They used to play poker on boats out in the ocean. Just like they will play it on the moon.

Most Recs will play on regulated sites, and dont care about anything that P2P site has to offer .

P2P will not be regulated for the immediate future.

This has all been fully discussed ITT. Does it really need to be rehashed?

- It's cheaper to operate
- It's provably fair
- It's decentralized or partially decentralized

They'll all come around to the idea eventually. "Regulated" or not. The idea of regulation (regulation as it exists today) is moot for this model.

Have I got it right Noose?

a bit, but not in material way compared to total OPEX to run a site. Plus development costs go up because blockchain developers in huge demand right now and get top dollar

vast majority of Rec players believe all is fair now. The ones that don't post a bunch in the rigged thread.


Who cares. just one more thing you have to explain to new, Rec players which means player acquisition costs go up, and adressable market goes down.


Two initial branches new P2P site can take.

Regulated or not

If not, then again adressable market goes down and player acquistion costs go up because you have to explain to new rec players why you are not regulated. some wont care. many will

If yes, then hire Gzesch and work with regulators over next 12-18 months defining and publishing new tech standards

Providing a service (staking) is the only way you get paid. BRX, a separate coin acts as a license to get to provide the service to the BRK blockchain and get paid, in BRK, just like BTC miners get paid by the BTC Blockchain, not some "dividend" on an equity investment in some entity.

Yeah, buying BRX and leaving or turning on your computer is not much "work", but you are being paid for the service of operating a distributed authentication service to that particular blockchain.

Interesting to me is the information I've received re historic ROI of doing so, given the low marginal cost of obtaining BRX. (No, I do not stake at present, but I've asked folks who have about their experience.)

important post to read from the CoinPoker Thread
Its important to discuss how these new technologies can be applied to poker because it will help push along these new technologies. I've learned quite a bit ITT.

In practice though, unless a new P2P site is satisfied with a currently addressable market of regs (very small market) combined with techie early adopters (small market), and is OK with forgoing acquiring new rec players en masse, then they will be dealing with the above headwinds to growth.

It's clear that Coinpoker isn't doing everything right, especially wrt PR.

So what you're saying is: Games are stale and players are soured; besides, at the end of the day, it's boring old texas hold'em that only the bots still want to play.

While all you say is likely true, I was speaking more to the strong headwinds new P2P sites will face with new Rec player acquisition. Post I x-ref'd from CoinPoker thread was just a great example of the collective mind set they will need to address.

This will take time and money.

And agree with Chaos, it's easy to monday morning quarterback all CoinPoker does, but WOW, they seem to be doing things wrong on purpose.

This is still so complicating for us IT noobs. Most people wanna get home from work, turn on their poker mobile app and instaplay a tourney.
Don't see any advantages for recreational players here.
Btw sorry to derail the topic perhaps, but what would be 2 or 3 biggest implementations of blockchain technology in everyday life? Are there any yet?

They are doing ok. There was a worry at the start but there was the possibility that developer related decisions were made when it should have been poker player. They did a few 180s in this regard, so I am rooting for them. It is a big task to successfully bootstrap, I am so far impressed.
You will learn crypto soon and do that quite easily. In the meantime, many people got rich from crypto currencies and they are look for uses for their wealth So crypto sites are full of crypto enthusiasts that have not much understanding of poker.

Its more though...coinpoker has a decision, they have a ton of equity in fiat currencies and ethereum etc. so they can decide to buy up the market for CHPs in the future and this would affect price of of them in regard to those that want to use them to play.

I think then its quite likely they will be (especially comparatively) deflationary in nature. This is the special change this technology brought, it is subtle but interesting to think of the implications.

Poker Stars doesn't control the currency its chips denominated in, and for how they do, the effective rake has been (dramatically) increasing over time.

And these differing propositions for the players will be observable on the markets.

You don't understand but you will. The CHPs are tied to eth. They will be deflationary. And if people sell them whales like Tony G will covertly bring the price up by buying them.

They will make you money just by having them.

This is the solution to the players boycott problem. Earliest adopters gain the most. You can now unilaterally deviate and expect to gain.

I am so honored and lucky to be given the chance to share in your brilliance or maybe I'm growing tired of your mind numbing arrogance. dunno.

Yes, new p2p sites can easily get techie crypto market early adopters . If their intent is a simple ICO money grab, then that's all site needs.

If their intent is to grow a thriving new online poker business , they will need much much more.

There exists headwinds to that growth in player acquisition. ICO bundling adds to headwinds for all but early adopters. Early adopters is by definition a very small market.

But you probably missed all that, because you were too busy thinking and writing about how brilliant you are.

Hey, there, .....Noose also took the time to write that I know my ****, don't trample on my rare accolade itt.

If the gaming side of this capital venture succeeds, than people will clearly be cashing out and converting their CHPs into some other currency. I'd say roughly 60% of the daily buy-ins may cash out. If folks with CHPs want to let their winnings ride, in a currency play, there will be fewer cashouts. (I have not put too much effort into looking at the poker economics related to this venture, and so my comments here are casual conversation.)

What matters is that there needs to be a demand for CHPs from people who want to play poker. If there is, then there will not be downward pressure on the value and no need for the "whales" to engage in the price manipulationyou envision.

I really do think you could spin off anything right now and people would flock to a new coin. It’s all open source, you could rip off another coin and just get it picked up at an exchange.

It isn't helpful when you do this. I did not come up with this model, I "stole it", rendered it, formulated, translated it etc. I'm not claiming brilliance (if I did I was probably wasted ), but I am claiming this mechanism is significant.

I didn't say I am brilliant, but I DID say understanding the significance of this mechanism and change is subtle. So you can't be upset at me, if we have all the pieces well understood but still aren't perfectly collectively understanding why I feel this is such a significant change to online poker.

To be clearer, you are deep into this dialogue on a subject very few other players understand the content of, that is not dumb of you imo.

Yes its a small market, but we shouldn't forget the early (and long) dialogue we all had to describe the player's boycott problem. The "small early" market is the difficult one to achieve, even with great software and a lot capital. It has the most gravity to overcome. The longer acquisition requires a good product and a good service...

But this will be reflected in the price trend, that is part of the formula of it. Do you care, if the product or service is meh, but the value of your CHPs increases at a rate faster than you could hope to win playing on a different site? That is the total question right?

That's right. And its not really "manipulation" or perhaps by some definitions it is, but there need not be a negative connotation. It is much like central banking, and that coinpoker will basically be inflation (value) targeting bitcoin (which might imply an even more increasing price versus bitcoin as bitcoin's deflationary value trend levels off).

The point is, the collectively psychology of the player field is about to SEE the value trend of CHPs. I and have, for quite some time, argued that this value trend, which is now (and otherwise) hidden, is what REALLY fuels the collective psychology of the players (but they might not have historically had alternative options for where to "invest" in chips regardless of their distaste for certain providers).

Its not true. Projects have failed their crowdfunds. Acebusters did. Their software and project is not as good or distinguished as coinpoker but there is not really THAT great of an implied difference in their valuation. What seems clear then is that a few big poker whales were silent (and not so silent) investors. This is key because coinpoker is probably very much owned by poker players, and you would want to make sure of this. You want to make sure the major holders understand the mechanism they have created. So someone like Tony G, if he was a major holder, wouldn't ever want to dump, he would want to be part of the "bankerhood" that tends to the value trend of CHPs.

To rip off a coin and have no team backing it, and no capital otherwise, won't work in a free market (the crypto markets are "fairly" free). The lack of these important aspects will show up in the value trend of the token. This is key.

One thing we can know is I haven't been able to have dialogue on this subject, basically, other than this thread (and different aspects perhaps with one two or a few other people). So the idea, I think is developed at its core, but quite rough especially in presentation. I think it was also far more difficult to understand in the past when we didn't have an actual working implementation coming online (a centrally banked token issued on a free market), so its quite a lot easier to approach now I think.

Basically there is a common and strong sentiment that "not raked" poker can't work.

But can we inquire into whether or not the % of CHPs taken as rake might decrease over time, given a deflationary value trend, and a limited (or declining) cost to provide, and that possibly their could be a situation when there is rake (as a % but also as an amount quite or value etc.) taken but the increasing value of the token begins to approach this amount.

Or this nonsensical? Or impossible?

Can the equity taken out of the players pool holdings, to cover operating costs and reasonable profits, become less than the increasing value of the token if it is to be deflationary?

I'm not sure if I am convinced it can, but I would like to hear other informed players (persons) opinion on this. It gives a different spin to the concept of 'rakeless poker'- it attends to the traditionally held belief that it is impossible because the operator needs to make profit.

Its a decent nutshell explanation, but there is more to it.

..

No no. They don't have the experience in this dialogue you do, and we have tried to talk around your domain of expertise. That is that players understanding which is limited in regard to yours...

You have to agree, it is quite interesting what coinpoker has now. They have the ability to inflation control the value of their chips, AND that their token floats on a free market means that the price trend will reflect the underlying hidden efffective rake...

One of your basic counterarguments (and Gzesh's) is player acquisition is very hard. Coinpoker can now make their chps deflationary so that as you hold them and win them, they go up in value...

Don't you see why I want us to understand this?

It is a complete paradigm shift that makes it wrong to say "recs don't care about rake". Recs and players alike are getting a new "signal" that tells you the otherwise hidden effective rake on each site.

Here is a link to the first exchange I know of that is trading coinpoker CHPs. There are orders on both sides and it will eventually foster a price. Etherdelta is a decentralized exchange platform: https://etherdelta.com/#0xf3db7560e8...33cd3d5e5e-ETH

So the price trend will create a very interesting signal as there is increased liquidity on the order books. Soon many exchanges might likely offer CHPs trading

almost assuredly true.

Yes, there is another benefit for player as they share goal with site to increase CHP liquidity and value. Everyone gets that.

But what's your point?

Are you saying sites like Coin are going to blow up in size because there is a huge market of poker players (rec and/or reg) that know and understand what a crypto and wallet and an exchange are, and dont care about playing on unregulated site, and want to have really small prizepool MTTs, and want to have limited options for cash games?

Every investor expects to sell at a better price than they bought and coinpoker holds an amount of wealth that they can ensure this for some amount of time...if they announce their chips will double in value for three months would you want some?

I have deleted two posts dealing exclusively with the pros and cons of specific alt-coins. Those types of posts are not welcome in this thread.

^^

good call. thanks.