Topic: Pokereum Crowdfunding (Read 64188 times)

patrickgamer · « **Reply #140 on:** April 16, 2015, 07:07:00 pm »

Quote from: John Smith

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.

I already said I would review it; three separate times in just the last 24 hours. If that's not enough... well then, there's nothing I can do about that. I'm not going to argue with you about whether I intend to do something I said I would.

Quote from: John Smith

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).

We are talking about blockchain and network stake, you're talking about game stake. No amount of game stake will let a puppeteer successfully collude on the network. The probabilities are astronomically low. If you think you can beat those odds, you'd make more money playing the NY super lotto.

Quote from: John Smith

How can I understand this better, for example what game will I play and what will it require of me in this regard?

Okay, I've explained this to you a few times on a few different boards. For readers' benefit here, this will be the last time I walk you through this...

Firstly: we've already discussed the probabilities associated with two cheaters trying to land at the same table when they have the exact same matching criteria. But I also said that's almost never going to happen, so the odds of two cheaters getting to the same table in reality is even SMALLER than the probability I posted above. With that in mind,

To have a player account, you have to have money in the account (this is your stake in the Pokereum network).
When you are ready to play, you'll have to choose what kind of table stakes you want to play
Our matching system evaluates your account performance, activity, velocity, trust, etc. (don't ask me to explain these, they are explained in the whitepaper very well)
Based on how you score in all those metrics, we find a table that suites your needs (table stakes, game type, etc.) with your rankings (our matching system calculations)
Your buy in at the table is taken, and you "sit down". You can then proceed to play
If you quit a table prematurely to try getting re-matched to a table with a partner/cheater, you'll lose the stake you put up to join the first table.

That is all pretty standard and there's nothing complex about any of this. The matching system takes care of Syble problems and collusion (human and bot alike). So you pay twice the stake to get to the second table (and the odds of getting a table with your partner are still VERY VERY low). Three times the stake to get to the third table, etc.

If you try to manipulate the results of the game (so instead of cheating through collusion, you try to cheat by rewriting parts of the blockchain) your results will be rejected by your peers, (who, without your cheating partner, have no incentive and probably not the technology to assist you). Your table results then get thrown to a third-party collection of other game clients on the network that will review and validate your results. When they find the discrepancy (which is your account) guess what happens? Your account is flagged in the network, and it becomes useless to cheaters (how we handle this is an involved and detailed process I'm not getting into right now). Let's just say all the stake you have in the network is risked when you risk your account. Which you'll have to do for each account.

There are also throttling conditions to prevent accounts with low trust scores (but not yet flagged) from engaging in high-volume instances of risky activity (i.e. if you're a low TS account, you wont' be allowed to table-hop indefinitely, we'd cap you at some arbitrary number).

So... That's it Mr. Smith. I've fielded your questions (even the unrelated ones). I've walked you through the probabilities involved with collusion, and explained why I really don't care about bots. I hope I've satisfied your questions up to now, but this has been a massive time-sink, and I absolutely do have other things I need to accomplish this week.

Have a great Thursday.

John Smith · « **Reply #141 on:** April 16, 2015, 07:55:26 pm »

No you've just been, as a team especially, condescending and rude.

I understand what you point out and it doesn't address my question, and the fact that we cannot communicate from each other's perspective should be viewed as normal, not something for you and others to be mean about.Yes it costs a player a certain stake to play with respect to their game, and each player will want to know their roi in regards to this, and you continually will not address the simplicity of my inquiry into this.

I want to understand an example of how much money I must put up in order to play and be counted in this regard.

A person thinking about creating a bot will want to know the same thing. If I understand you have a created an environment where the average online player today play multiple tables, and now they will only be playing one? And you say the 2nd table requires twice the stake? Do you mean 1 stake for each table, or actually 1 stake for the first and 2 stakes for the 2nd for a total of 3?

I am asking very simple related questions and getting a wall of derision, which I do not want.

Again simply put if you create a profitable seat for a human then there is an incentive for peoples to saturate it with bots, if its not a profitable seat no poker players will play.

I am still unclear if you understand this or if clarity on the above questions addresses this, and so yes it seems it effects collusion on the network which is exactly the psychology players have for playing rake and playing on centralized models they trust with their money.

My layman's understanding is that you have not contemplated whether the game will be profitable on average (with respect to other fields) for the individual player, and so you have not been able to show that playing on your network is a reasonable proposition from the poker players standpoint. If you require a player to tie up their role, then they expect a certain roi% to do so (over a given time), it must be shown to be at least as worthwhile as today's game for example. But furthermore, somehow that I do not at all understand, you have made it not profitable or feasible for a person to use a bot account to collect this profit, yet it IS feasible for a human to play...and until I am able to resolve the difference between the two I cannot but feel that there is no economy here.

patrickgamer · « **Reply #142 on:** April 17, 2015, 03:10:12 am »

Sorry if you feel slighted by me, but your line of questioning is starting to grate on me.

Quote from: John Smith

I want to understand an example of how much money I must put up in order to play and be counted in this regard.

You bet what you want to bet, as you would at any poker game. I'm afraid I completely don't understand your line of questioning. It reads, as someone who doesn't know what you're getting at, as though you are asking how much money you HAVE to bet to play. That of course, is dependant on you. You pick the amount you're willing to put on the line, and then we match you with others.

There is no minimum or maximum related to funding your account, of course if you aren't willing to bet much, you won't win much, and if you go too high or too low, you may have trouble finding players willing to wager your amount. SO... it pretty much works like you'd expect.

Seriously JS: If my discourse with you is classified as condescending and rude, then really you won't like working with me. I'm really trying to meet you in middle ground, and even now in your last post you continue to push an agenda of economics and your theories on the subject, despite my repeated attempts to explain that this thread is not the place for that.

Put another way: it's not Pokereum's objective to create a business space for your career. It's our goal to provide a trustless (and awesome) poker network for players to play and have fun, leveraging the awesomeness of decentralization and cryptocurrencies. You want me to tell you that Pokereum is the place where you, as a professional with preexisting strategies and approaches of play, can maintain your business on our network. I don't know - I can't say, and it's really for you to determine post-launch. Factors such as player competencies, appetite for wagers, etc. are all outside of our control.

We could try to shape our player base to suit a particular end (like maximizing ROI for professional players) but we aren't going to do that. It's not the team's concern.

SO... for the final time: if your interest in Pokereum is strictly career-based, then honestly nothing in this forum can (nor should) be of interest to you. The only thing that will mater is what the player ecosystem looks like after launch. Our philosophy on trustless systems is a peripheral concern to professional players (in as much as, "okay it's safe, so I can trust my playtime here"). Our belief in operating as a DAO has no impact on your earnings. Our management of anti-collusion and anti-cheating is a reassurance in security. That's about it. Everything else in your last post was already addressed, and if you haven't caught on yet, then I can't help further. Not because I don't want to, but because I really don't know how else to explain it. If another reader on this thread wants to chime in and see if they can bridge the gap, please do. But so help me... if it's yet another alias of JS I will start ignoring posts altogether.

John Smith · « **Reply #143 on:** April 17, 2015, 04:49:09 am »

Quote from: patrickgamer on April 17, 2015, 03:10:12 am

Sorry if you feel slighted by me, but your line of questioning is starting to grate on me.

I realize you don't appreciate my delivery/grammar, but I think the "slight" is more than just my feeling. What's more is innovators comments have me in a state of disgust and dishearten-ment.

Quote

You bet what you want to bet, as you would at any poker game. I'm afraid I completely don't understand your line of questioning. It reads, as someone who doesn't know what you're getting at, as though you are asking how much money you HAVE to bet to play. That of course, is dependant on you. You pick the amount you're willing to put on the line, and then we match you with others.

There is no minimum or maximum related to funding your account, of course if you aren't willing to bet much, you won't win much, and if you go too high or too low, you may have trouble finding players willing to wager your amount. SO... it pretty much works like you'd expect.

I am asking about the stake in the network in fact it seems to function like a bankroll, and I am curious how the actual numbers might look etc. And I don't need rapid condescending answers or insults to my character or intelligence. I have calmly and consistently stated I am looking to understand.

Quote

Seriously JS: If my discourse with you is classified as condescending and rude, then really you won't like working with me.

We don't have this problem because I won't be involved with innovator.

Quote

I'm really trying to meet you in middle ground, and even now in your last post you continue to push an agenda of economics and your theories on the subject, despite my repeated attempts to explain that this thread is not the place for that.

I'm worried that my points seem irre-levant because we have not yet understood their purpose.

Quote

Put another way: it's not Pokereum's objective to create a business space for your career. It's our goal to provide a trustless (and awesome) poker network for players to play and have fun, leveraging the awesomeness of decentralization and cryptocurrencies. You want me to tell you that Pokereum is the place where you, as a professional with preexisting strategies and approaches of play, can maintain your business on our network. I don't know - I can't say, and it's really for you to determine post-launch. Factors such as player competencies, appetite for wagers, etc. are all outside of our control.

This seems to support my 'fear'.

Quote

We could try to shape our player base to suit a particular end (like maximizing ROI for professional players) but we aren't going to do that. It's not the team's concern.

This truly shows me I have insight in this regard.

Quote

SO... for the final time: if your interest in Pokereum is strictly career-based, then honestly nothing in this forum can (nor should) be of interest to you. The only thing that will mater is what the player ecosystem looks like after launch. Our philosophy on trustless systems is a peripheral concern to professional players (in as much as, "okay it's safe, so I can trust my playtime here"). Our belief in operating as a DAO has no impact on your earnings. Our management of anti-collusion and anti-cheating is a reassurance in security. That's about it. Everything else in your last post was already addressed, and if you haven't caught on yet, then I can't help further. Not because I don't want to, but because I really don't know how else to explain it. If another reader on this thread wants to chime in and see if they can bridge the gap, please do. But so help me... if it's yet another alias of JS I will start ignoring posts altogether.

I don't suppose you put your paper up so others would agree. I see a collusion problem solved by a form of seating where the players do not get to choose their table. I don't see how another site could not just implement this already. I see a site like stars with 100k+ players online at one, and then a site like seals which gathers about 200 max. You are offering a subset of poker with a barrier to enter, and I wonder if you intend it solely for cash based play (I mean can it all facilitate organized seating for an mtt?) .

You have built a poker game from a "not the pro's perspective", and there is no such thing. One of our biggest conflicts here my friend, is that you have only created a decentralized platform and not addressed the decentralization of poker (which is fine but we are not totally on the same page, again which is fine, but "decentralization" means different things to us in this regard) . You created a solution in a vacuum, but it is not implemented in one.

I have already sown support for this project and the subprojects it alludes to. Many new and interested players read about pokereum, nxtpoker, and ethereum through me everyday. I have designed a cradle for this solution that complements it completely, you are blind to it because you are mistaken on what poker is, and what poker will be.

I have not done or said what you think I have. And the only reason I have threads with titles like "this project is over" is so I can finally talk to someone. You should not expect me to multiaccount in a deceptive fashion like you outline. You are missing half the picture, and you are getting mad at me for it.

There are fears from illogical players, and fears from intelligent players. I would believe you have to cater to both. The cliffs of my thesis would be "you have to cater to the pros in order to sell this product as poker". I think I have shown this, it seems quite logical for me. But I have difficulty explaining you see, which is why rheomodes are re-levant.

innovator256 · « **Reply #144 on:** April 17, 2015, 06:48:00 am »

Quote from: patrickgamer on April 17, 2015, 03:10:12 am

Sorry if you feel slighted by me, but your line of questioning is starting to grate on me.
Quote from: John Smith
I want to understand an example of how much money I must put up in order to play and be counted in this regard.
You bet what you want to bet, as you would at any poker game. I'm afraid I completely don't understand your line of questioning. It reads, as someone who doesn't know what you're getting at, as though you are asking how much money you HAVE to bet to play. That of course, is dependant on you. You pick the amount you're willing to put on the line, and then we match you with others.

There is no minimum or maximum related to funding your account, of course if you aren't willing to bet much, you won't win much, and if you go too high or too low, you may have trouble finding players willing to wager your amount. SO... it pretty much works like you'd expect.

Seriously JS: If my discourse with you is classified as condescending and rude, then really you won't like working with me. I'm really trying to meet you in middle ground, and even now in your last post you continue to push an agenda of economics and your theories on the subject, despite my repeated attempts to explain that this thread is not the place for that.

Put another way: it's not Pokereum's objective to create a business space for your career. It's our goal to provide a trustless (and awesome) poker network for players to play and have fun, leveraging the awesomeness of decentralization and cryptocurrencies. You want me to tell you that Pokereum is the place where you, as a professional with preexisting strategies and approaches of play, can maintain your business on our network. I don't know - I can't say, and it's really for you to determine post-launch. Factors such as player competencies, appetite for wagers, etc. are all outside of our control.

We could try to shape our player base to suit a particular end (like maximizing ROI for professional players) but we aren't going to do that. It's not the team's concern.

SO... for the final time: if your interest in Pokereum is strictly career-based, then honestly nothing in this forum can (nor should) be of interest to you. The only thing that will mater is what the player ecosystem looks like after launch. Our philosophy on trustless systems is a peripheral concern to professional players (in as much as, "okay it's safe, so I can trust my playtime here"). Our belief in operating as a DAO has no impact on your earnings. Our management of anti-collusion and anti-cheating is a reassurance in security. That's about it. Everything else in your last post was already addressed, and if you haven't caught on yet, then I can't help further. Not because I don't want to, but because I really don't know how else to explain it. If another reader on this thread wants to chime in and see if they can bridge the gap, please do. But so help me... if it's yet another alias of JS I will start ignoring posts altogether.

++ I dont think there is anything else to explain more than repeating your answers and expecting different results. I think Einstein had a saying for that...

John Smith · « **Reply #145 on:** April 17, 2015, 07:01:45 am »

Quote from: innovator256 on April 17, 2015, 06:48:00 am

I think Einstein had a saying for that...

so bloody unnecessary. Let it be known: I want nothing to do with you, or anyone associated with you.

Disgusting.

Patrick, sorry for wasting your time, we shouldn't waste more, there can be no collaboration here.

innovator256 · « **Reply #146 on:** April 17, 2015, 07:38:01 am »

For the fun of it I will break silence. Why so sensitive? All hints point to the clue that all the questions you are either not in the scope of the project or answered through the whitepaper. Pgamer is doing an awesome job explaining (prob better than me) the concepts but it seems all for not. To try to do the same thing over on my part would be like running in place and you are hurt for what?

You emailed me telling me how you normally get kicked out of communities due to your unstable/esoteric nature resulting in disruption. I can post all the emails here is you'd like. Also one of your first emails is how this project will never succeed without your blog. I can also post that here for everyone to see if you like...so what gives? I don't think not understanding the project is not the problem here..to me it seems more like disruption masked as legit concern for knowledge. To the audience note the objective take and witness the next set of irrational outbursts...

John Smith · « **Reply #147 on:** April 17, 2015, 06:29:24 pm »

Quote from: innovator256 on April 17, 2015, 07:38:01 am

Why so sensitive?

Questioning peoples sanity because we don't like what they say or how they say it is despicable. It's also extremely dismiss and disrespectful.

Quote

You emailed me telling me how you normally get kicked out of communities due to your unstable/esoteric nature resulting in disruption.

To the audience note the objective take and witness the next set of irrational outbursts...

Quote from: Re: Complaints from the players' main global community on DDoss Attacks

Quote from: TopPair2Pair;46675800
Evolving area or revolving door…?
So this is why the rake is soo high? lol. damn you ddossers !!

Quote from: J.Smithy
Considering the truth of it, its not really funny though is it? It has already been extensively shown that third parties used for security and trust are themselves security leaks that end up costing the players dearly. The centralized poker model cannot help but facilitate this especially in relation to its counterpart.
It’s true to that recent re-levation of ddos attacks is not only natural evolution but also very founded in well understood economics. As technology grows (for example as other “institutions” gain attack proof security mechanisms ie bitcoin for banking/currency), there will be more and more such pressure on weaker but bountiful institutions such as poker stars and other successful sites.
In this regard sites function no less like that of a bank, and thus require no less than the security measures and mechanisms that an online banking system would need (if nothing else such security leaks provide a perfect channel for money laundering/fraud etc.).
There are in fact two possibly (and likely/efficient solutions) but unfortunately for the centralized model they are not so accessible but for the players. The first involves moving poker to a p2p type platform, and the 2nd involves paying enough of the attackers to hold up the system so that they might prefer to do so rather than attack it. Then there only needs to be a certain limited amount of “bounty” offered in relation to creating a large enough pool that would protect the game (ie 50+% decentralized in it’s own NE).
If it can be shown (and I am sure it can) that the cost of securing the game in this fashion is feasible and especially more feasible than the current rake exiting the game (especially for this purpose) is equally favorable (or more so), then there can be an equilibrium shown that will necessarily suggest a theoretical solution (which would then necessarily fit current known “working” experiments) .
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vxjxE-7QMAvo95UzhWftWJ3Ke_gAoNLTQQEudNeUQeY/edit

Quote
Pokereum: An Efficient Smart Contract Dependent Decentralized Poker Platform
Abstract. A secure peer-to-peer (p2p) version of traditional online poker would allow trustless and provably fair poker games.
In the above solution (prob the link won’t work but its a 30 page leading paper on the subject, already in coding stage and nearly finished apparently), which is the most prominent of today’s present circumstance, there is nearly exactly this solution, except these author’s have not discussed the profitability of the game with regards to effective rake or the possibility of bots or “super-software” that might exploit such a profitable game.
I think though, that with all of these things together, we do in fact have enough parameters to derive and solve an equilibrium solution, which could be not only exciting for all of the players of today and the future, but could also be used to put pressure on the current status quo standards of the game.
Lastly and most interestingly there seems to be a middle ground adjustment the centralized site models and current status quo sites could take that might extend their own sustainability and profitability, but one wonders if they will stumble upon this adjustment or whether they would care if presented it. Seems quite obvious now though, the centralized model (especially with “servers”) has a limited time, probably less than a year if they continually refuse to adopt ideal payment processing systems for the players benefit.
As Gzesh points out not being able to secure the game in this regard (ie ddsos attacks) might not be directly related to the security of the players roll’s but knowing that with a superior payment processing option available, that allows player’s zero threat to security in regards to their rolls (and at zero cost), but it certainly cannot be said by any individual knowledgeable on such security systems, that lack of proper security in one area does not cast doubt on all others in which that company is contracted to secure.

I don't know if ya'll know but poker has been largely unplayable recently across many sites. Many admit its ddos attacks, Poker Stars won't.

I just don't think I deserve this:

For pointing out there are solutions available.

John Smith · « **Reply #148 on:** April 17, 2015, 06:36:38 pm »

You see all the major forums, media sites, and much other affiliate media (or mediums) are all funded by the top poker sites, through affiliate programs. Of course this is conspiracy talk on any of these related sites, but that doesn't make it not true and/or not blatantly true. I don't mean that there is an agenda, just a systematic general "political stance" towards how poker should be. "Good" moderators often get promoted to jobs within the industry, "good" posters often become moderators.

I don't believe though, that my want to talk with the players about disrupting the centralized industry, means what you think it means. I don't think it warrants what you think it warrants.

I think rather neither of you have listened to or given a chance to anything I have said, which largely has to do with an inquiry into what the implications of your project are from a players perspective.

innovator256 · « **Reply #149 on:** April 18, 2015, 11:22:53 pm »

It really doesn't make sense though...The very premise of the effort is from the player perspective, from user experience, to security, confidence based on provable fair platform, to facilitating a gamified incentivized return customer mechanism detailed in the whitepaper. I promise to engage if you can do this:

Post your questions one at a time and I will address them, please do not go off tangent. Also address my response to your answers directly. Without this and with your style of discussion, is hard to dialog without wasted effort and I am not sure if there can be one , which is what we have been getting at... At most 5 short sentences to start. Then maybe a productive outcome can ensue...

John Smith · « **Reply #150 on:** April 19, 2015, 03:03:56 am »

Quote from: innovator256 on April 18, 2015, 11:22:53 pm

It really doesn't make sense though...The very premise of the effort is from the player perspective, from user experience, to security, confidence based on provable fair platform, to facilitating a gamified incentivized return customer mechanism detailed in the whitepaper.

No it makes sense, its just a different and difficult perspective than you are used to. You did not design pokereum from the players perspective, you built it from the pseduo/de facto players perspective that poker sites and media have been projecting on the players. I understand you don't understand me, but I have put forth a lot of material backing up my perspective. I am a full time player. I have over 100k games behind me, albeit at small/mid stakes, but understand I AM the players perspective.

Quote from: innovator256 on April 18, 2015, 11:22:53 pm

I promise to engage if you can do this:

I have already explicity stated I will not be working with you now or in the future, nor anyone associated with you. I would appreciate it if you put back up my post saying "fuck you". I would also appreciate, if we wind up on a project together in the future, if you let me know (even pseudonomously) so I can leave that group too. Perhaps I am worthless and its not a loss, but I am just being clear.

Quote from: innovator256 on April 18, 2015, 11:22:53 pm

Post your questions one at a time and I will address them, please do not go off tangent. Also address my response to your answers directly. Without this and with your style of discussion, is hard to dialog without wasted effort and I am not sure if there can be one , which is what we have been getting at... At most 5 short sentences to start. Then maybe a productive outcome can ensue...

None of my words are difficult for those who are sincere. Nothing is tangential. I have 200+ articles on the decentralization of poker and its surrounding literature, FROM THE PLAYERS PERSPECTIVE, under the blog titled "THEWEALTHOFCHIPS". It would be far more helpful, if ya'll assumed it was on topic and READ what I write to you, rather than the assumption its off topic because you THINK its off topic. As for your sentiments. I have explained very clearly, you need to THINK about the economics of the game and especially from the players perspective (I can already hear you assuming that's a tangent ffs). Bots and superhuman software DO in fact exist, and IS a relevant issue:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/internet-poker/bots-888poker-1455008/
https://www.pokersnowie.com/
http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/about

Obviously you are assuming I have come here to FUD, when the reality is I need to see if I understand your project, because if I do, and it seems I do, then with a little teak in regards to the economy and bots, you have not just a niche for "pseduo random" seating style poker, but any game type and any variant with any conditions in a perfectly outlinable and formulated equilibrium for a platform.

It is REALLY simple, but if you don't stop telling me to shut up because I am off topic then what will we do? Either Pokererum will be profitable and favorable for the pro poker player or not. I don't care if you haven't thought about it and its not in your paper, it doesn't matter. LISTEN. If its not profitable for the pro, your platform is useless. If it IS profitable, it will arise bots/supersoftware. I propose a change in your paper, that uses this to your advantage, NO DIFFERENT, than how satoshi uses malicious computing power to bitcoin's advantage with incentive.

So sure, maybe I am wrong, and dumb, and you can laugh at me, for posting a conversation I would rather be more private than in the middle of the community thread. But I am not worried about being wrong, rather more so about being right. And I do NOT think that warrants your ass to ridcule me. If i EVER get any pull with the community that ends up taking over our game, your ass will be out of it so fast. Like I said, disgusting...

By the way, you do not know what dialogue is: http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Chaos-Complexity/dialogue.pdf And patrik told me I can bring up anything I want and they will understand. I am re-levating Rheomodes then because I need them to explain my "thesis", to which neither of you could ever understand regardless with these fucking attitudes. http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

One of you asking me to write a thesis, the other gives me 5 short sentences. GET OUT OF OUR GAME!!!

edit: btw, you both have largely given me the impression, that you have an articulated opinion about me, my thoughts, and my "works"...but what has become more and more clear to me, at least what it seems...is you have not read a smidgen of it with any degree of sincerity. Now I understand we are all busy here, but in a game of such imperfect information (knowing i've read your paper probably more times than anyone but possibly the authors), who do we think has the edge?

https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/ideal-introductions/

Quote

Ideal Introductions refers to a sort of subset of Bohmian dialog or some form of preparation depending on what drives reality, our axiomatic views, and what our perspective is. It simply refers to the optimal ways to prepare for such a “meeting” of strangers or persons of X% of missing information. How can two parties communicate most effectively in order to fulfill the most gainful direction of dialog?

Can both “players” interact so receptively that neither trumps the others important content? How can we cut through our biases and preconceived notions at lightening speed? Should we rely on technology such as facebook feeds or job profiles for this?

Can we each recognize the importance of “Ideal Introductions”?

Understanding this might implicitly reduce our understanding and implementation of the minimum protocols for duck duck goose.

innovator256 · « **Reply #151 on:** April 19, 2015, 03:32:30 am »

oh my..Impossible. Good luck

patrickgamer · « **Reply #152 on:** April 19, 2015, 01:29:04 pm »

JS: you ask why we are so dismissive and impatient with you. Here's the bottom line from my perspective:

Quote from: John Smith

You did not design pokereum from the players perspective, you built it from the pseduo/de facto players perspective that poker sites and media have been projecting on the players,

You've said that now multiple times. It tells us:

That you think we are some kind of puppet that are played by media strings and have no regard for players. This is the complete opposite of everything we're trying to do. Obviously, if I haven't gotten through to you that everything with decentralization, UI, etc. are all from player perspectives then... let's just disengage b/c you aren't going to get it.
You insist that anything not in perfect alignment with your own views means it's not in alignment with player views. That's the pinnacle of conceit and self-centred thinking. That is why I don't think you'd be a good fit for the team, and that's also why your posts are so easily dismissed. You aren't the only player engaging us, and yet you're the only one with this emphasis on pseudo-economics.
It's a betrayal of your line of thought in purporting that you are the only person capable of thinking through player problems and solving them. No one reading this post has to be psychic to read between your lines and see that, for all the grief you're giving i256 you're being just as condescending.

[li]
[/li][/list]
Your last few posts makes it really clear how frustrated you are that other people are not listening and not taking you seriously. I understand that, but I've already told you how to fix it. Stop being lazy. Anyone can jump on a board and start spewing whatever they want. I'm reminded of what my first-year philosophy teacher said once:

Quote from: patrickgamer's first year philosophy teacher

Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but not all opinions are equal.
Quote
Your situation reminds me of this a lot. If you want to validate yourself and your ideas, you have to put in the work to formalize them. You said it'll be a waste of time - I say it can't possibly be more of a waste of time than getting banned by a bunch of other boards and posting randomly in other people's threads to try to get attention...

As for this thread, your theories are just the one-off opinion of some random guy with no qualifications or credentials (being a poker player isn't enough considering the type of argument you're trying to make).

As I've said before: this thread is for fielding questions about Pokereum, not validating your ideas. You can start your own thread about your ideas if you want, but I'm sure it'll be bereft of activity because, really, no one cares until you've got something to back it all up.

If what I'm saying here is condescending or rude, then so be it. If nothing else, I hope it shows the rest of the NXT community and readers here that the Pokereum team is being patient, considerate, and willing to field questions that are even peripherally related to our project. I think all my answers have been thoughtful and well-prepared.

Now....I'd really like to hear from some other people who have more direct questions about our project and get this thread back on track!

John Smith · « **Reply #153 on:** April 19, 2015, 06:30:50 pm »

Quote from: patrickgamer on April 19, 2015, 01:29:04 pm

Quote from: John Smith
You did not design pokereum from the players perspective, you built it from the pseduo/de facto players perspective that poker sites and media have been projecting on the players,
You've said that now multiple times. It tells us:
That you think we are some kind of puppet that are played by media strings and have no regard for players. This is the complete opposite of everything we're trying to do. Obviously, if I haven't gotten through to you that everything with decentralization, UI, etc. are all from player perspectives then... let's just disengage b/c you aren't going to get it.

Again if you start with the assumption I am wrong, stupid, and off topic nothing I write will make sense. I never said you are a media puppet etc, nor anything of that sort. You have designed a model based on the recreational players perspective, which is the perspective sites/etc. use to market their product to player. You have NOT designed this from a POKER PLAYERS perspective.

Poker is a game where players look for the most +ev opportunities to spend their time/monies. You have not considered this and it has bled through in your design. You have done all this from "not the players" perspective. Using the word "decentralized", and repeatedly arguing me without understanding what and why I am pointing this out will not change this obviousness.

Quote

You insist that anything not in perfect alignment with your own views means it's not in alignment with player views. That's the pinnacle of conceit and self-centred thinking. That is why I don't think you'd be a good fit for the team, and that's also why your posts are so easily dismissed. You aren't the only player engaging us, and yet you're the only one with this emphasis on pseudo-economics.

I am however the most knowledgeable player on this subject BY FAR. Pseudo-economics would be suggesting bots aren't real, and that if they are they aren't a consideration. Recs AND Pros will avoid this project like the plague for that. And again its not self-centred and conceited for me to point out such an obvious error of "perspective".
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip/ipoker-bugs-bot-collusion-accusations-again-1241501/

Quote

It's a betrayal of your line of thought in purporting that you are the only person capable of thinking through player problems and solving them. No one reading this post has to be psychic to read between your lines and see that, for all the grief you're giving i256 you're being just as condescending.
[li]
[/li][/list]

I am not making a statement about others capabilities, I am simple explaining and pointing out that which I can clearly see.

Quote

Your last few posts makes it really clear how frustrated you are that other people are not listening and not taking you seriously. I understand that, but I've already told you how to fix it. Stop being lazy. Anyone can jump on a board and start spewing whatever they want. I'm reminded of what my first-year philosophy teacher said once:
Quote from: patrickgamer's first year philosophy teacher
Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but not all opinions are equal.

You can say all you want you would read it. But your attitude clearly shows you would not with any sincerity. How quickly you turn my words into the ridiculous accusation that you are a media puppet etc. Much of my points are very well articulated and explained in many ways. Many peoples from around the world from other projects and other areas of the industry are finding them quite helpful and intelligible. Like I pointed out before, you clearly have not read a single word of mine with any sincere intent. Also, what of rheomodes?

Quote

Your situation reminds me of this a lot. If you want to validate yourself and your ideas, you have to put in the work to formalize them. You said it'll be a waste of time - I say it can't possibly be more of a waste of time than getting banned by a bunch of other boards and posting randomly in other people's threads to try to get attention...

I don't think specific fonts and indentations is going to open your mind, nor should it it be a requirement for dialogue.

Quote

As for this thread, your theories are just the one-off opinion of some random guy with no qualifications or credentials (being a poker player isn't enough considering the type of argument you're trying to make).

Yes I don't have credentials and qualifications so my opinion is worthless and random. I have already come to understand this attitude of you and your team.

Quote

As I've said before: this thread is for fielding questions about Pokereum, not validating your ideas. You can start your own thread about your ideas if you want, but I'm sure it'll be bereft of activity because, really, no one cares until you've got something to back it all up.

If what I'm saying here is condescending or rude, then so be it. If nothing else, I hope it shows the rest of the NXT community and readers here that the Pokereum team is being patient, considerate, and willing to field questions that are even peripherally related to our project. I think all my answers have been thoughtful and well-prepared.

Now....I'd really like to hear from some other people who have more direct questions about our project and get this thread back on track!

You won't find anyone more relevant than I.

Quote from: patrickgamer

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.

Another bot http://www.liquidpoker.net/news/1126793/Doug__quot;WCGRider_quot;_Polk_going_against_No_Limit_Bot_for_$100,000_

pokerlover · « **Reply #154 on:** May 30, 2015, 07:39:27 am »

What's the status, how far are you from a working solution.?

Somewhere in the keiser-report, episode 762, the guest (Nick Williamson, CEO of Pythia) said that they had a working prototype of decentralized poker. Is he talking about your project? (I wasn't allowed to post the link)

rajc · « **Reply #155 on:** May 30, 2015, 08:03:46 am »

will the crowd-funding happen according to old plan?

JohnHolmes · « **Reply #156 on:** May 31, 2015, 03:17:00 am »

Quote from: pokerlover on May 30, 2015, 07:39:27 am

What's the status, how far are you from a working solution.?

Somewhere in the keiser-report, episode 762, the guest (Nick Williamson, CEO of Pythia) said that they had a working prototype of decentralized poker. Is he talking about your project? (I wasn't allowed to post the link)

Nick Williamson is from http://getcredits.io/

innovator256 · « **Reply #157 on:** June 25, 2015, 02:12:27 am »

Quote from: pokerlover on May 30, 2015, 07:39:27 am

What's the status, how far are you from a working solution.?

Somewhere in the keiser-report, episode 762, the guest (Nick Williamson, CEO of Pythia) said that they had a working prototype of decentralized poker. Is he talking about your project? (I wasn't allowed to post the link)

Close roadmap set, client consensus and smart contract backend in the works. See whitepaper :

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vxjxE-7QMAvo95UzhWftWJ3Ke_gAoNLTQQEudNeUQeY/edit?pli=1

I don't think he was, he is not involved in the project at the moment.

innovator256 · « **Reply #158 on:** June 25, 2015, 02:20:12 am »

Quote from: winbotter on June 20, 2015, 02:07:03 pm

Quick question, this is the closest thread to my question that I can find, sorry. I'm looking for anyone that has any information on whether importing hands from a site like hhsmithy.com into PT4 or HM2 will be detectable by the poker site, like Stars or PartyPoker. I have not found any cases of this being detected yet, which is surprising given how much of an advantage you get. Any information would be helpful, thanks guys!

The software is not a site, its p2p software there fore the players are pseudonymous at best...also one of the multi heuristic strategies in the software limit the potential of collusion is pseudonymous player shuffling, so its pretty mush impossible to tell who is who even your friend you were sitting next to in the previous hand, except at private table. So hand history software :: null

innovator256 · « **Reply #159 on:** June 25, 2015, 02:23:39 am »

Quote from: rajc on May 30, 2015, 08:03:46 am

will the crowd-funding happen according to old plan?

Its pretty much set in stone with the exceptions of modifications made by stark...and also for the mechanism will be totally automated and member initiated (smart contract), with early donors being able to provide commitment hash to redeem tokens ahead of later donors. More info will be provided soon.

News:

Author Topic: Pokereum Crowdfunding (Read 64188 times)