Ideal Poker: the Players Revolution - Page 9

You ALMOST understand sir but you are not quite their yet. It is ME that is making fun of the "status quo" which is a "team" you seem to belong to. "Naj-coin" is not your idea to ridicule (although I welcome you too), but rather it is my "hoax" (or what I call coupon) in order that I might taunt the industry giant. It is a mere straw with the capability of breaking the camel.

Have you studied the history of gambling at all, enough to understand and know what happens to those associated with different "organizations" in the gambling industry, at the time of economic hardships and "decline"? What happens to these team pros when players start to realize how much of their collective monies is being used to perpetuate the "myth" of the "poker pro". How long will these "pros" be able to sell the dream that their "raked monies" is better taken out of the game to create an unprofitable one in the name of player "fun poker" that recreationals can enjoy?

You are not the first from this "status quo" that has tried to make fun of me and belittle my rationale. A year ago I was called crazy by an industry professional for suggesting that the centralized poker site model is a thing of the past and so sites like *'s are dinosaurs in a quickly changing industry. Since then Isai sold an insanely profitable business, to a company that has done nothing but dissolve the image. Under-investigation and no US entry in sight. Yet everyday a new poker site emerges, either fiat, bitcoin, altcoin, or a hybrid.

All dramatically cheaper, easier, faster and open to the world....

GL Stars pros...

Naj Coin, Baj coin, Laj coin....we can make millions of them, doesn't matter to me ;p

The “Achilles’ heel” of the Centralized Poker Industry

After careful examination of the logic and maths esoterically outlined in the lecture “Ideal Money” it has become obvious the poker community has a solution to the monopolistic state the current poker economy faces today.

The thesis of “Ideal Money” is that if the peoples of this world could have a universal currency with a stable printing supply, and users could freely use this currency to trade in and out of their own respective national currencies, then they could put pressure on their central banking authorities to print and maintain a currency of stable and good quality. This concept is referred to as “Asymptotically” ideal money, and it is a phenomenon we are experiencing today because of “bitcoin”.

In relation to poker, the players have a corresponding solution, since poker sites effectively operate on the same type of Keynesian/central banking model:

Players simply need to collectively demand that their rakeback points be paid out as a digital currency (or assets), so that it may be freely traded on a digital asset exchange.

The concept is simple, once rakeback points can be traded on a free market exchange then the players can PROPERLY valuate the effective rake on a given site. This too will lead to pressure for sites to print “chips” of stable or high value in relation to the effective rake.

It’s going to seem like a strange solution, however it is a perfectly effective one and also one that would be incredibly easy for sites to implement REQUIRING NO EXTRA SOFTWARE. It matters not which sites participate but only rather that the players begin to collectively understand the solution, since the pressure created will inevitably lead to its adoption.

If sites take the line of adjustment where they simply end rakeback points altogether this should be seen as favorable for the players, because if the sites don’t show evidence of an overall reduction in “effectively raked” profits while simultaneously ending the rakeback program, it can then be seen as ,and proved to be, simply stealing from the players.

It is this lack of evidence the players have always suffered from that they now have a tangible option as a solution to rally behind.

Enacting this simple change will set in place the foundation and infrastructure for decentralized poker through:
Creating Assets as Single Unique Identifiers
Establishing a Poker Forum Coin

Ultimately leading to Ideal Poker

yes i know what asymptotic means

believe it or not i know what every single word you type means. it's when you string them together that it stops making sense

On December 19 2014 13:01 diggerflopboat wrote: Bitcoin takes time to stabilize however it is 5 years old and almost "very stable". In terms of the Ruble bitcoin is ultra stable. So what happens when the world realizes we can bring about a money of ultra stable quality by collectively cooperating against our governments? Its true that eventually the people have to "choose" this strategy, however what "asymptotic" means is that there is a force that is drawing us nearer and nearer to this inevitable "event" and it is called "the invisible hand".

what are the rigorous mathematical criteria for almost "very stable"? https://blockchain.info/charts/market-price

in all the books i've read about mathematical analysis there was never any mention of an invisible hand. it sounds more like something from Adria's spellbook

PS has annual revenue on the order of what half a billion dollars? i would say given that, 10 times that, $5 billion, is a fair lower bound for the money wagered on their site annually. which is on the same order as bitcoin's market cap. when you say bitcoin is almost table it's a wish because you want it to be stable. suppose the entire poker economy switches overnight do you think maybe people wagering billions of dollars would affect the stability of your crypto-edsel?

people who play poker as an income don't need bitcoins they need fiat currency to pay rent and buy food wtf?

"very stable" comes from a comparison to the average currency. Or for example notice the russian rupple. Also notice countries have begun to repatriate their gold, or in other words gold is moving. If your currency starts to suffer, trade it for bitcoin, but in the near future your currency won't suffer because your government will know you will just trade it for bitcoin if they fuck around. So stability is for example vs the rupple, and on average considering USD and rupple etc bitcoin has become more and more stable over time and will soon be the most favorable "commodity" for "such" (because i have inside knowledge vs the world even bitcoiners).

"Invisible Hand" comes from Adam Smith it is a well known economic term. It is not understood though and N. Szabo has formulated Smith's work which is so monumental I claim it has redefined quantum physics. basically the tl;dr is that software expansion can be described with irl economics. and so bitcoin becomes describable.

Szabo also wrote "shelling out" which shows through the "kula ring" solution that money CAN in fact come about as a useful practical artifact. where as before in our understanding we felt that it must first arise as a commodity. So this paper with the kula ring solution was needed to explain to economic academics that bitcoin can in fact happen (but we know it can because irl it is an observable phenomenon).

If you are following you see that the invisible hand and the redefinition of economics has paved the way for quantum physics. and we will need the probabilistic understandings for that.

As for your question about stability, what happens when the entire poker community starts jumping to bitcoin? Will you argue me that a rising poker dollar will be unfavorable because of stability?

No, you don't believe in a device of cooperative gain...

yet...

the kula ring is that 4 of 5 island trade because they have something to offer and the 5th island particaptes only to complete the ring of trade. The value of "helping" is enough for them to participate. and then two direction of economy develop counter and clockwise.

"The invisible hand" is a term used in economy about how offer and demand set the market price of a product fyi

digger I wanted to continue posting about the mistakes in your beliefs about this subject

but after you said Adam Smith redefined quantum physics I think it might be more prudent to just let that sink in

Baalim nailed it. And we are missing an efficient pricing mechanism that has a significant cost to the individual player. Because the entire field is not able to easily and properly value their exchange of money for chips, we ALL suffer. It turns out we can use this fundamental understanding to extrapolate a design for the implementation of a proper pricing mechanism.

We didn't suggest Adam Smith redefined quantum physics although it wouldn't be a huge stretch to suggest:

In his last years, he seemed to have been planning two major treatises, one on the theory and history of law and one on the sciences and arts. The posthumously published Essays on Philosophical Subjects, a history of astronomy down to Smith's own era, plus some thoughts on ancient physics and metaphysics, probably contain parts of what would have been the latter treatise

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/...nnounced-100-rakeback-tokens-1499660/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=45672541&postcount=2

Its a money grab. 200 rake free accounts would kill most poker sites. Much less any bitcoin poker site. The fact it could never work means they are just trying to get suckers to pay $600 for 100% rakeback.

You see this person recognizes the "solution" I present, and see it in an existing business plan about to launch...

But this person doesn't know I have been getting kicked off 2p2 for explaining that John Nash's lecture "ideal money" was used a year ago to predict that a "players coin" on counterparty (NOT a "site coin" is going to bring an end to raked poker...

You physically cannot end raked poker

There are technical reasons and market forces that have nothing to do with what currency you gamble in that create costs. There are barriers to entry for a startup. It costs money to operate servers and have employees and security. It costs money to generate random numbers. these costs have to be financed and where can that money ultimately come from besides money that would have been gambled? You can't make game integrity out of a hat while ending rake just because you get everybody to agree to start playing with monopoly money what the fuck

besides which your conclusions do not follow from the source material. if you knew anything about Nash or game theory i feel it would be obvious that you are never going to get tens or hundreds millions of people in a game, that most of them have no chance in and isn't zero sum, to cooperate to save cents on the dollar... when most of them are pissing money away anyway?

you think bitcoin is ALMOST VERY STABLE or whatever other nonsense words you chose in terms of the ruble

well that's dandy news. oh but i wonder how the ruble is doing https://www.google.com/finance?q=rubusd

1) I did end raked poker and it wasn't "phsyical"

2) I dealt with the market forces for example there are no servers rather it is peer to peer. All other considerations have been considered.

3) it is "asymptotically" ideal which means we hit zero rake only at infinite. Some calculus, and you can figure it out from there.

4) Yes my conclusions are not my own, but were ripped from new nash theory and lectures, as well as new szabo papers and material who is the anonymous identity everyone thinks created bitcoin.

5) monopoly money. yes we redifined what game integrity means in our paper "moral poker" which is a function of "integrity"

6) bitcoin is gaining stability over time just like John Nash said a theoretical currency of its kind would do (he said this 20 years ago) http://www.nasdaq.com/article/why-bit...-own-for-long-term-investors-cm418813

7) yes russia has a few banks rumored to fail, and if that happens expect the news to begin to discuss bitcoin as a safe haven...

Why do people focus on currency, that is the lesser of the problems, a poker site has a lot of operational costs and man hours, PokerStars have thousands of employees and do you think their work is simply non-esential, that is ridiculous.

Just for starters who would stop cheaters? because that idea sounds to me like a cheater haven, you need a team to watches 24/7 the integrity of the game or you will get angle shooters, multiaccounters and colluders everywhere, who will be technical support, do you have any idea how many emails PokerStars support reply every day? who will be the software developers, you need multiple people working on this piec eof software 24/7 are they going to work for free?

You cant have sucessful rake-free online poker for the same reason you cant have rake-free live poker, it has operational costs

^^ I disagree with Baal, you can employ people for that by paying them buttcoins or something similar

Of all my crazy conjectures, I think the most obviously true is John Nash is the creator of "buttcoin". As for baalim, I have extensively (well not so much) explained how the cost of things such as paying sites to police cheating is exponentially greater than the players doing it themselves.

Philosophically we have become dumb because as a mass we rely on a 3rd party to analyze our game.

Or in other words instead of paying baal to be a pro with rake , we take that money and keep it in the game and the effects are exponentially gainful for baalim.

qed

baalim all those costs you describe are security costs and in the near future it is part of the individual players strategy to take care of them

It's thread like these that make quality posters stop posting here..

On December 30 2014 06:35 AndrewSong wrote: It's thread like these that make quality posters stop posting here..

Ive seen nothing but shit posts from you with comments that only seek to derail and discredit the OP.

Im just looking for an intelligent poker players, are you seriously going to keep sticking your business where it doesn't belong and is not wanted? Do you not have better things to do with your life? Are you capable of participating in discussion, and offering actual content?

On December 29 2014 19:14 diggerflopboat wrote: 1) I did end raked poker and it wasn't "phsyical"

when i said physically impossible i mean i believe your ideas are not consistent with the laws of nature

On December 29 2014 19:14 diggerflopboat wrote:2) I dealt with the market forces for example there are no servers rather it is peer to peer.

okay great I love peer to peer software show us your open source code solution that demonstrates technical feasibility

On December 29 2014 19:14 diggerflopboat wrote:All other considerations have been considered.

this is pure hand waving LOL

On December 29 2014 19:14 diggerflopboat wrote:3) it is "asymptotically" ideal which means we hit zero rake only at infinite. Some calculus, and you can figure it out from there.

okay I love calculus please link me to your rigorous mathematical model so i can independently run tests verifying your theory is realistic

On December 29 2014 19:14 diggerflopboat wrote:5) monopoly money. yes we redifined what game integrity means in our paper "moral poker" which is a function of "integrity"

wat?

On December 29 2014 19:14 diggerflopboat wrote:6) bitcoin is gaining stability over time just like John Nash said a theoretical currency of its kind would do (he said this 20 years ago) http://www.nasdaq.com/article/why-bit...-own-for-long-term-investors-cm418813

Gold gains stability over time. stability is not a sufficient condition of being a universal currency.

On December 30 2014 11:54 diggerflopboat wrote: Show nested quote + On December 30 2014 06:35 AndrewSong wrote: It's thread like these that make quality posters stop posting here.. Ive seen nothing but shit posts from you with comments that only seek to derail and discredit the OP. Im just looking for an intelligent poker players, are you seriously going to keep sticking your business where it doesn't belong and is not wanted? Do you not have better things to do with your life? Are you capable of participating in discussion, and offering actual content?

do you like chiraz? merlot? burgundy? because i am seeing a lot of whine. discrediting you actually is content and arguably more valuable than what you post. if you made a post saying the planet is a banana and neil degrasse tyson came in and said posts like these are ruining astrophysics would you say he was shitposting because that is basically what's happening here

On December 30 2014 01:11 diggerflopboat wrote: I have extensively (well not so much) explained how the cost of things such as paying sites to police cheating is exponentially greater than the players doing it themselves.

no kidding

On December 30 2014 13:13 Santafairy wrote: when i said physically impossible i mean i believe your ideas are not consistent with the laws of nature

Understood, I am pointing out your understanding of the laws of nature are rooted in religious belief.

On December 29 2014 19:14 diggerflopboat wrote:2) I dealt with the market forces for example there are no servers rather it is peer to peer.

okay great I love peer to peer software show us your open source code solution that demonstrates technical feasibility[/QUOTE]It's not my code but i could link to multiple projects that are peer to peer and have software solutions to all the problems you think exist. We call it "decentralized" poker or poker not owned by a 3rd party other than the players.

this is pure hand waving LOL

there is no way for me not to hand wave vs your attitude, I cannot convince you if you will not read the explanation. But if you bring up a specific issue, I will link it to a specific paper/solution I have written for it.

okay I love calculus please link me to your rigorous mathematical model so i can independently run tests verifying your theory is realistic

You allude to the math that created the bitcoin protocol that counterparty runs on. To test my theory you simply need to find your own sector that suffers from pokerz inherent issue and implement the currency.

On December 29 2014 19:14 diggerflopboat wrote:5) monopoly money. yes we redefined what game integrity means in our paper "moral poker" which is a function of "integrity" wat?

We showed that "integrity" in terms of poker means the profitability and sustainability of the game which includes security concerns and collusion. https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/moral-poker/

Gold gains stability over time. stability is not a sufficient condition of being a universal currency.

bitcoins monetary supply was modeled after gold as well as an overall basket of significant commodities. The graph you post is nearly identical to the beginning of golds growth. Gold has not increased in stability since the existence of bitcoin and will soon become negatively correlated with bitcoin. Already countries are repatriating their gold from the US. Golds power, value, and stability are changing. I don't know how you are about reading graphs but the below shows bitcoin is gaining stability:

do you like chiraz? merlot? burgundy? because i am seeing a lot of whine. discrediting you actually is content and arguably more valuable than what you post. if you made a post saying the planet is a banana and neil degrasse tyson came in and said posts like these are ruining astrophysics would you say he was shitposting because that is basically what's happening here

asking questions, attempting to clarifying, attempting to understand, attempting to make a counterpoint is useful. Showing up to not read the discussion or material and to roll ones eyes because one is too ignorant to use ones brain cells is not useful.

On December 30 2014 01:11 diggerflopboat wrote: I have extensively (well not so much) explained how the cost of things such as paying sites to police cheating is exponentially greater than the players doing it themselves.

no kidding[/QUOTE]You'll find nearly all of my argument is based on what is obviously true. Its how I know I am correct.

Who gives a fuck about cryptocurrency its the least of the problems with this idea.


You just said the players police the integrity of the game and not a employees... well how in the actual fuck would that work? dont reply with generics crap please