poker, just the coin. Poker is means to an end.


p.s. yes with several posters not understanding your language might be time to consider that the interference is on your end not others.

I'll be last one to discourage anyone undertaking anything this ambitious.


But think about it: it took tremendous computing power to arrive at GTO solutions for the game played with 52 cards, finite combos and defined rules. And the solutions of various AI solvers were surprisingly different than those approximated without the help of AI.

You will need a pretty mighty nonexistent solver to solve this problem. Anything else will have to low of a level of confidence to be useful IMO.

great point. now that you have presented to noose and his language I hope he can focus his efforts .

There are many similarities between decisions in business and decisions in a poker hand.

But one big difference as you stated...

Poker hand has 52 cards.

Most important business decisions have 1052 cards.

That's a big, unruly and unsolvable tree.

Post away .... (I am a bit puzzled at how you conclude there is some binary choice demanded by my critique of your rhetorical style, one where either you post or I post.)

Fwiw, I have no issue with understanding what Noose posts, I've a rudimentary understanding of what GTO play means in poker, but think putting a GTO game-play discussion before a "how to build it" horse is a mistake. Doing so seemingly will skew the outcome in favor of a certain segment of players ....much like current sites do not provide PokerTracker or PTR type analysis, basically only hand histories and hopefully only those of your opponents in common hands. Building a better abattoir is not good for the game experience of players generally.

Poker operators would be hard pressed to improve upon a 52 card deck, 13 ranks, 4 suits. As online poker evolved from live poker in the online market, operators added hand histories, multi-tabling, rush poker among other features. It remained up to the players to develop their strategies and rewarded those who did so well.

I think simply building game mechanics into a decentralized engine, including all the needed attributes of offering a competitive service, is plenty enough to ponder, if a discussion is intended to make actual progress toward a change in poker reality.

It's already provided to us by the legacy model. The outrage caused by Amaya(or Global Poker's obscene rake) with their move towards lesser profitability for the player is still vibrant and is waiting to find an actionable outlet to express itself, and:

we are currently still in progress of taking the optimal line. During the boycott there was no choice of taking it. That's why decentralized poker's moment has come in terms of attracting the players. Conditions for it to emerge and gain traction are better than ever before. Because it is that line and "game theorists" are waiting to take it.

This is a packed, brilliant statement. It pinpoints the struggle of the contemporary democracy at large. But relating it back to online poker the situation has never been better for the player's interests to combat it.

There are numerous individually produced podcasts, streams, etc. creators of which align with the player interests as most of them are players themselves. They reach a substantial audience, most importantly those that would be the innovators in terms of participation in decentralized model. These are great assets in decentralized poker's bid to attract players. They were not there just a short while ago. It is another new market condition that favors decentralized poker's success.

Low cost of participation/increased profitability for the player. Increased security/RGN transparency as a cherry on top(wich as noose pointed out relates to profitability)

There has been useful exchange of all sorts of information ITT.

I know I've learned quite a bit.

I assume the GOAL of all this was to take first steps in bringing forth a more competitive online poker market. A market that is more player friendly and maybe one where skilled play could once again lead to sustainable win rates. Whether or not this is even possible is not known. Several barriers exist within and outside of the technology.

Awareness has certainly be raised. To various degrees, important topics were hashed through and ideas exchanged.

In what ways are we closer to the GOAL?

What are next steps?

Step 1 : Stop waxing philosophical carrots so hard,

Step 2 : Ask yourself if NVG can really be some sort of crowd-sourcing fount of design and implementation knowledge

"What the **** are you doing? This is not **** for you to be messin' with. Are you ready to hear something? I want you to see if this sounds familiar: any time you try to create a decent poker model, you got fifty ways you're gonna **** up. If you think of twenty-five of them, then you're a genius... and NVG ain't no genius."

Step 3: Figure out how to compete with the myriad of features that comprise existing models for poker online.

a. Start with security/game integrity .... how will the functionality, effectiveness, integrity of the game contract be readily ensured for each session ? Will players be required to audit all the contact terms each time before they sit down to play ? Think of this as the DAO problem.

b. Find a game speed solution you can test out. I see this as a bigger challenge than one might think.

c. Create seamless, easily used on-ramps and off-ramps.

I'm still meditating and compressing...

In the meantime, Gzesh instantaneous poker on the blockchain has already been solved, here is the rigorous solution: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.06726

I can't move us all forward if we deny truth. Virtue Poker is implementing this and Cypherpoker already has as a demo.