elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
Pokereum Crowdfunding
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Latest Stable Nxt Client: Nxt 1.12.2

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10  All

Author Topic: Pokereum Crowdfunding  (Read 63989 times)

John Smith

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +4/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
« Reply #120 on: April 15, 2015, 08:55:23 pm »

This continually affirms what I am thinking of, although it is difficult to explain because I seem to be coming from a "special" although useful and "true" perspective of the poker player.

Quote
What I did say is that the costs of running advance automated poker bots is going to ruin ROI for anyone trying to game the system. When talking about stuff like this, it's really important not to jump too quickly into connecting ideas that aren't really connected. I mean, common... Lots of people make their livings (or lose then :D) playing poker online. I'd be pretty silly if I tried to say you couldn't.
This is where you have missed a key truth about the poker economy.  There are players that TRY to make a living by depositing and playing, but there are also pros that play a given strategy that will net a certain profit/hour.  This alludes to the fact that there is a hidden underlying profitability of each field.

If you agree and understand this, you should not be so quick to dismiss the relevance and significance of why I point this out. This is why I said 3 times I hope you don't simply mean to defend your position, because possibly there is something bigger and more interesting to levate.

Quote
If you are not considering a certain average level of profit standard then you might attract a field that is not very profitable…
It seems to me your team has dubbed this metric not very important, but if it happens to be that the average level of profitability from the perspective of a poker pro (ie there hourly roi) falls below a certain level, you will not have poker field that will support the economy of it.

Quote
We really don’t care about what strategies players employ in games. That’s none of our business, and personally, I don’t have a vested interest in any specific player winning at any given table at whatever time of the day… That is way too finely detailed, and also kind of outside my purview.
Let me ask you something in retort: why should I care what strategy a player uses in a trustless poker network?
My personal opinion (and not necessarily that of the Pokereum team) is: bot or not, how you play poker doesn’t concern me at all so long as you aren’t cheating.
I think I understand, and that I must point out you speak from a developers perspective and not a poker players perspective.  Because if it happens to be that the other players' strategies are so good that the average pro or decent or intelligent player can not profit then again you cannot have a field that will support this economy.  So the strategy in this sense of the other players does in fact matter, in relation to thing such as rake (in a centralized model), and the overall make up of the player field (ie if "players" start using superbot software of some form, and whether or not bot farms arise).

Of course bots and such software wouldn't necessarily arise in a game that isn't so profitable so there is clearly a limit in this sense.

Quote
This shouldn’t be a tricky topic, the terms used are pretty standard for poker players. Generally speaking:

    You have stake in the network when you have money in your account
    You have stake in a game when you have money on the table (which ultimately came from your account)
What seems tricky about this is that we have not defined how much a player will need to have as a stake in the network and in relation to the money on the table.  Its not clear what the difference in velocities between good winning pros is in relation to weak losing players.  So I really like the foundation of the entire paper but I think that we can further define these things and show that theoretically the perfect balance and overall game theory is solvable and provides a solution. (ie a pro can only accept so much in this regard as well, but it shouldn't be difficult to make it more favorable than centralized models).

I think Vitalik saw this as well, when he mentioned it all seems gameable, but I think that by understanding the economy of the game from the players perspective and especially in terms of pros and recs as I have defined them, seems to allow for a full and complete solution, that ensures a game of favorable profitability but also allows for the possibility of any level of bot software/hardware.  Whereas the paper/proposal seems to make an assumption that such technology is not likely to arise, this would not theoretically be a secure solution, especially because the average poker player needs to be assured of a profitable game (and a profitable game will attract such innovation as bots).

tyty!
« Last Edit: April 15, 2015, 09:08:01 pm by John Smith »
Logged

patrickgamer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +5/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
« Reply #121 on: April 16, 2015, 02:48:07 am »

Let’s be clear on something:

Pokereum isn’t going to implement penalties for players who have winning strategies or who are successful at playing poker. Your concern about how people play legitimate strategies is totally sidelining into an area that’s:
    • outside of our control/influence (we don’t get to tell players how to play poker – and we don’t want to)
    • not a factor to safety, trust, or reliability of the network

    The argument I think you’re doing a really bad job of getting to the point on is that if there are all weak or all strong players on the network, Pokereum may suffer a deflationary effect in it’s player adoption rate. Is it fair to say that's what you are getting at?

    If so, this is obvious to any laymen, and is also not really a concern for the Pokereum team. All we can do is build the best experience on a trustless poker network to the best of our ability, and try to convince players to give it a try. Whether they stick around, whether they disagree with our philosophies… those are all externalities we aren’t going to spend energy on – because we can’t influence/control them.

    Please don’t mistake my disinterest in chasing this rabbit as being defensive – it’s just that I see any attempt at molding/shaping player behavior in games as a red herring. It’s not just impossible to do, it’s got a lot of negative blowback potential. Maybe other members of the Pokereum team will disagree with me on this… but I doubt it.

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    I think I understand, and that I must point out you speak from a developers perspective and not a poker players perspective.  Because if it happens to be that the other players' strategies are so good that the average pro or decent or intelligent player can not profit then again you cannot have a field that will support this economy.  So the strategy in this sense of the other players does in fact matter, in relation to thing such as rake (in a centralized model), and the overall make up of the player field (ie if "players" start using superbot software of some form, and whether or not bot farms arise).

    … I’m not speaking from a developer’s perspective. I’m speaking form the perspective of realism.
    • there are good players on all poker networks. The “ringers” are omnipresent, and we’re not planning on punishing players for being good at poker. That is silly. Going beyond that, I’d point out that I personally (i.e. not the views or opinions of the Pokereum team as a whole) have a theory about what can happen to a network that gets flooded early on with high-yielding players, and it’s all good (for everyone). Unfortunately, it’s also way outside the scope of this thread, so I won’t delve deeper here.
    • The strategy of other players is the concern (dare I say the property of) those respective players. We aren’t building a coaching network, and we aren’t building a tutorial app.
    • That being said, we are using a very cool matching system, so the statistical odds of getting greatly outmatched at a table are astronomically low (way lower than the botnet collusion example I did a few posts up). For all statistical purposes, you can dismiss it totally as a non-issue.
    • What is a centralized rake model? Who said anything about centralized rakes?
    [/list]
    Logged

    John Smith

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +4/-13
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 52
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #122 on: April 16, 2015, 03:55:00 am »

    I certainly do seem to have a relevant point but you have not at all understood it unfortunately. 

    Poker is a game that attracts skilled players.  Skilled players look for a poker game in which they can win money at.   These are your "customers". The game carries a certain level of average profitability for a player in comparison with other options in which they can choose to exchange their monies for poker chips with. I am assuming there is some form of rake leaving the game, and regardless there is going to be this certain level of profitability what ever it is.  If it is negative, you will have no or few poker players.  If there is a profitable environment then you will attract poker players.

    Let's say a game is profitable for someone in the top 90% to make $10/h, and it costs $5/h to run a software that plays in the 90%+ caliber.  Now you have incentive for a bot ring (up until they saturate the game). 

    Carrying this forward, it can be shown whether or not a bot ring will arise mathematically.

    Quote
    What is a centralized rake model? Who said anything about centralized rakes?
    At present time we have different definitions of this, regardless I used it as an example.
    « Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 04:13:45 am by John Smith »
    Logged

    innovator256

    • Board Moderator
    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Karma: +24/-2
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 282
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #123 on: April 16, 2015, 12:14:36 pm »



    Please don’t mistake my disinterest in chasing this rabbit as being defensive – it’s just that I see any attempt at molding/shaping player behavior in games as a red herring. It’s not just impossible to do, it’s got a lot of negative blowback potential. Maybe other members of the Pokereum team will disagree with me on this… but I doubt it.


    The way he avoids clearly stated fundamentals for the foundation of the network to carry on with discussions that are not pertinent is borderline lunacy, My advice DON'T FEED TROLLS !!
    Logged

    patrickgamer

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +5/-0
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 16
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #124 on: April 16, 2015, 01:47:43 pm »

    BIG DISCLAIMER: I’m about to throw down some personal opinions that may be controversial on the topic of online gaming (and not limited to just online poker). What is about to follow is entirely my own personal perspective and is in no way a reflection of the Pokereum project, it’s team, or in any way an indication of the principles, philosophies, or ideals of either.

     
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    …. Carrying this forward, it can be shown whether or not a bot ring will arise mathematically.

    So what? All you are telling me is that
    • You aren’t reading the whitepaper in it’s entirety. You are jumping from one section to another and treating each section as being independent and separate from the other. If you did read the whole thing and understood it, you’d see that flooding the network with player accounts that are strung up on marionette (the principle, not the software) controls that negatively affects the networks jeopardizes all the stake from all the bot accounts you’ve matured and invested in on the network. It’s self-defeating.
    • You have a principle theory that you are having a really hard time putting together as a thesis, and you are letting it twist your understanding of everything related to poker (including/especially Pokereum). I’ve taken some time to look you up (and some of your other accounts) and I’ve visited your site. I’m not saying your theories are wrong or bad, but as any scientist/researcher will tell you: a theory is only as strong as it’s ability to be explained/articulated. Even a good theory doesn’t relate or pertain to everything in it’s field (i.e. the special theory of relativity is excellent, but it has nothing to do with magnetic properties of stellar plasma…)

    You keep talking about bots bots bots. As long as they aren’t colluding, why should I care about bots? If bots are as easy to set up as you suggest, and as profitable as you suggest, then everyone is going to run out and get themselves a bot. The playing field doesn’t change – parity in players, and the matching system that screens players for a table is still going to get equitably-performing accounts sitting at the same table. Bots are a red herring because they either are easy + profitable so everyone will have them, or they are super challenging and expensive so they’ll have a relatively low (or non-existent) presence in the population.

    In the latter case, they are really no different than really great human players. They’ll gain rep and wins, and constantly move up the food chain in our matching algorithms to sit at the top-talent tables anyway.

    So… honestly, who cares?

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    At present time we have different definitions of [centralized rake model], regardless I used it as an example.

    We can’t have “different definitions” of this because I have no definition of a “centralized rake model” because I have no clue what you mean. I know what "centralized" means, I know what "rakes" are, and I know what "models" are, but when you mash them up with no context, you lose me.

    The fact that you can’t just give a straight answer when I ask you to define what that means lends credence to innovator256’s challenge that you’re just trolling me/us. If that's the case, then it's  pretty rude & discourteous considering I've approached all your posts with an open mind and willing to discuss how Pokereum can address your concerns. I hope that's not the case and you're just too impatient to organize your thoughts before posting...

    If you want to argue the merits of your thesis, I’m happy to help; but you have to clean it up, write it out as a proper thesis paper, and then send it to me. I’m happy to critique it and help you refine it then. However - if you don’t’ think your ideas are worth putting the time and work into formalizing them, what do you think that tells me about your ideas when you're asking me to consider them? I took the time to work on that whitepaper (in conjuction with others, of course). That's why I'm in a position to field questions on our proposition from people like you. If you want to be on this side of the Q&A, you've got to pay your dues...

    So don’t try to hijack a project discussion thread as a way of validating your theories just because the project “is poker”. We’re trying to do something cool that we think people will really like, and we’d like to keep our threads focused on our project – not yours.

    Quote from: ”innovator256”
    My advice DON'T FEED TROLLS !!
    I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I get the feeling your right. This started as a great opportunity to answer questions about risk regarding Sibyl resilience on the Pokereum network, but it’s quickly deteriorating.


    John Smith:If you want to keep my attention and continue to respond to your posts, you are going to have to put more time and effort into your posts. I'm a really busy guy, and I'm starting to feel like you aren't treating my time & attention with the consideration it deserves. If you want to post replies, be direct, articulate, and stop making assumptions about things.

    PS: I can assure you that unless you run off on a biology or contemporary/modern art tangent, there is NOTHING you can post that I won't understand. At the risk of sounding quite immodest - it's just not going to happen.
    Logged

    innovator256

    • Board Moderator
    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Karma: +24/-2
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 282
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #125 on: April 16, 2015, 02:29:46 pm »

    BIG DISCLAIMER: I’m about to throw down some personal opinions that may be controversial on the topic of online gaming (and not limited to just online poker). What is about to follow is entirely my own personal perspective and is in no way a reflection of the Pokereum project, it’s team, or in any way an indication of the principles, philosophies, or ideals of either.

     
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    …. Carrying this forward, it can be shown whether or not a bot ring will arise mathematically.

    So what? All you are telling me is that
    • You aren’t reading the whitepaper in it’s entirety. You are jumping from one section to another and treating each section as being independent and separate from the other. If you did read the whole thing and understood it, you’d see that flooding the network with player accounts that are strung up on marionette (the principle, not the software) controls that negatively affects the networks jeopardizes all the stake from all the bot accounts you’ve matured and invested in on the network. It’s self-defeating.
    • You have a principle theory that you are having a really hard time putting together as a thesis, and you are letting it twist your understanding of everything related to poker (including/especially Pokereum). I’ve taken some time to look you up (and some of your other accounts) and I’ve visited your site. I’m not saying your theories are wrong or bad, but as any scientist/researcher will tell you: a theory is only as strong as it’s ability to be explained/articulated. Even a good theory doesn’t relate or pertain to everything in it’s field (i.e. the special theory of relativity is excellent, but it has nothing to do with magnetic properties of stellar plasma…)

    You keep talking about bots bots bots. As long as they aren’t colluding, why should I care about bots? If bots are as easy to set up as you suggest, and as profitable as you suggest, then everyone is going to run out and get themselves a bot. The playing field doesn’t change – parity in players, and the matching system that screens players for a table is still going to get equitably-performing accounts sitting at the same table. Bots are a red herring because they either are easy + profitable so everyone will have them, or they are super challenging and expensive so they’ll have a relatively low (or non-existent) presence in the population.

    In the latter case, they are really no different than really great human players. They’ll gain rep and wins, and constantly move up the food chain in our matching algorithms to sit at the top-talent tables anyway.

    So… honestly, who cares?

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    At present time we have different definitions of [centralized rake model], regardless I used it as an example.

    We can’t have “different definitions” of this because I have no definition of a “centralized rake model” because I have no clue what you mean. I know what "centralized" means, I know what "rakes" are, and I know what "models" are, but when you mash them up with no context, you lose me.

    The fact that you can’t just give a straight answer when I ask you to define what that means lends credence to innovator256’s challenge that you’re just trolling me/us. If that's the case, then it's  pretty rude & discourteous considering I've approached all your posts with an open mind and willing to discuss how Pokereum can address your concerns. I hope that's not the case and you're just too impatient to organize your thoughts before posting...

    If you want to argue the merits of your thesis, I’m happy to help; but you have to clean it up, write it out as a proper thesis paper, and then send it to me. I’m happy to critique it and help you refine it then. However - if you don’t’ think your ideas are worth putting the time and work into formalizing them, what do you think that tells me about your ideas when you're asking me to consider them? I took the time to work on that whitepaper (in conjuction with others, of course). That's why I'm in a position to field questions on our proposition from people like you. If you want to be on this side of the Q&A, you've got to pay your dues...

    So don’t try to hijack a project discussion thread as a way of validating your theories just because the project “is poker”. We’re trying to do something cool that we think people will really like, and we’d like to keep our threads focused on our project – not yours.

    Quote from: ”innovator256”
    My advice DON'T FEED TROLLS !!
    I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I get the feeling your right. This started as a great opportunity to answer questions about risk regarding Sibyl resilience on the Pokereum network, but it’s quickly deteriorating.


    John Smith:If you want to keep my attention and continue to respond to your posts, you are going to have to put more time and effort into your posts. I'm a really busy guy, and I'm starting to feel like you aren't treating my time & attention with the consideration it deserves. If you want to post replies, be direct, articulate, and stop making assumptions about things.

    PS: I can assure you that unless you run off on a biology or contemporary/modern art tangent, there is NOTHING you can post that I won't understand. At the risk of sounding quite immodest - it's just not going to happen.

    ++1440


    « Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 02:35:01 pm by innovator256 »
    Logged

    John Smith

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +4/-13
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 52
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #126 on: April 16, 2015, 02:46:01 pm »

    BIG DISCLAIMER: I’m about to throw down some personal opinions that may be controversial on the topic of online gaming (and not limited to just online poker). What is about to follow is entirely my own personal perspective and is in no way a reflection of the Pokereum project, it’s team, or in any way an indication of the principles, philosophies, or ideals of either.

     
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    …. Carrying this forward, it can be shown whether or not a bot ring will arise mathematically.

    So what? All you are telling me is that
    • You aren’t reading the whitepaper in it’s entirety. You are jumping from one section to another and treating each section as being independent and separate from the other. If you did read the whole thing and understood it, you’d see that flooding the network with player accounts that are strung up on marionette (the principle, not the software) controls that negatively affects the networks jeopardizes all the stake from all the bot accounts you’ve matured and invested in on the network. It’s self-defeating.
    • You have a principle theory that you are having a really hard time putting together as a thesis, and you are letting it twist your understanding of everything related to poker (including/especially Pokereum). I’ve taken some time to look you up (and some of your other accounts) and I’ve visited your site. I’m not saying your theories are wrong or bad, but as any scientist/researcher will tell you: a theory is only as strong as it’s ability to be explained/articulated. Even a good theory doesn’t relate or pertain to everything in it’s field (i.e. the special theory of relativity is excellent, but it has nothing to do with magnetic properties of stellar plasma…)

    You keep talking about bots bots bots. As long as they aren’t colluding, why should I care about bots? If bots are as easy to set up as you suggest, and as profitable as you suggest, then everyone is going to run out and get themselves a bot. The playing field doesn’t change – parity in players, and the matching system that screens players for a table is still going to get equitably-performing accounts sitting at the same table. Bots are a red herring because they either are easy + profitable so everyone will have them, or they are super challenging and expensive so they’ll have a relatively low (or non-existent) presence in the population.

    In the latter case, they are really no different than really great human players. They’ll gain rep and wins, and constantly move up the food chain in our matching algorithms to sit at the top-talent tables anyway.

    So… honestly, who cares?
    I did read the whitepaper, multiple times, I am seeking to understand it. 

    Yes I talk about bots.  Because if the game is profitable in a way that will attract poker players to play it then bots will almost certainly arise.  And they will flood the network with more bots than humans because such is the nature of the "game".

    I'll tell you who cares.  Every single poker player you want to use this software.  It will ALWAYS be the first question they ask you "How do you deal with collusion and bots?"  And I'm not talking about colluding bots, I am talking about a plethora of bots that tip the scales of profitability into an unbeatable game.    Random seating doesn't seem to defeat this in any manner.

    I'm not sure if I am not understanding something here or if you are dismissing something that seems obvious.  Poker players are looking for an economy, you are providing a platform with a seemingly limited one.

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    At present time we have different definitions of [centralized rake model], regardless I used it as an example.

    We can’t have “different definitions” of this because I have no definition of a “centralized rake model” because I have no clue what you mean. I know what "centralized" means, I know what "rakes" are, and I know what "models" are, but when you mash them up with no context, you lose me.
    Centralized rake model involves rake leaving the game to a third party etc. the opposite being a game in which the rake does not leave the players community.  We could certainly go into this further, perhaps sites with servers rather than p2p.

    Quote
    The fact that you can’t just give a straight answer when I ask you to define what that means lends credence to innovator256’s challenge that you’re just trolling me/us. If that's the case, then it's  pretty rude & discourteous considering I've approached all your posts with an open mind and willing to discuss how Pokereum can address your concerns. I hope that's not the case and you're just too impatient to organize your thoughts before posting...

    If you want to argue the merits of your thesis, I’m happy to help; but you have to clean it up, write it out as a proper thesis paper, and then send it to me. I’m happy to critique it and help you refine it then. However - if you don’t’ think your ideas are worth putting the time and work into formalizing them, what do you think that tells me about your ideas when you're asking me to consider them? I took the time to work on that whitepaper (in conjuction with others, of course). That's why I'm in a position to field questions on our proposition from people like you. If you want to be on this side of the Q&A, you've got to pay your dues...
    What does it mean to be "formal" to you?  To have an abstract?  Is it the indentation or the fonts? 

    Quote
    So don’t try to hijack a project discussion thread as a way of validating your theories just because the project “is poker”. We’re trying to do something cool that we think people will really like, and we’d like to keep our threads focused on our project – not yours.
    Yes and y'all invited me to the discussion.

    Quote
    Quote from: ”innovator256”
    My advice DON'T FEED TROLLS !!
    I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but I get the feeling your right. This started as a great opportunity to answer questions about risk regarding Sibyl resilience on the Pokereum network, but it’s quickly deteriorating.

    John Smith:If you want to keep my attention and continue to respond to your posts, you are going to have to put more time and effort into your posts. I'm a really busy guy, and I'm starting to feel like you aren't treating my time & attention with the consideration it deserves. If you want to post replies, be direct, articulate, and stop making assumptions about things.
    :)

    Quote
    PS: I can assure you that unless you run off on a biology or contemporary/modern art tangent, there is NOTHING you can post that I won't understand. At the risk of sounding quite immodest - it's just not going to happen.
    Good that means we can levate rheomodes which might prove useful.

    My understanding of the issue of dialogue here is that you and your team have approached this solution from a developers perspective.  Everything I have contemplated, whether you give a shit or not, or think or it foolish or not, is from the players perspective...

    you are about 80% out of line from the players wants, 20% you see eye to eye with the average intelligent player.  But when you shift it to align, the pieces seem to match perfectly.

    « Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 03:03:18 pm by John Smith »
    Logged

    John Smith

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +4/-13
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 52
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #127 on: April 16, 2015, 02:54:23 pm »

    BIG DISCLAIMER: I’m about to throw down some personal opinions that may be controversial on the topic of online gaming (and not limited to just online poker). What is about to follow is entirely my own personal perspective and is in no way a reflection of the Pokereum project, it’s team, or in any way an indication of the principles, philosophies, or ideals of either.

    You keep talking about bots bots bots. As long as they aren’t colluding, why should I care about bots? If bots are as easy to set up as you suggest, and as profitable as you suggest, then everyone is going to run out and get themselves a bot. The playing field doesn’t change – parity in players, and the matching system that screens players for a table is still going to get equitably-performing accounts sitting at the same table. Bots are a red herring because they either are easy + profitable so everyone will have them, or they are super challenging and expensive so they’ll have a relatively low (or non-existent) presence in the population.

    In the latter case, they are really no different than really great human players. They’ll gain rep and wins, and constantly move up the food chain in our matching algorithms to sit at the top-talent tables anyway.

    So… honestly, who cares?
    You don't have a solution for the players if this is the attitude, regardless of any disclaimers. This would scare the shit out of the players. Besides, bots are probably super easy and relatively cheap.

    So why are we defending this when it can (possibly) be worked into the solution?

    And also you have a formula but there has been nothing shown with numbers in regards to how much bankroll a player has to tie up etc.  So we cannot think accurately about the cost of a bot or how favorable it would be for a player.  Again I'm still not confident I understand, but it seems we certainly should be able to look at decent estimates and scenarios. 
    « Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 03:07:18 pm by John Smith »
    Logged

    innovator256

    • Board Moderator
    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Karma: +24/-2
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 282
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #128 on: April 16, 2015, 03:11:54 pm »

    Now you will just be censored for name calling and swearing troll. Since I cannot ban you.
    Logged

    John Smith

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +4/-13
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 52
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #129 on: April 16, 2015, 03:13:21 pm »

    Now you will just be censored for name calling and swearing troll. Since I cannot ban you.
    You also seemed to have censored the part where I told you to contribute.
    Logged

    innovator256

    • Board Moderator
    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Karma: +24/-2
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 282
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #130 on: April 16, 2015, 03:16:29 pm »

    sorry I don't want to waste my time contributing to lunacy...There is no productive discussion here, just an effort to disrupt and shed light on your blog.
    Logged

    John Smith

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +4/-13
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 52
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #131 on: April 16, 2015, 03:17:45 pm »

    sorry I don't want to waste my time contributing to lunacy...There is no productive discussion here, just an effort to disrupt and shed light on your blog.
    Listen, NOBODY wants this to succeed more than me.

    You are a very rude person.

    Edit: my blog has much to do with shining light on projects such as nxt and pokererum from the perspective of a poker player.  A lot of paper have learned about these things through me...players, players that will be needed to support your platform.
    « Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 03:24:23 pm by John Smith »
    Logged

    innovator256

    • Board Moderator
    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Karma: +24/-2
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 282
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #132 on: April 16, 2015, 03:23:27 pm »

    if thats true..why don't you address the points in the paper as it relates to your question rather than making assumptions time and time again. Or dedicate time to understanding the solutions in the paper if you really care.Rather than side stepping all the explanations given by patrickgamer to keep discussing points that are null and void...



    As for rudeness this is like the pot calling the kettle black. All your disruptive activities over time will prompt some kind of reaction sometime
    Logged

    patrickgamer

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +5/-0
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 16
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #133 on: April 16, 2015, 03:24:19 pm »

    Dude: please clean up your posts. Do a post preview and make sure you're properly closing quotes and such, otherwise it's a mess to try to read.
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    I'll tell you who cares.  Every singe poker player you want to use this software.  It will ALWAYS be the first question they ask you "How do you deal with collusion and bots?"  And I'm not talking about colluding bots, I am talking about a plethora of bots that tip the scales of profitability into an unbeatable game.    Random seating doesn't seem to defeat this in any manner.

    Collusion and bots are two separate problems; and I’ve already said multiple times that our matching system is not random.

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    I'm not sure if I am not understanding something here or if you are dismissing something that seems obvious.  Poker players are looking for an economy, you are providing a platform with a seemingly limited one.

    You’re ignore chunks of things I say (for example: “our matching system isn’t random”). By picking and choosing what you remember from what I say, you are creating gaps/holes that don’t exist.

    As for players: that hasn’t been my observation at all. The overwhelming majority (not all) of poker players aren’t looking for an economy. They’re looking to play a game they enjoy (poker) in an environment where they don’t have to risk misplacing trust. There is a small percentage of players that approach online poker from a purely business standpoint, but their population is so low that they couldn’t support the $12Billion market on their own.

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    Centralized rake model involves rake leaving the game to a third party etc. the opposite being a game in which the rake does not leave the players community.  We could certainly go into this further, perhaps sites with servers rather than p2p.
    Uh…. No. What you are describing is a rake.
    Quote from: ”Wikipedia”
    Rake is the scaled commission fee taken by a cardroom operating a poker game. It is generally 2.5 to 5 percent of the pot in each poker hand, up to a predetermined maximum amount.
    There’s nothing centralized or modeled about it. That’s just what a rake is: what the host takes for running the game. Are you suggesting that a team who puts there time, money, and brainpower into creating a fully trustless poker network shouldn’t be collecting rakes to fund improvements and new releases/features for the network?

    Any player capable of thinking two days ahead knows that paying rakes are fundamental to keeping the thing they like around and fresh, and are always happy to pay something. The question we raise is: can we do it cheaper than everyone else (answer: yes, we think we can).

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    What does it mean to be "formal" to you?  To have an abstract?  Is it the indentation or the fonts?
    • Don’t be a smartass; you aren’t winning me over with that approach.
    • I already answered that question in my last post: write a thesis paper.
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    Yes and y'all invited me to the discussion.
    You were invited to ask questions about our project, not to discuss your theories. Please tell me I don’t have to explain the difference…

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    My understanding of the issue of dialog here is that you and your team have approached this solution from a developers perspective.  Everything I have contemplated, whether you give a shit or not, or think or it foolish or not, is from the players perspective...
    Stop saying that – it’s getting on my nerves. Have you considered AT ALL the possibility that you don’t understand what we’re posting (or doing) and this is why you keep saying we aren’t thinking about players? That maybe this big complex concept you’ve put months (or years) into developing and refining was just a small nut we cracked in a few hours? Because honestly, from where I’m sitting that’s what it sounds like.

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    you are about 80% out of line from the players wants, 20% you see eye to eye with the average intelligent player.  But when you shift it to align, the pieces seem to match perfectly.
    Great, stats! Source please! [without sources, I’m going to assume when you say “players” you mean “me”]
    Logged

    John Smith

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +4/-13
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 52
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #134 on: April 16, 2015, 03:37:22 pm »


    Collusion and bots are two separate problems; and I’ve already said multiple times that our matching system is not random.

    You’re ignore chunks of things I say (for example: “our matching system isn’t random”). By picking and choosing what you remember from what I say, you are creating gaps/holes that don’t exist.
    From the players perspective it seems to be effectively random, in that they do not get to choose their own seat.  I don't fully understand the algorithm, but for my understanding and questions that doesn't seem so pertinent.  Part of poker, is choosing your own seat.  There are games that you don't choose your own seat, but they are a niche game, as many players would not accept that lack of option. This is why I keep using the word random, its a natural slip because I don't have the same perspective as you, so different words are important in different ways to me.

    Quote
    As for players: that hasn’t been my observation at all. The overwhelming majority (not all) of poker players aren’t looking for an economy. They’re looking to play a game they enjoy (poker) in an environment where they don’t have to risk misplacing trust. There is a small percentage of players that approach online poker from a purely business standpoint, but their population is so low that they couldn’t support the $12Billion market on their own.
    This is a leak.  You cannot ignore this, it is simple economics. Poker is a game of skill, and the players field is getting more and more intelligent over time, you have to address this.

    Quote
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    Centralized rake model involves rake leaving the game to a third party etc. the opposite being a game in which the rake does not leave the players community.  We could certainly go into this further, perhaps sites with servers rather than p2p.
    Uh…. No. What you are describing is a rake.
    Quote from: ”Wikipedia”
    Rake is the scaled commission fee taken by a cardroom operating a poker game. It is generally 2.5 to 5 percent of the pot in each poker hand, up to a predetermined maximum amount.
    There’s nothing centralized or modeled about it. That’s just what a rake is: what the host takes for running the game. Are you suggesting that a team who puts there time, money, and brainpower into creating a fully trustless poker network shouldn’t be collecting rakes to fund improvements and new releases/features for the network?

    Any player capable of thinking two days ahead knows that paying rakes are fundamental to keeping the thing they like around and fresh, and are always happy to pay something. The question we raise is: can we do it cheaper than everyone else (answer: yes, we think we can).
    It matters not whether you can do it cheaper, but rather the profitability of the game you offer.  And rake can also be essentially (or in the "effective" definition) value leaving the game to 3rd parties. And yes it generally is and certainly can create a centralized model/economy for the game. Today's game is exactly in that state, and your project is titled with the word "decentralized" (admittedly we don't fully share the same perspective or definition of that either). 

    Quote
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    What does it mean to be "formal" to you?  To have an abstract?  Is it the indentation or the fonts?
    • Don’t be a smartass; you aren’t winning me over with that approach.
    • I already answered that question in my last post: write a thesis paper.
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    Yes and y'all invited me to the discussion.
    You were invited to ask questions about our project, not to discuss your theories. Please tell me I don’t have to explain the difference…
    I'm not being a smart ass, you obviously have parameters of formality and I need them in order to write something in the form you are demanding of me.  And it seems clear you have to explain the difference, because I am simply being sincere.
    Quote
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    My understanding of the issue of dialog here is that you and your team have approached this solution from a developers perspective.  Everything I have contemplated, whether you give a shit or not, or think or it foolish or not, is from the players perspective...
    Stop saying that – it’s getting on my nerves. Have you considered AT ALL the possibility that you don’t understand what we’re posting (or doing) and this is why you keep saying we aren’t thinking about players? That maybe this big complex concept you’ve put months (or years) into developing and refining was just a small nut we cracked in a few hours? Because honestly, from where I’m sitting that’s what it sounds like.

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    you are about 80% out of line from the players wants, 20% you see eye to eye with the average intelligent player.  But when you shift it to align, the pieces seem to match perfectly.
    Great, stats! Source please! [without sources, I’m going to assume when you say “players” you mean “me”]
    Yes you cracked me in a few hours.  Yes I put out probabilities to describe what I am saying, I am a pro poker player, not highstakes I just live off the game, so I try to accurately describe things with probabilities. 
    « Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 03:40:26 pm by John Smith »
    Logged

    John Smith

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +4/-13
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 52
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #135 on: April 16, 2015, 03:41:53 pm »

    if thats true..why don't you address the points in the paper as it relates to your question rather than making assumptions time and time again. Or dedicate time to understanding the solutions in the paper if you really care.Rather than side stepping all the explanations given by patrickgamer to keep discussing points that are null and void...



    As for rudeness this is like the pot calling the kettle black. All your disruptive activities over time will prompt some kind of reaction sometime
    I am not attacking your project, you do not need to defend anything.
    Logged

    patrickgamer

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +5/-0
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 16
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #136 on: April 16, 2015, 04:05:05 pm »

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    There are games that you don't choose your own seat, but they are a niche game, as many players would not accept that lack of option. This is why I keep using the word random, its a natural slip because I don't have the same perspective as you, so different words are important in different ways to me.
    I see. Well, let’s agree to disagree on this. We don’t think picking a table (I say seat, but you are assigned to a table, not a “chair”) is all that important when looking at online play with strangers (unless you’re cheating). HOWEVER – if we’re wrong, the market will show that after launch. So far, you’re the only one we’ve heard from who has an issue with this.
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    Quote from: ”patrickgamer”
    As for players: that hasn’t been my observation at all. The overwhelming majority (not all) of poker players aren’t looking for an economy. They’re looking to play a game they enjoy (poker) in an environment where they don’t have to risk misplacing trust. There is a small percentage of players that approach online poker from a purely business standpoint, but their population is so low that they couldn’t support the $12Billion market on their own.
    This is a leak.  You cannot ignore this, it is simple economics. Poker is a game of skill, and the players field is getting more and more intelligent over time, you have to address this.

    This is what I’m talking about. What is a leak? What am I ignoring? That players get better? I’m not ignoring that, it’s just a self-correcting phenomena. The simplest example is bell-curving. The player population in any poker network is always going to follow a relatively normal distribution, and absolutely nothing I’ve read/seen/heard/felt/smelt (including your posts and your website) suggests that’s going to change in our lifetime. Stop saying random incomplete sentences. Take the time to formulate your thoughts properly, or I’m not going to put the time in to read them.

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    It matters not whether you can do it cheaper, but rather the profitability of the game you offer.

    Only if you are approaching it from an economic theory perspective (i.e. YOUR perspective). I’ve already refuted your supposition that your perspective is shared by the bulk of players. My observations, research, and evidence suggests your assumption/presumption is flawed. You haven’t convinced me otherwise. Write the thesis paper, convince me, and then I’ll consider the notion that everyone who plays poker is doing it your way.

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    I'm not being a smart ass, you obviously have parameters of formality and I need them in order to write something in the form you are demanding of me.  And it seems clear you have to explain the difference, because I am simply being sincere.
    Okay, in good faith, go read irsc.edu/students/academicsupportcenter/researchpaper/researchpaper.aspx?id=4294967430 and covingtoninnovations.com/mc/howtowrite/howtowrite.pdf

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    Yes you cracked me in a few hours.  Yes I put out probabilities to describe what I am saying, I am a pro poker player, not highstakes I just live off the game, so I try to accurately describe things with probabilities.
    You didn’t have to tell me that. It’s painfully obvious you are coming from a perspective of personal experience; but that just strengthens my point that you are a bit biased and your assumption that you represent the general poker population is off-key.
    Logged

    John Smith

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +4/-13
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 52
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #137 on: April 16, 2015, 04:35:47 pm »

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    There are games that you don't choose your own seat, but they are a niche game, as many players would not accept that lack of option. This is why I keep using the word random, its a natural slip because I don't have the same perspective as you, so different words are important in different ways to me.
    I see. Well, let’s agree to disagree on this. We don’t think picking a table (I say seat, but you are assigned to a table, not a “chair”) is all that important when looking at online play with strangers (unless you’re cheating). HOWEVER – if we’re wrong, the market will show that after launch. So far, you’re the only one we’ve heard from who has an issue with this.
    Its simply a partial solution from a poker players' perspective.  For example there are many coaching videos and strategy threads on picking your player pools and opponents, it is part of poker.  Not being able to pick such things is a certain niche of the game.

    Quote
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    Quote from: ”patrickgamer”
    As for players: that hasn’t been my observation at all. The overwhelming majority (not all) of poker players aren’t looking for an economy. They’re looking to play a game they enjoy (poker) in an environment where they don’t have to risk misplacing trust. There is a small percentage of players that approach online poker from a purely business standpoint, but their population is so low that they couldn’t support the $12Billion market on their own.
    This is a leak.  You cannot ignore this, it is simple economics. Poker is a game of skill, and the players field is getting more and more intelligent over time, you have to address this.

    This is what I’m talking about. What is a leak? What am I ignoring? That players get better? I’m not ignoring that, it’s just a self-correcting phenomena. The simplest example is bell-curving. The player population in any poker network is always going to follow a relatively normal distribution, and absolutely nothing I’ve read/seen/heard/felt/smelt (including your posts and your website) suggests that’s going to change in our lifetime. Stop saying random incomplete sentences. Take the time to formulate your thoughts properly, or I’m not going to put the time in to read them.
    The bell curve doesn't fully describe what is profitable from the players' perspective.


    Quote

    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    It matters not whether you can do it cheaper, but rather the profitability of the game you offer.

    Only if you are approaching it from an economic theory perspective (i.e. YOUR perspective). I’ve already refuted your supposition that your perspective is shared by the bulk of players. My observations, research, and evidence suggests your assumption/presumption is flawed. You haven’t convinced me otherwise. Write the thesis paper, convince me, and then I’ll consider the notion that everyone who plays poker is doing it your way.


    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    I'm not being a smart ass, you obviously have parameters of formality and I need them in order to write something in the form you are demanding of me.  And it seems clear you have to explain the difference, because I am simply being sincere.
    Okay, in good faith, go read irsc.edu/students/academicsupportcenter/researchpaper/researchpaper.aspx?id=4294967430 and covingtoninnovations.com/mc/howtowrite/howtowrite.pdf

    Yes I caught up on the links, I understand now, you wish to throw a mountain in front of me, I would climb it if I felt you would possibly deem it as acceptable/relevant. Regardless I need to understand or fully know your formulas to do such a thing.

    Quote
    Quote from: ”John Smith”
    Yes you cracked me in a few hours.  Yes I put out probabilities to describe what I am saying, I am a pro poker player, not highstakes I just live off the game, so I try to accurately describe things with probabilities.
    You didn’t have to tell me that. It’s painfully obvious you are coming from a perspective of personal experience; but that just strengthens my point that you are a bit biased and your assumption that you represent the general poker population is off-key.
    I think rather you have not at all understood my intent, purpose, or insight.

    My understanding is the players in general will avoid this economy.  I also wonder if you straightened out Vitalik's complaints when he said it looked game-able (ie I suspect me and him were seeing the same issue in different ways). I am a huge supporter of this, obviously, and I want it to succeed.  I don't care if you destroyed me in an hour. You and innovator are too defensive, I am still simply hoping to understand, I guess contributing is already out of the question.
    « Last Edit: April 16, 2015, 04:48:03 pm by John Smith »
    Logged

    patrickgamer

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +5/-0
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 16
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #138 on: April 16, 2015, 05:06:12 pm »

    Quote from: John Smith
    The bell curve doesn't fully describe what is profitability from the players' perspective is.
    No, it actually does describe profitability in poker very well. It's been analysed several times by a few independent teams.

    Quote from: John Smith
    Yes I caught up on the links, I understand now, you wish to though a mountain in front of me, I would climb it if I felt you would possibly deem it as acceptable/relevant. Regardless I need to understand or fully know your formulas to do such a thing.
    Don't chastise me for asking you to put the same amount of effort into your theories that we put into ours. If you want your ideas to be treated as equals with ours, you're going to have to earn it. Like I said, if you don't think your ideas are worth the time/effort to formalize, then they probably aren't worth my effort to learn about them.

    Quote from: John Smith
    I think rather you have not at all understood my intent, purpose, or insight.
    Yeah, I get it. You have an idea - it's really important, and it'll help us take our project to the next level by avoiding the pitfalls of other, similar projects. This isn't rocket-science, we all understand what you're saying. We just aren't convinced that these ideas of yours are as ground-breaking and you think they are.

    Quote from: John Smith
    My understanding is the players in general will avoid this economy.
    I doubt it, everyone the team speaks with doubts it too. Still, there's no point debating it. Time will tell.

    Quote from: John Smith
    I also wonder if you straightened out Vitalik's complaints when he said it looked game-able.
    Vitalik never said our system was gameable. I'll caution you to be very careful of paraphrasing other people's comments. Use direct quotes/citations or don't use the person at all. Someone who considered you more of a FUD poster would see that as purposefully misusing a popular name for your personal agenda...

    For reader's benefit, this is the direct quote:
    Quote from: White Paper
    Quote from: Vitalik
    So, this mechanism is still only as strong as the p2p poker chain itself, as if malicious actors take over >50% of the p2p poker chain then they can put multiple sets of hashes into the ethereum blockchain (unless you're not just using hashes and putting all the data in, in which case why not just use the ethereum blockchain to store the entire state?)
    Quote from: patrickgamer
    To elaborate a bit on the 50% vulnerability - our plan is to use stake as a measure of trust for each proof of work. If our sample of the network (i.e. juror pool) returns anything but 100% conformity, we resubmit for full network validation.

    So, 50% attack doesn't work in the traditional sense. You'll also note, further down the paper, that the stake isn't just a function of asset value, but of velocity as well. So an attack would require cultivation of 50% of the network by velocity, maintaining this ahead of the natural network members.

    Bonus: a full network consensus may also be used to identify members of the attacking/colluding pool.

    Vitalik's concern had nothing at all to do with the gaming aspect of the project, and was entirely focused on the integrity of the blockchain technology we're working with. I think my response sufficiently addressed his concern.

    Quote from: John Smith
    I am a huge supporter of this, obviously, and I want it to succeed.  I don't care if you destroyed me in an hour. You and innovator are too defensive, I am still simply hoping to understand, I guess contributing is already out of the question.
    No one destroyed anyone as far as I can see, and me asking you to slow down and organize your thoughts more clearly doesn't make me defensive.

    We are all glad that you are a supporter of the project. It means that even in the face of disagreement, you still see the same value prop that we are so excited about.

    That said, I will say that your inability to process critical feedback and your one-track-mind approach to learning about our project probably wouldn't make you a good fit with the team right now. Our biomass forcus right now is on collaberative thinkers, and the project (and so by extension the team)  doesn't have to chase down perriferal concepts/theories. However, things (and people) change with time. Maybe sometime down the road when the project isn't quite as focused we could rekindle the discussion.

    I would have expected, though, that you'd rather spend your time and energy refining your own theories before giving your time to another project. If/when you do, feel free to send me the thesis. My offer of reviewing it still stands.
    Logged

    John Smith

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Karma: +4/-13
    • Offline Offline
    • Posts: 52
      • View Profile
    Re: Pokereum Crowdfunding
    « Reply #139 on: April 16, 2015, 05:59:36 pm »

    Quote from: John Smith
    The bell curve doesn't fully describe what is profitability from the players' perspective is.
    No, it actually does describe profitability in poker very well. It's been analysed several times by a few independent teams.
    I'm not sure, maybe I am not well studied on the subject.  I understand there is to be a bell curve in edge and winning distribution.  But my understanding is there are factors that are involved in a players hourly $winrate. It doesn't seem to me a bell curve describes this. A crude example might be a game of 100% rake vs a game with 0%, players could have the same winning distribution but different profit rates. Another crude example would be if the game was 99% bot's that play maximally exploitative.

    Quote
    Quote from: John Smith
    Yes I caught up on the links, I understand now, you wish to though a mountain in front of me, I would climb it if I felt you would possibly deem it as acceptable/relevant. Regardless I need to understand or fully know your formulas to do such a thing.
    Don't chastise me for asking you to put the same amount of effort into your theories that we put into ours. If you want your ideas to be treated as equals with ours, you're going to have to earn it. Like I said, if you don't think your ideas are worth the time/effort to formalize, then they probably aren't worth my effort to learn about them.
    Probably is the interesting word I think.  But I simply meant your tone suggests you would not mean to read my "thesis" anyways, which is fine and makes sense.


    Quote
    Quote from: John Smith
    I also wonder if you straightened out Vitalik's complaints when he said it looked game-able.
    Vitalik never said our system was gameable. I'll caution you to be very careful of paraphrasing other people's comments. Use direct quotes/citations or don't use the person at all. Someone who considered you more of a FUD poster would see that as purposefully misusing a popular name for your personal agenda...

    For reader's benefit, this is the direct quote:
    Quote from: White Paper
    Quote from: Vitalik
    So, this mechanism is still only as strong as the p2p poker chain itself, as if malicious actors take over >50% of the p2p poker chain then they can put multiple sets of hashes into the ethereum blockchain (unless you're not just using hashes and putting all the data in, in which case why not just use the ethereum blockchain to store the entire state?)
    Quote from: patrickgamer
    To elaborate a bit on the 50% vulnerability - our plan is to use stake as a measure of trust for each proof of work. If our sample of the network (i.e. juror pool) returns anything but 100% conformity, we resubmit for full network validation.

    So, 50% attack doesn't work in the traditional sense. You'll also note, further down the paper, that the stake isn't just a function of asset value, but of velocity as well. So an attack would require cultivation of 50% of the network by velocity, maintaining this ahead of the natural network members.

    Bonus: a full network consensus may also be used to identify members of the attacking/colluding pool.

    Vitalik's concern had nothing at all to do with the gaming aspect of the project, and was entirely focused on the integrity of the blockchain technology we're working with. I think my response sufficiently addressed his concern.
    This I am interested in, and I guess my understanding is that this is a formula, to relate the stake needed to run a mass amount of colluding nodes, and whether or not it can be done with bot software (and hardware I guess too).  I am not trying to do FUD, I think that your paper did not go into the specifics of this and I mean to understand them. 

    On the one hand it seems you feel it is not feasible to create and run a software that is capable of generating enough profitable balance (while tying up enough "stake")...

    But on the other the game must be profitable enough to attract human players as well as the monies they are required to tie up must be low enough that it is worth while still.

    How can I understand this better, for example what game will I play and what will it require of me in this regard?
    Quote
    Quote from: John Smith
    I am a huge supporter of this, obviously, and I want it to succeed.  I don't care if you destroyed me in an hour. You and innovator are too defensive, I am still simply hoping to understand, I guess contributing is already out of the question.
    No one destroyed anyone as far as I can see, and me asking you to slow down and organize your thoughts more clearly doesn't make me defensive.

    We are all glad that you are a supporter of the project. It means that even in the face of disagreement, you still see the same value prop that we are so excited about.

    That said, I will say that your inability to process critical feedback and your one-track-mind approach to learning about our project probably wouldn't make you a good fit with the team right now. Our biomass forcus right now is on collaberative thinkers, and the project (and so by extension the team)  doesn't have to chase down perriferal concepts/theories. However, things (and people) change with time. Maybe sometime down the road when the project isn't quite as focused we could rekindle the discussion.

    I would have expected, though, that you'd rather spend your time and energy refining your own theories before giving your time to another project. If/when you do, feel free to send me the thesis. My offer of reviewing it still stands.
    I have no doubt p2p decentralized poker is inevitable, to me then there is only one solution as the implementation of mental poker.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10  All
     

    elective-stereophonic
    elective-stereophonic
    assembly
    assembly