Comments on a New D Poker Outline
We can certainly move beyond much of this especially since the author other bitshers d poker paper does in fact know what effective rake is:
… authorities out will lower the costs (effective rake) for players.
Effective rake (would like to know where you got the term) is a phrase I have been espousing to the players across as many significant forums as I could. It might be that or the recent poker stars rake policy changes that has caused the collective consciousness of the players to evolve their understanding of rake % vs effective rake, nonetheless there is much discussion going on about the subject: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/effective-rake-is-real-now/
Here is some insight on the subject:
Players and industry peoples are starting to understand the definition but not at all quite its purpose for existence. Not only is our understanding and use of effective rake an effective political tool that helps the average player understand the deceptive policies sites use to profit more from the players, but effective rake as a profitability standard really does solve ALL of the above problems you listed.
We need to think about poker in terms of a profitability standard that could theoretically exist. In such a game where the “sites” offered such a standard we MUST assume that bots would necessarily arise. But there is a really important and seemingly simple conjecture here that these bots not over game the economy to a negative roi%. Such a bot infested environment can be assumed to be of the most difficult poker to play, or in other words no human could ever expect to win in the long run regardless if the bots could play perfect GTO poker or not, yet we still might even expect SOME humans to play (Poker Stars “employs” many such players and has more plans for more such players!).
There can be no real collusion vs bots that are tending towards GTO, nor would I think there would be any public out cry if a human player found some form of software exploits (or hardware or whatever), and one could argue such an evolutionary race might be overall beneficial to mankind. The profitability then of course is basically and generally given out as rakeback, and could be evenly given out to bots and humans or perhaps not.
Then, depending on how pangea or pokererum or any other d poker project decides to design their project, there arises the possibility that this underlying bot ring could be used as an infrastructure for individual private games, rooms, or sites.
THIS is what we should mean by free market, but this may or may not be applicable to this or other projects.
These private rooms pay rake to the underlying bot ring via directly or through a general rakeback, in exchange for what must be a secure game (otherwise there is no market). The conjecture here again, and especially depending on the parameters, is that you would need AND have a decentralized node pool, since it could be arranged that the bot pool IS also decentralized (other wise there could be no security for the public bot infested pool).
I do expect both these major conjecture to hold as true as bitcoin’s conjecture did.
Then what is dissolved is any need to solve any possible complaints such as collusion, bots, an other profitability or security complaints, because now the onus can be separated from the provider of the network (bots) and the organizer of the game (sites, room, game).
We should understand, and I think your paper did not at all consider this, an effective rake standard allows us to do things we never considered before, especially in relation to a bot pool that will seemingly likely hit gto within 1 year, namely we would be able to QUANTIFY things like bounties for security leaks or for example collusion problems. If someone is wronged while playing in a private game that person and the organizer can arbitrate a very quantified resolution. So what we are really doing is restructuring the economy of the game in a way that many of the paradoxical problems disappear.
You for example might decide you want to play on a site that requires bio meterics, I for example think that’s insane in this day and age, so I’ll play on sites that offer a super low effective rake standard
I also think you of all peoples might enjoy this satirical paper: http://fermatslibrary.com/s/ideal-poker-and-asymptotically-ideal-poker
- 23296 users
- 32 supernova Elites
- And players who actually win pre-rakeback
- They all share their poker lives on TiltBook