Potential solution to disconnect abuse

[bogey]

It seems as though UB is reluctant to take disconnect protection away from its games. I was trying to think of other possible solutions and thought of this. Apologies if this has been discussed before, is already implemented somewhere and/or is a dumb idea.

What if when someone disconnects, instead of being able to win to whatever part of the pot they are in for, they only are only are able to win back the bets they have placed so far. So basically this cuts the EV of disconnecting in half on any given hand. Hardly a perfect solution or revolutionay I know, but I think it strikes a good compromise and makes disconnecting less tempting to cheaters. Any reason why sites would not implement this?

[captZEEbo]

I think if there's a pattern of DP abuse, for anyone that complains, they should forfeit the entire pot over to the other person including the bet that they SHOULD'VE called had they not cheated.

EG.
pot 1k, opponent bluffs 1k on river, DP CHUMP times out and DP's. Opponent wins 1k pot, his 1k bet back, and the 1k bet the DP CHUMP should've called, even though he was bluffing. Just some sort of extra penalty to dissuade DP assholes from abuse.

[Lyric]

Serious question -- why does anyone play high stakes poker with DP?

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
Serious question -- why does anyone play high stakes poker with DP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Becuase the games are still +EV despite the occasional DP abuse and there aren't equally juicy non-DP tables at the same stakes.

[Tregan]

Zeebo -

How can those in charge decide whether or not the person "should have" called? Patterns and correlations don't necessarily indicate future events. Someone might choose to fold KQ on a KhQs9d board for whatever reason...

[captZEEbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Zeebo -

How can those in charge decide whether or not the person "should have" called? Patterns and correlations don't necessarily indicate future events. Someone might choose to fold KQ on a KhQs9d board for whatever reason...

[/ QUOTE ]well getting DP-d 4 times with overpairs and TPTK in a big pot is different than DP-ing once with 8 hi in a small pot.

It's the same concept as the ZEEjustin and JJprodigy scandal. After party finds out they are guilty, they confiscated their money. Once party finds out someone DP'd illegally (more than once...the pattern thing), their money should be confiscated (at least some of it, and more than just that one pot IMO).

[SuperJez]

having No DP protect is the only solution, and not playing on DP protected NL/PL tables is the only way to ensure a fair game in this regard

[N 82 50 24]

[ QUOTE ]
having No DP is the only solution

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of these other ideas, while interesting, would never work and/or happen in practice.

You can't make people call bets -- like someone said, you'd be screwed against someone like Mahatma if you actually did it for a technical reason.

People would still DP even if their share of the pot was cut in half, although I do agree it would cut down on people sitting down with this intention as the potential edge gained from DP would be much lower. I just can't see a site implementing it though.

[Boredom]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if there's a pattern of DP abuse, for anyone that complains, they should forfeit the entire pot over to the other person including the bet that they SHOULD'VE called had they not cheated.

EG.
pot 1k, opponent bluffs 1k on river, DP CHUMP times out and DP's. Opponent wins 1k pot, his 1k bet back, and the 1k bet the DP CHUMP should've called, even though he was bluffing. Just some sort of extra penalty to dissuade DP assholes from abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

God this policy would really suck if you happened to DP against Mahatma. You get a notice from UB, "Due to disconnecting at table Holden in the middle of a 3k pot, the 18k overbet by Mahatma which you should have called has been deducted from your account"

[luckychewy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if there's a pattern of DP abuse, for anyone that complains, they should forfeit the entire pot over to the other person including the bet that they SHOULD'VE called had they not cheated.

EG.
pot 1k, opponent bluffs 1k on river, DP CHUMP times out and DP's. Opponent wins 1k pot, his 1k bet back, and the 1k bet the DP CHUMP should've called, even though he was bluffing. Just some sort of extra penalty to dissuade DP assholes from abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure you're joking but for the times people actually lose connection that won't be cool. Either way I don't see why they just don't offer like 2 DP's a week, or even a month, or none at all.