Re: Online Poker--Must Read---Russ G

Russ, I worry that you having the time and inclination to write as
carefully as this post, compared to your first bunch here, means your health
is deteriating so that you can't spend as much time playing.

Bill makes essentially two points. First, he doesn?t think the risk/
reward ratio is there to make it worth a big site?s while to try to
rig their deck, and second he thinks actually rigging the deck is a
lot harder than I made it sound.

Why Rig A Deal?
Bill said:

So, if we?re talking about a top ten room then I would say that the
motivation for rigging the game favors not rigging it. As I articulate
in a previous post there are so many other ways for a poker room to
increase its profits from you that are entirely legitimate.

Like you said:

I do sort of dismiss this argument, and I do so for two reasons.
First, Bill poses a false either/or here. He suggests the cardroom
could increase profits either in legitimate ways or by rigging the
deck, and he prefers the legitimate ways. But obviously cardrooms
could try both at the same time. There?s no reason for me to think
that a cardroom would order these options in a ?try all legitimate
options then try rigging? manner.

?if we?re to assume that all actors act in a
logical manner??

which I always think is a poor assumption.

Amen.

I?m reiterate the scenario I
posed in the comments of the previous post. A major cardroom does an
analysis of its traffic and concludes that even though it appears
healthy to the casual observer, it?s actually in danger of losing a
critical mass of customers within two or three years time. I could
easily see a manager panicking and making an ?illogical? decision
under these circumstances.

Yep. Which I quote because of one idea I express below.

One of the other factors such an argument fails to properly consider
is that over 90% of poker players are break-even or losing poker
players. So what exactly is a fish? How are you going to rig the game
in favor of the fish when there are so many fish and so few sharks?
How would you determine which players to rig the action for and which
one?s to shaft?

You can define a fish easily and well if it has played much on your site,
even without analyzing play:

Players who do not make up the rake while playing.

Which def I suggest for the mo' because of the legendary game-losses B&M
casinos have suffered by breaking the local clientele via the rake.

Just 'charge' the rake to the 'sharks' (players who beat the rake) and
perhaps retain the rank and file.




In my previous post, I mentioned that cardrooms could alter the game
to improve their profitability. It?s been suggested by others that by
rigging hands to favor ?the fish? one could do so. That?s certainly a
reasonable place to start, but I?m not arguing that helping out the
fish means more money for a cardroom. That argument comes from other
people, not from me.

And from me in the sense I outlined just above.


In any event, I think Bill is chasing his tail a bit here when he
talks about how it?s hard to identify the ?fish? from the ?sharks?. I
don?t think that it?s necessary to solve that problem at all. The
theoretically dishonest cardroom cares about altering the game to make
more profit, not necessarily helping one set of players against
another.

Having said that, I do concede that if a cardroom were to explore
these options, they might start by considering ways to blunt slightly
the advantage a skilled player has. Here are possible alterations to
the deal that might accomplish this goal without being too
complicated:

The cardroom could skew all-in confrontations to slightly boost the
chances that the underdog hand wins.

Not the best way to handle/rig all-ins.

Consider allin or big-bet bluffs: make the fish' bluff more likely to win
and the shark's less likely. Can't be detected unless you know one is a
minnow and t'other a mako.

Other allins:

fish-fish: go in favor of the one doing worse right now (or over time).
Keeps them in the game longer, or more often as they replenish their
bankrolls.

shark-shark: go in favor of the one losing 'this' game (even sharks need a
mama), provides big pot rakes somewhat more often.

shark-fish: go in favor of the fish if losing this session, else the shark
if losing much.)

IE,

A.favor the fish according to a set of rules involving non-card parameters,
even parameters outside the immediate game. This makes detection much less
likely, if not impossible.

B. Unsaid directly is that the probability alterations aren't just helping
dogs, they would help favorites too. This makes detection much less likely,
if not impossible.

C. a basic principle here is to help maintain the clients over long periods
while keeping the fish AND the sharks at the table longer.

eleaticus
ee-lee-AT-i-cus


.

Loading