wow, love this idea so much.
But at present the US has made online poker illegal on a federal level through the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Will there be a problem?
wow, love this idea so much.
But at present the US has made online poker illegal on a federal level through the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Will there be a problem?
Thank you both for the clarification. If I remember correctly, the owner of FTP, Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson were charged for violations of gambling and money-laundering. Not sure what's after that. And now all major sites ban US IP to play real money (although NV and NJ start issueing online poker license).
Howard Lederer and Chris Ferguson are walking the streets of Vegas these days. That should tell you how strong the case was. Also not true that all sites are banning US IP. I still play online poker on like 5+ different sites. There are still many options for US players. Merge, Winning Poker, Bovada, Revolution and a bunch of other smaller sites. Seals with Clubs is the biggest BTC poker site.
You are correct in that major sites like PS don't offer to US players anymore, but that was part of the deal they made with the DOJ. Same with Party Poker.
End Derail/
back to coding mumbo jumbo. Stuff I don't understand.
wow, love this idea so much.
But at present the US has made online poker illegal on a federal level through the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA). Will there be a problem?
Current Pokerstars rake table. If all the rake is returned to the shareholders, it is very profitable.
Stakes % Rake 2 Player Cap 3-4 Player Cap 5+ Player Cap
$0.01/$0.02 3.50% $0.30 $0.30 $0.30
$0.02/$0.05 4.15% $0.50 $0.50 $1.00
$0.05/$0.10 to $0.08/$0.16 4.50% $0.50 $1.00 $1.50
$0.10/$0.25 4.50% $0.50 $1.00 $2.00
$0.25/$0.50 4.50% $0.50 $1.50 $2.50
$0.50/$1 to $3/$6 4.50% $0.50 $1.50 $2.80
$5/$10 to $10/$20 4.50% $0.50 $1.50 $3.00
$25/$50 4.50% $0.50 $2.00 $3.00
$50/100 4.50% $2.00 $3.00 $5.00
$100/$200 and above 4.50% $2.00 $5.00 $5.00
Rake on Seals with Clubs - the bitcoin poker site - is already much lower than traditional online poker sites I believe. A rake free system would be something special, of course that might not be shareholder friendly.Current Pokerstars rake table. If all the rake is returned to the shareholders, it is very profitable.
Stakes % Rake 2 Player Cap 3-4 Player Cap 5+ Player Cap
$0.01/$0.02 3.50% $0.30 $0.30 $0.30
$0.02/$0.05 4.15% $0.50 $0.50 $1.00
$0.05/$0.10 to $0.08/$0.16 4.50% $0.50 $1.00 $1.50
$0.10/$0.25 4.50% $0.50 $1.00 $2.00
$0.25/$0.50 4.50% $0.50 $1.50 $2.50
$0.50/$1 to $3/$6 4.50% $0.50 $1.50 $2.80
$5/$10 to $10/$20 4.50% $0.50 $1.50 $3.00
$25/$50 4.50% $0.50 $2.00 $3.00
$50/100 4.50% $2.00 $3.00 $5.00
$100/$200 and above 4.50% $2.00 $5.00 $5.00
Rake would have to be much lower than traditional poker sites.
I have some strong connections to high roller players that I would support here if you would find that helpful in some way at some point...
I have some strong connections to high roller players that I would support here if you would find that helpful in some way at some point...
Are you on 2+2?
Been thinking hard about this. The actual mechanics of the host/player roles and interactions are complex but not complicated.
The hard part is coming up with anti-collusion incentives. There's pretty much no way around having something like a pseudonymous reputation market / insurance / collateralized trust, with trusted hosts doing their own KYC
Basically one of the biggest roles of the large poker sites is anti-fraud. When it comes to multiplayer games, there's only so much you can enforce using crypto.
Knowing the hand of another player irregardless of whether there can be the same card out is an advantage, and a very big one when it comes to betting strategy and making every call/raise/fold decision.Been thinking hard about this. The actual mechanics of the host/player roles and interactions are complex but not complicated.
The hard part is coming up with anti-collusion incentives. There's pretty much no way around having something like a pseudonymous reputation market / insurance / collateralized trust, with trusted hosts doing their own KYC
Basically one of the biggest roles of the large poker sites is anti-fraud. When it comes to multiplayer games, there's only so much you can enforce using crypto.
This is why I think for a poker DAC you use the block hash as your random source. You need a modified poker game where knowing the hand of another player with whom you are colluding gives you no advantage over a 3rd party. This means that you have to simulate an infinite deck such that holding an ACE in your hand does not preclude the other players from having the same ACE.
Now the challenge is to
Couldn't we solve some of the collusion issue by making the player identities completely anonymous like Bovada Poker does?
Neither of those solutions solve the problem. The problem is two players at the same table sharing information about their hands.
Anonymizing identities doesn't matter if me and my accomplice know each other in real life and can just pick the same table.
IP addresses are totally useless for anything related to identity verification.
Neither of those solutions solve the problem. The problem is two players at the same table sharing information about their hands.
Anonymizing identities doesn't matter if me and my accomplice know each other in real life and can just pick the same table.
IP addresses are totally useless for anything related to identity verification.
The only thing I can think of is a trust ranking or public statistics on your play. Stats like how often a player sat at the same table as another player and how often they played a hand together and other stats that may be relevant to collusion only. Along with stats, you can have an approval system to sit at the table. If 80% of a persons hands were played at the same table as another player, the other players at the table can disallow that player to sit.
I don't know. Just throwing out ideas.
Neither of those solutions solve the problem. The problem is two players at the same table sharing information about their hands.
Anonymizing identities doesn't matter if me and my accomplice know each other in real life and can just pick the same table.
IP addresses are totally useless for anything related to identity verification.
The only thing I can think of is a trust ranking or public statistics on your play. Stats like how often a player sat at the same table as another player and how often they played a hand together and other stats that may be relevant to collusion only. Along with stats, you can have an approval system to sit at the table. If 80% of a persons hands were played at the same table as another player, the other players at the table can disallow that player to sit.
I don't know. Just throwing out ideas.
IP addresses might not help identify a person, but it could make it more difficult for a single player who has set-up multiple accounts to play at the same table as matching IP addresses would be a major warning sign that a player is playing multiple hands.
Neither of those solutions solve the problem. The problem is two players at the same table sharing information about their hands.
Anonymizing identities doesn't matter if me and my accomplice know each other in real life and can just pick the same table.
IP addresses are totally useless for anything related to identity verification.
The only thing I can think of is a trust ranking or public statistics on your play. Stats like how often a player sat at the same table as another player and how often they played a hand together and other stats that may be relevant to collusion only. Along with stats, you can have an approval system to sit at the table. If 80% of a persons hands were played at the same table as another player, the other players at the table can disallow that player to sit.
I don't know. Just throwing out ideas.
Neither of those solutions solve the problem. The problem is two players at the same table sharing information about their hands.
Anonymizing identities doesn't matter if me and my accomplice know each other in real life and can just pick the same table.
IP addresses are totally useless for anything related to identity verification.
The only thing I can think of is a trust ranking or public statistics on your play. Stats like how often a player sat at the same table as another player and how often they played a hand together and other stats that may be relevant to collusion only. Along with stats, you can have an approval system to sit at the table. If 80% of a persons hands were played at the same table as another player, the other players at the table can disallow that player to sit.
I don't know. Just throwing out ideas.
The thing about blockchains is that every time you play you can be a new user.
One way you could go about it is to take the baby step during the initial design of playing every game heads-up. With only two players, collusion becomes irrelevant.
GUYS OMG GUESS WHO IS JOINING INVICTUS
http://www.dc.uba.ar/inv/tesis/licenciatura/2010/lerner
GUYS OMG GUESS WHO IS JOINING INVICTUS
http://www.dc.uba.ar/inv/tesis/licenciatura/2010/lerner
GUYS OMG GUESS WHO IS JOINING INVICTUS+5% breaking good news ! Bonus
http://www.dc.uba.ar/inv/tesis/licenciatura/2010/lerner
GUYS OMG GUESS WHO IS JOINING INVICTUS
http://www.dc.uba.ar/inv/tesis/licenciatura/2010/lerner
GUYS OMG GUESS WHO IS JOINING INVICTUS
http://www.dc.uba.ar/inv/tesis/licenciatura/2010/lerner
Fantastic!!!
GUYS OMG GUESS WHO IS JOINING INVICTUS
http://www.dc.uba.ar/inv/tesis/licenciatura/2010/lerner
GUYS OMG GUESS WHO IS JOINING INVICTUS
http://www.dc.uba.ar/inv/tesis/licenciatura/2010/lerner
The fact that news like this does not move the PTS price at all tells me that the investors in this space have no clue what they are doing.
Er, I mean, this is incredibly great news.
Neither of those solutions solve the problem. The problem is two players at the same table sharing information about their hands.
Anonymizing identities doesn't matter if me and my accomplice know each other in real life and can just pick the same table.
IP addresses are totally useless for anything related to identity verification.
The only thing I can think of is a trust ranking or public statistics on your play. Stats like how often a player sat at the same table as another player and how often they played a hand together and other stats that may be relevant to collusion only. Along with stats, you can have an approval system to sit at the table. If 80% of a persons hands were played at the same table as another player, the other players at the table can disallow that player to sit.
I don't know. Just throwing out ideas.
The thing about blockchains is that every time you play you can be a new user.
How about making your seat and table random? The player can't choose where they play.
Pokerstars has 'Zoom' tables at multiple stakes.
There are usually a couple of hundred people in the zoom pool at any one time.
After each hand you are zoomed to another random table & given a new hand, this is to speed up the action but it also means you can't collude because the likelihood of you sitting at the same table as your colluders enough is very low.
Also I'm sure 80% of the poker volume is under 2/4 ($400 buy-in tables) and at those levels colluding is pretty pointless. Winners at those stakes are either bum-hunting (seeking out & getting position on weak/recreational players, no collusion needed, not worth it.) or they're mass multi-tabling playing 8-24 tables at the same time, making so many decisions so quickly it's not possible to collude. (They break even and live off rake-back*)
Rake* you showed the rake table earlier in the thread which looks lucrative for shareholders but bear in mind players can get anywhere from 20-60% of that back on most sites via rake-back. So you'd probably have to undercut that model by 75% to be attractive.
A bigger problem at lower stakes than colluding is bots, many people have automated bots that just play basic strategy on multiple tables and eek out a profit.
People talk about collusion etc, but the real problem is insuring that the DAC is not leaking information to another player. How do you guarantee that ? The goal seems to go against the nature of "Distributed" in DAC.
Pokerstars has 'Zoom' tables at multiple stakes.
There are usually a couple of hundred people in the zoom pool at any one time.
After each hand you are zoomed to another random table & given a new hand, this is to speed up the action but it also means you can't collude because the likelihood of you sitting at the same table as your colluders enough is very low.
Also I'm sure 80% of the poker volume is under 2/4 ($400 buy-in tables) and at those levels colluding is pretty pointless. Winners at those stakes are either bum-hunting (seeking out & getting position on weak/recreational players, no collusion needed, not worth it.) or they're mass multi-tabling playing 8-24 tables at the same time, making so many decisions so quickly it's not possible to collude. (They break even and live off rake-back*)
Rake* you showed the rake table earlier in the thread which looks lucrative for shareholders but bear in mind players can get anywhere from 20-60% of that back on most sites via rake-back. So you'd probably have to undercut that model by 75% to be attractive.
A bigger problem at lower stakes than colluding is bots, many people have automated bots that just play basic strategy on multiple tables and eek out a profit.
Good collection of anti-collusion suggestions.
Serio Lerner who wrote the 100% trustless Mental Poker Framework paper is providing consultation for BitShares =D
I could read the paper but I am almost certain to be let down. decentralized does not work with poker. The network has to know cards. There is no way to guarantee no collusion between host and a player.
Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
I could read the paper but I am almost certain to be let down. decentralized does not work with poker. The network has to know cards. There is no way to guarantee no collusion between host and a player.
Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
Not coinhoarder's paper, that's just anti-collusion techniques.
Sergio's MPF paper. There is trustless poker. Clever crypto.
http://www.dc.uba.ar/inv/tesis/licenciatura/2010/lerner
There is always collusion, but that is equally problematic in centralized poker solution. If Full Tilt / PokerStars could run it profitably then it is possible to decentralize.
Does the paper say how a network can know holecards and guarantee with a very high degree of certainty that only the network knows? You were the one to point out to me that a network can't know private keys. (Which led to a lot of insight as to what is possible/the necessity of "tokens")
If a network can guarantee that no one knows holecards then you have solved the same problem AFAIK. I'm sure that there is some way to fragment the data where one node won't know, but that isn't quite acceptable. The expectation lost due to collusion with the house far outweighs any collusion between players. This is likely true in most any multiplayer game of imperfect information. IMO that is why so much of the effort to make poker honest is misplaced.
The difference between centralized vs decentralized poker is that the number of actors you have to trust is finite in centralized poker. In a network, it is unknown.
There is almost nothing I know more about than the meta game in/of poker. I had an account on Planet Poker which was the first for money poker site. Not trying to pull rank or whatever, just saying this is like the one thing I've wasted far too much of my life being involved with. So I'd love to see a decentralized poker solution that solves house collusion. Catching player collusion has little value to me and is relatively straight forward. This isn't intuitive to most people though. It appears more value is placed on the solvable problem of detecting (with some certainty value) inter-player collusion or some simplistic fixation on the "fairness" of the RNG.
I could read the paper but I am almost certain to be let down. decentralized does not work with poker. The network has to know cards. There is no way to guarantee no collusion between host and a player.
Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
Not coinhoarder's paper, that's just anti-collusion techniques.
Sergio's MPF paper. There is trustless poker. Clever crypto.
http://www.dc.uba.ar/inv/tesis/licenciatura/2010/lerner
There is always collusion, but that is equally problematic in centralized poker solution. If Full Tilt / PokerStars could run it profitably then it is possible to decentralize.
Does the paper say how a network can know holecards and guarantee with a very high degree of certainty that only the network knows? You were the one to point out to me that a network can't know private keys. (Which led to a lot of insight as to what is possible/the necessity of "tokens")
If a network can guarantee that no one knows holecards then you have solved the same problem AFAIK. I'm sure that there is some way to fragment the data where one node won't know, but that isn't quite acceptable. The expectation lost due to collusion with the house far outweighs any collusion between players. This is likely true in most any multiplayer game of imperfect information. IMO that is why so much of the effort to make poker honest is misplaced.
The difference between centralized vs decentralized poker is that the number of actors you have to trust is finite in centralized poker. In a network, it is unknown.
There is almost nothing I know more about than the meta game in/of poker. I had an account on Planet Poker which was the first for money poker site. Not trying to pull rank or whatever, just saying this is like the one thing I've wasted far too much of my life being involved with. So I'd love to see a decentralized poker solution that solves house collusion. Catching player collusion has little value to me and is relatively straight forward. This isn't intuitive to most people though. It appears more value is placed on the solvable problem of detecting (with some certainty value) inter-player collusion or some simplistic fixation on the "fairness" of the RNG.
Can I get ya'lls opinion on this?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rhvqsa702k8p5vg/v0.01%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Decentralized%20Online%20Poker%20As%20I%20See%20It.docx
Can I get ya'lls opinion on this?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rhvqsa702k8p5vg/v0.01%20-%20The%20Future%20of%20Decentralized%20Online%20Poker%20As%20I%20See%20It.docx
On version 0.02 now.. I added a lot more data points to catch collusion and bots,and made some other minor changes such as adding "infractions" and initiating a three strike rule for innocent players that are mistakenly flagged.
My concerns:
1. The vote system might be able to be gamed, any suggestions to make an improvement on it?
2. What is the best way go about stopping multi accounting?
3. Eliminating duplicate data points and adding ones I haven't thought of.