A/C in Action: The AP Case

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]

So your argument is that the online gambling market will not "self-regulate" as well as other markets, because gamblers are typically not very intelligent?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say anything about intelligence. It's more just that they maybe *don't care* about sketchiness or being cheated or losing money as much as, say, NASDAQ stock traders.

Yes, I know where you think you're going: BUT THAT'S BAD FOR ALL OF US!!!

Well, I agree, but since we're merely humans we have to do without magic to solve our problems. So the question is, accepting that some people make worse decisions than others, is it good to regulate bad decisions, or will *more* bad occur if we do that?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you honestly think the consequences were significant enough to be an adequate deterrent?

[/ QUOTE ]

YES! And it's telling that you didn't answer my question.

What do you think is AP's mindset right now? Do you think they're happy with their recent decisions and plotting their next opportunity to cheat their players? Or do you think they're regretting what they did and wishing life had a rewind button?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see what AP has "gained" from this, or why this case isn't evidence of the inherent incentive AGAINST cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, if there was a 100% chance of cheaters getting caught you might have a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, if I (or any ACer) had ever claimed life was supposed to be perfect then you might be on to something.

Why does it need to be caught 100% of the time? If there's a built in incentive against cheating, even if mild, then there's never a rational reason to cheat. So over time, (as long as the bad outweighs the good,) the rational decision to not cheat will be selected for.