0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: bitmeat on October 02, 2014, 04:06:03 pmYou 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.
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.
Quote from: delulo on October 01, 2014, 10:29:45 amQuote from: jsidhu on September 30, 2014, 05:46:56 pmQuote from: delulo on September 30, 2014, 03:58:43 pmQuote from: jsidhu on September 29, 2014, 09:34:19 pmQuote from: Akado on September 29, 2014, 08:06:06 pmwell 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
Quote from: jsidhu on September 30, 2014, 05:46:56 pmQuote from: delulo on September 30, 2014, 03:58:43 pmQuote from: jsidhu on September 29, 2014, 09:34:19 pmQuote from: Akado on September 29, 2014, 08:06:06 pmwell 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?
Quote from: delulo on September 30, 2014, 03:58:43 pmQuote from: jsidhu on September 29, 2014, 09:34:19 pmQuote from: Akado on September 29, 2014, 08:06:06 pmwell 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.
Quote from: jsidhu on September 29, 2014, 09:34:19 pmQuote from: Akado on September 29, 2014, 08:06:06 pmwell 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?
Quote from: Akado on September 29, 2014, 08:06:06 pmwell 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.
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.
The solution is trivial: Only allow 1-on-1 matches.
Quote from: Bitshark on September 27, 2014, 11:14:09 pmQuote from: emski on September 27, 2014, 08:53:39 pmQuote from: bytemaster on September 27, 2014, 08:52:44 pmIf 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.
Quote from: emski on September 27, 2014, 08:53:39 pmQuote from: bytemaster on September 27, 2014, 08:52:44 pmIf 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.
Quote from: bytemaster on September 27, 2014, 08:52:44 pmIf 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.
If you are playing strangers (or delegates) then even if you can trust the shuffle and dealing you cannot prevent other players from colluding.
You cannot prevent cheating in multi-player poker on a DAC.
... 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)
Quote from: Bitshark on September 27, 2014, 05:22:12 amNo 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 ..
No more tax on winnings.