Whens the Poker DAC coming out?

[santaclause102]

For anyone interested in a Poker DAC https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14372.0

[hpenvy]

You make it so sitting at a table has initial transaction cost that could be used to go towards blinds.

e.g. you pre-pay 10 blinds. So if you stick around for 10 rounds, you are good.

It would discourage massive table changes, but for those who really want to hit & run, it's their choice.

Cool similar to the deposit delegates pay.. provide incentive to be honest. That could work.. how about games where blinds are very low but potential for rewards is higher? Thus at some point you may have a point where the 10 blinds aren't enough to sway people from trying to do "hit & run"s.. whatever it is, has to be dynamic enough to not overcharge people to not use the system but has to be enough to detract those those want to manipulate... im sure this is all possible now that I think more about it... and would be interesting to see someone implement it.. I for one would participate as I love to play the game.

In addition, if hand histories were visible, have a way for tables to remove players either with voting at a small cost which can get back to investors or a reputation system. In other words, if someone starts a new table, they can set certain conditions:

- Player must have x reputation
- Player account must be active for y amount of days

Without a centralized security team, there's certainly some challenges with this type of approach to Poker.

[jsidhu]

You make it so sitting at a table has initial transaction cost that could be used to go towards blinds.

e.g. you pre-pay 10 blinds. So if you stick around for 10 rounds, you are good.

It would discourage massive table changes, but for those who really want to hit & run, it's their choice.

Cool similar to the deposit delegates pay.. provide incentive to be honest. That could work.. how about games where blinds are very low but potential for rewards is higher? Thus at some point you may have a point where the 10 blinds aren't enough to sway people from trying to do "hit & run"s.. whatever it is, has to be dynamic enough to not overcharge people to not use the system but has to be enough to detract those those want to manipulate... im sure this is all possible now that I think more about it... and would be interesting to see someone implement it.. I for one would participate as I love to play the game.

[bitmeat]

You make it so sitting at a table has initial transaction cost that could be used to go towards blinds.

e.g. you pre-pay 10 blinds. So if you stick around for 10 rounds, you are good.

It would discourage massive table changes, but for those who really want to hit & run, it's their choice.

[jsidhu]

well if the players are selected randomly, chances are they would log off or cancel it somehow and try to get together again in the next match. so the only solutions i see is that they could only re-enter after a period of time and this time could be a random number, different for each player, or they pay a fee or after doing that X times, they loose part of the stake they used to sign in (assuming there is a minimum) or for each time they cancelled a match, on the next one, part of their earnings (if they have any, is burnt)

obviously this doesn't prevent it but it can minimize it.

Lol again, no open tables will kill competitiveness and people simply will not use it over whats available. Alot of people simply like to play with friends. I would rather a full proper solution be figured out rather than hack it up to offer a random game only.

why would open tables be a consequence of what you quoted?

I don't understand what you are saying.

That was a bit confusing...
Why should "no open tables" be a consequence of what Akado said?

I guess the bolded is what concerns him. However I never said that it would offer random games only. If what you want to do is play with friends is simple, you set up some kind of private match where you can invite them. That way you have both options. Even if, for example, you pair up with a friend, invite some of your contacts and cheat, that would only happen in private matches, meaning they only play them if they want to and already knowing they are vulnerable to that

Ok that makes sense... so public tables can be matched randomely but private tables can be open to anything. However like BM said.. because a user can simply keep trying before getting a "favourable" matchup on a table it does open up vulnerabilities in terms of statistically favouring those who game the system. Unless you build some smarts that would catch these people.. maybe adding on a timer that they have to wait a certain amount of time it might decrease the likelihood of manipulation to make the system usable over time... and it might be a fair tradeoff.. just like how the bitcoin security model is open to manipulation but it tries to make it "unlikely" mathematically.

[Akado]

well if the players are selected randomly, chances are they would log off or cancel it somehow and try to get together again in the next match. so the only solutions i see is that they could only re-enter after a period of time and this time could be a random number, different for each player, or they pay a fee or after doing that X times, they loose part of the stake they used to sign in (assuming there is a minimum) or for each time they cancelled a match, on the next one, part of their earnings (if they have any, is burnt)

obviously this doesn't prevent it but it can minimize it.

Lol again, no open tables will kill competitiveness and people simply will not use it over whats available. Alot of people simply like to play with friends. I would rather a full proper solution be figured out rather than hack it up to offer a random game only.

why would open tables be a consequence of what you quoted?

I don't understand what you are saying.

That was a bit confusing...
Why should "no open tables" be a consequence of what Akado said?

I guess the bolded is what concerns him. However I never said that it would offer random games only. If what you want to do is play with friends is simple, you set up some kind of private match where you can invite them. That way you have both options. Even if, for example, you pair up with a friend, invite some of your contacts and cheat, that would only happen in private matches, meaning they only play them if they want to and already knowing they are vulnerable to that

[santaclause102]

well if the players are selected randomly, chances are they would log off or cancel it somehow and try to get together again in the next match. so the only solutions i see is that they could only re-enter after a period of time and this time could be a random number, different for each player, or they pay a fee or after doing that X times, they loose part of the stake they used to sign in (assuming there is a minimum) or for each time they cancelled a match, on the next one, part of their earnings (if they have any, is burnt)

obviously this doesn't prevent it but it can minimize it.

Lol again, no open tables will kill competitiveness and people simply will not use it over whats available. Alot of people simply like to play with friends. I would rather a full proper solution be figured out rather than hack it up to offer a random game only.

why would open tables be a consequence of what you quoted?

I don't understand what you are saying.

That was a bit confusing...
Why should "no open tables" be a consequence of what Akado said?

[jsidhu]

well if the players are selected randomly, chances are they would log off or cancel it somehow and try to get together again in the next match. so the only solutions i see is that they could only re-enter after a period of time and this time could be a random number, different for each player, or they pay a fee or after doing that X times, they loose part of the stake they used to sign in (assuming there is a minimum) or for each time they cancelled a match, on the next one, part of their earnings (if they have any, is burnt)

obviously this doesn't prevent it but it can minimize it.

Lol again, no open tables will kill competitiveness and people simply will not use it over whats available. Alot of people simply like to play with friends. I would rather a full proper solution be figured out rather than hack it up to offer a random game only.

why would open tables be a consequence of what you quoted?

I don't understand what you are saying.

[santaclause102]

well if the players are selected randomly, chances are they would log off or cancel it somehow and try to get together again in the next match. so the only solutions i see is that they could only re-enter after a period of time and this time could be a random number, different for each player, or they pay a fee or after doing that X times, they loose part of the stake they used to sign in (assuming there is a minimum) or for each time they cancelled a match, on the next one, part of their earnings (if they have any, is burnt)

obviously this doesn't prevent it but it can minimize it.

Lol again, no open tables will kill competitiveness and people simply will not use it over whats available. Alot of people simply like to play with friends. I would rather a full proper solution be figured out rather than hack it up to offer a random game only.

why would open tables be a consequence of what you quoted?

[Gentso1]

Heads up matches ONLY matches would be dumb because poker players want action and large pots. Offering heads up action would be nice as a option but  The pairing of players should be random, if you can pick random numbers for bitshares play their must be a easy way to randomize player seating. If the service was launched the player pool would start small but once it grew to a larger size colluding should not be to big of a issue. If you wanted to make it harder get rid of screen names and assign players a new random number that only they can see. While at the table just give label players by seat number. This may or may not go over well because it then makes it impossible to take notes on players because you can't identify them. Take a look at the site seals with clubs. They are a bitcoin only site. As others have stated poker players want fair games, lots of players(big pots), and a easy way to cash out no matter what country they are in. BitUSD would be perfect other then it's depth is very limited. If someone wanted to cash out 10kbitUSD  or even 5k they would crash the markethttps://bter.com/trade/bitusd_usd. Once btsx is firing on all cylinders and it is exposed to more people that should bring my users. More users hopefully mean more money which in turn will bring the depth the market needs. Around that time with any luck we get a payment gateway btsx to fiat, bitUSd to fiat and boom, pop, pow we made it.

cliff notes......whats the point until you can cash out, bitUSD to fiat without using another step?

[jsidhu]

well if the players are selected randomly, chances are they would log off or cancel it somehow and try to get together again in the next match. so the only solutions i see is that they could only re-enter after a period of time and this time could be a random number, different for each player, or they pay a fee or after doing that X times, they loose part of the stake they used to sign in (assuming there is a minimum) or for each time they cancelled a match, on the next one, part of their earnings (if they have any, is burnt)

obviously this doesn't prevent it but it can minimize it.

Lol again, no open tables will kill competitiveness and people simply will not use it over whats available. Alot of people simply like to play with friends. I would rather a full proper solution be figured out rather than hack it up to offer a random game only.

[bitmeat]

Once a scriptable crypto is up and running this and many others will be possible. I suspect that Ethereum will do fine, however there is no clear timeframe for when that will be out.

On the other hand if Hackfisher makes the game DAC scriptable as I proposed in the past, BitShares could beat Ethereum and gain first mover advantage.

[speedy]

So has anyone stepped up yet to be the lead developer for a Poker DAC ?

[Akado]

well if the players are selected randomly, chances are they would log off or cancel it somehow and try to get together again in the next match. so the only solutions i see is that they could only re-enter after a period of time and this time could be a random number, different for each player, or they pay a fee or after doing that X times, they loose part of the stake they used to sign in (assuming there is a minimum) or for each time they cancelled a match, on the next one, part of their earnings (if they have any, is burnt)

obviously this doesn't prevent it but it can minimize it.

[jsidhu]

The solution is trivial:  Only allow 1-on-1 matches.

Already spoke about this and no this is not the answer. No open tables means noone will join.

[emski]

The solution is trivial:  Only allow 1-on-1 matches.

How will this resolve the issue with trust ?

[theoretical]

The solution is trivial:  Only allow 1-on-1 matches.

[emski]

This problem is not solved anywhere.
Big poker sites just don't let you withdraw your money if they suspect you of cheating in any way(assuming you win of course).
This is extremely difficult to be implemented(read impossible) in the blockchain in decentralized manner.

You may have blackjack, roulette , bingo, or any game that can be solved with single random seed AFTER all bets are placed.
Decentralized poker without trust... I'll be very happy if I see something like that.

[jsidhu]

If both actors colluding acted rationally and as expected then it pushes odds in your favour thus its not a good idea unless you can capture collusion and penalize actors accordingly.

[Bitshark]

If you are playing strangers (or delegates) then even if you can trust the shuffle and dealing you cannot prevent other players from colluding.

This is true for any poker site in the wild.

Yes this is true no matter what. Collusion doesn't necessitate winning in poker.

It changes the odds in favor of the colluding parties.

In theory, yes and no. It can work both ways. You cant play AA against the buddy you're colluding with(you're not profiting off him). As a result you're not capitalizing off premium hands in certain spots where you would be normally. Your win rate drops, and you're still getting raked. Colluding with another can sometimes be a detriment to how one would normally profitably play. Your buddy tells you what he folds, this affects how you normally would play which could or could not be a detriment to a winning poker strategy. In my opinion you would both be better off playing how you would normally and just trying to steer clear of each other. Ive tried colluding with a friend before and its not as cut and dry as putting odds in your favor. In my opinion the risk to reward is simply not there and it just f***s everything up.

[jsidhu]

I guess no open tables would be allowed now the business would be less appealing than major competitors off the bat

[Method-X]

In regards to cheating at online poker... Don't players get paired up randomly according to skill?

[jsidhu]

dont poker sites have algos to detect collusion? They run when you try to withdraw.

How would that work here?

[thisisausername]

If you are playing strangers (or delegates) then even if you can trust the shuffle and dealing you cannot prevent other players from colluding.

This is true for any poker site in the wild.

Yes this is true no matter what. Collusion doesn't necessitate winning in poker.

It changes the odds in favor of the colluding parties.

Which is, itself, a signal that can be detected (potentially not with massive false-positive/negative rates -- I haven't looked into it.)

Not that it's terribly relevant since, "This is true for any poker site in the wild."

There was some discussion of this back in this old thread.

[bytemaster]

If you are playing strangers (or delegates) then even if you can trust the shuffle and dealing you cannot prevent other players from colluding.

This is true for any poker site in the wild.

Yes this is true no matter what. Collusion doesn't necessitate winning in poker.

It changes the odds in favor of the colluding parties. 

[Bitshark]

If you are playing strangers (or delegates) then even if you can trust the shuffle and dealing you cannot prevent other players from colluding.

This is true for any poker site in the wild.

Yes this is true no matter what. Collusion doesn't necessitate winning in poker.

[emski]

If you are playing strangers (or delegates) then even if you can trust the shuffle and dealing you cannot prevent other players from colluding.

This is true for any poker site in the wild.

[bytemaster]

If you are playing strangers (or delegates) then even if you can trust the shuffle and dealing you cannot prevent other players from colluding. 

[emski]

You cannot prevent cheating in multi-player poker on a DAC.

Unless you completely trust someone eg delegates.

[bytemaster]

You cannot prevent cheating in multi-player poker on a DAC.

[jaran]

Ya some of the bitcoin poker sites are nice as far as being able to get your money in and out fast especially for players in the USA.  I know a number of people that prefer the bitcoin sites over the offshore shady sites because if you win big at the offshore sites it takes forever to get your money out if you even can.  Most recently Lock Poker is possibly stealing player deposits and winnings as it slowly goes under [1].  Using any of the offshore USD sites from within the USA is a big risk. 

Having a site with games in a stable asset such as bitUSD that we could transfer in and out in 10 seconds would be killer.

The current big bitcoin sites could be reached out to as well to see if they would support bitusd deposits in there games.

1.  http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/internet-poker/lock-poker-payout-scam-cashout-report-via-player-data-year-long-waits-updated-frequently-1359432/

[liondani]

100% agreed

ALL-IN with the nuts!

[jsidhu]

... still ... just because govermnent cannot check your balances does not mean that you can evade taxation ..

this might become a legal issue however currently is not .. (at least not in my country and not that i know of)

then that troll who is scared of taxes becomes valid. We should clarify.

[xeroc]

... still ... just because govermnent cannot check your balances does not mean that you can evade taxation ..

this might become a legal issue however currently is not .. (at least not in my country and not that i know of)

[jsidhu]

No more tax on winnings.

Not so sure here .. winnings are in a token system .. but once you "cash out" your might need to pay tax ..

unless u hold bit assets

[xeroc]

No more tax on winnings.

Not so sure here .. winnings are in a token system .. but once you "cash out" your might need to pay tax ..

[thisisausername]

Sergio Lerner's still on the team, too, right?

[Bitshark]

A poker DAC utilizing bitUSD .. Could be the killer app boosting bitusd into the mainstream.  :o

No more governmental restrictions.
No more tax on winnings.
No more deposit/withdrawal limits
No more high rake.

hello?!?!?!

I have played poker professionally online for over 8 years and tell you this is a guaranteed winner!