Re: The Moneymaker Effect Pt II - The Yang Addendum
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who said I'm not getting paid by wsex?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
My arrangement with WSEX.com (or any other similar site) will make me NO MONEY

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So you see, I gain nothing from this

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose geniuses make mistakes like this all the time. I apologize. I knew there was a reason you made $36,000,000 per year to make sure that people playing at pokerstars don't defect to wsex.com.

Let's break it down...

Either:

1) You are one of the richest people in America by ensuring that unknown poker sites don't get extra players, or

2) You get paid nothing by unknown sites to attract more players from the big sites.

3) You get paid something by unknown sites to attract more players from the big sites.

I'd appreciate one of your "simplifications," preferably without unnecessary analogies having nothing to do with anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot

4) I'm a [censored] moron for returning to this thread and responding.

Mod, please ban me for a day for being stupid.

Re: The Moneymaker Effect Pt II - The Yang Addendum
 

You forgot to challenge my claim to have traveled through time.

Also, it's strait jacket, not straight jacket.

Lastly,

monday
tuesday
wednesday
thursday
friday
saturday
someday

I was banned without a correct reason, viz.

I was not spamming about wsex, I had to mention it in a reply to some maoraian who didn't understand something, that's not spam. Idiot moderators. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: The Moneymaker Effect Pt II - The Yang Addendum
 

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...page=&vc=1

The harmless post above is how I earned 3 asterisks at once.

They then locked up this thread, which actually is pertinent to playing poker well, viz. the concept of condensing language so as to express the necessary concepts required to make decisions well in real time at the poker table.

That makes the mods morons. You'll see in 50 years.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showth...ue#Post10696474

Remember, I'm smarter than you are. I have proof.

Therefore, you should listen to me very carefully and learn. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: The Moneymaker Effect Pt II - The Yang Addendum
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to repeat this, but I don't get any feedback on why it isn't a good set of ideas:

...

2. collective power amongst poker players can do several amazing and positive things if channeled logically. For instance, the concept of tipping in a more centralized manner (again with free choice for all) where players opt out of the usual routine (wear a button and tell your dealer) and contribute to an annual (or any periodic) award, however imperfectly constructed, to the best dealers in the world. We are talking about tips that must exceed $100M to $200M annually, so why not disburse these through fairly audited and judged merit based metrics? The joke being that an annual $100M winner-take-all (just one variant) prize would facilitate a quantum leap in dealing quality and you'd get brain surgeons vying for that prize, hence a better pool of talent for new dealers. Meanwhile, casinos would have to pick up the slack and pay decent wages etc. during the quick transition. Imagine any dealer paying attention so carefully all year to keep the lowest error rate possible and to be fair to all players, and whatever else it takes to excel, etc. The best deserve to be rewarded, (it's the American way, lol) the general manner with which most of us are ROUTINELY tipping today UTTERLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY FAILS TO ACHIEVE MUCH OF ITS PURPOSE AND POTENTIAL.

It's not the specificity of the ideas I'm pushing that matters, but the lost opportunities of MANY well-considered methods of improving the QUALITY AND VALUE OF EXPERIENCE FOR ALL POKER PLAYERS THAT IS VERY PUZZLING TO ME.

The reason it doesn't happen is only because unorganized players play for various other reasons, entertainment, compulsion, and action.

So step up, somebody. Please. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem with that idea. The first mistake a dealer makes or series thereof, is the last hand he puts that effort into. Infact, at minimum wage. He's effectively fired. He goes and finds another job.

Economists understand that people think at the margin, over both the long and short run. And the best way to get repeatable response to incentives is to make them incremental This is a horrible idea and will kill dealing as a career, and I know career dealers who love it, who are good at it, who earn $32K in a really good year, and who couldn't keep doing it for $7/hr.

Your idea will give you a dozen fantastic dealers, the current system will give us a million good dealers, and a much smaller, rotating group, of mediocre/bad dealers who wash out.