The problem with the current perspective is that winning players and therefore aspiring players shoot themselves in the foot when they try to ban software that gives players edges. One the one hand one could think software kills profitability but in another sense it's quite the opposite. Truly if effective rake was lower and everyone won more then a few software edges or even bots here or there would not be such an important topic.
Players have resorted to restricting their own freedoms in not only unrealistic ways but also ways that clearly do not fix the problems they intend to fix.
We seem largely unawares there is a sort of arms race going on with this sort of technology, and if we want a profitable game then bots and software will arise. They are part of an equilibrium, but the diagram below seems to take clear control of this equilibrium and simultaneously seems to solve bots, profitability, software grievances, and collusion. If you take a good look across poker social media and new sites you will notice something clear, poker is in a broken state as the players are becoming aware of the ultimate game and that sustainability and profitability in this current form has been off the table for quite some time.
| | Let’s assume bots are real, and can play perfect equilibrium poker. Profitable poker games might necessarily fill up with bots, that can then collude both as nodes and on the table. Then much of the real world bitcoin economics applies, as to the risk/rewards/costs of creating bots and bot rings.
IF these bots/nodes can be put in a decentralized equilibrium AND they could also create/maintain private games…then players could pay rake to this lower level bot infested ring, in order that they may organize and create their own intended poker game (or variants of  ).
This way bots have incentive to hold up the network AND to be honest as a jury pool. Players are free to create their own games and fields, provided they pay the necessary market equilibrium costs. |
|
