HonestHoldem Terms and Conditions

[augie_]

[ QUOTE ]
augie,

ok fair enough.
you'd not deposit and play at this site.

but are the terms and condtions honest?
if you say no then please explain the
parts that you think are dishonest.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Ray,

WTF is the point of all this? Are you saying poker sites encourage collusion and do nothing to stop it?

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
augie,

ok fair enough.
you'd not deposit and play at this site.

but are the terms and condtions honest?
if you say no then please explain the
parts that you think are dishonest.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Ray,

WTF is the point of all this? Are you saying poker sites encourage collusion and do nothing to stop it?

[/ QUOTE ]

no augie.

i'm saying that it's physically impossible
to police what any of your opponents are
doing in the privacy of their homes.

so let's just say that outloud and accept it.
and let's stop pretending that sites have any
control over this. it's not their fault that
they cant police things they cant see so lets
just let them off the hook and relieve them
of the policing burden.

and let's stop pretending that all players
voluntarily obey all the conditions of the
site t&c.

let's dont pretend to police something that
cant be policed and let's tell everyone what
can and cannot be policed; let's just be honest.

ray

[augie_]

Ray,

You are right. There is nothing sites can do to make sure players aren't communicating their hands via AIM or whatever. But, what can be detected are distinct patterns in play that denote something fishy is going on.

[BiPolar_Nut]

I wouldn't play there simply because they explicitly allow sitting at multiple seats. Imagine sitting at 9 of 10 seats in PLO...you'd know 36 cards preflop, have a far better idea of true odds on hitting your outs as the hand progressed, etc. Surely there would be linked bots there filling all but one seat at a table just waiting for me to sit down.

Sure, this could happen at any site, but it is practically encouraged in those TOC's. I'd think the odds are greater you'd be up against serious collusion/botnets at sites where such behavior is explicitly allowed.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Ray,

You are right. There is nothing sites can do to make sure players aren't communicating their hands via AIM or whatever. But, what can be detected are distinct patterns in play that denote something fishy is going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

augie,

thank you for being honest.
now having said that out loud
(and btw i respect you for doing so)
let's demand that the site not get
involved in this aspect of the online
game.

let's demand that the muck be published
to the participants and let's transfer
the policing burden away from the site
and toward the players.

that's honest holdem
in an online context.

as it stands right now,
your site could be allowing
you to play two hands and
i'd never know it. however,
if the muck is published then
i at least have a chance to
do analysis and or play more
than one hand if i want to.

it's honest and the field
is level and the site is
truly nuetral.

i am a huge fan of forcing
the site to be neutral in
all aspects of the game.

i get very nervous over any
mechanic that has the potential
to move them away from a neutral
position.

ray

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't play there simply because they explicitly allow sitting at multiple seats. Imagine sitting at 9 of 10 seats in PLO...you'd know 36 cards preflop, have a far better idea of true odds on hitting your outs as the hand progressed, etc. Surely there would be linked bots there filling all but one seat at a table just waiting for me to sit down.

Sure, this could happen at any site, but it is practically encouraged in those TOC's. I'd think the odds are greater you'd be up against serious collusion/botnets at sites where such behavior is explicitly allowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

bip,

what if i could prove to you that if you did
what you suggest that you're guaranteed to
lose money?

and btw my context is strictly holdem right now.
i'm sure your comment refers to omaha. ive not
done a lot of analysis for omaha so i may not
be as qualified as you to address that scenario.

ray

[MicroBob]

why are you writing only 5 or 6 words per line?

Are you trying to make a poem?

[BiPolar_Nut]

Ray:

For the sake of discussion/mental exercise, I'll bite. Lay out your proof (even in holdem) that I'd be guaranteed to lose money if I was sitting at 9 seats, all sitting out, until someone sat down. Obv, I'd be eating 9x the blinds. I wouldn't be too surprised if that's too much to overcome in a limit game (I don't play limit). Not so sure in NL...haven't spent much thought on it. You very well may be right that it'd be -EV. I'd like to see your proof regardless.

I still think it'd be advantageous in PLO...possibly in pineapple and 7 stud, as well as royal holdem simply because you'd know a substantial percentage of the cards in play.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
Ray:

For the sake of discussion/mental exercise, I'll bite. Lay out your proof (even in holdem) that I'd be guaranteed to lose money if I was sitting at 9 seats, all sitting out, until someone sat down. Obv, I'd be eating 9x the blinds. I wouldn't be too surprised if that's too much to overcome in a limit game (I don't play limit). Not so sure in NL...haven't spent much thought on it. You very well may be right that it'd be -EV. I'd like to see your proof regardless.

I still think it'd be advantageous in PLO...possibly in pineapple and 7 stud, as well as royal holdem simply because you'd know a substantial percentage of the cards in play.

[/ QUOTE ]

i can discuss holdem for you.

first i need to know how long you're
willing to play your 9 chairs, with
the 10th chair vacant, while suffering
a rake?

or i need to know if your strat. will
be to just have all 9 chairs sit out
until your lonesome fishie sits whereupon
all 9 chairs suddenly come to life.

ray

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
why are you writing only 5 or 6 words per line?

Are you trying to make a poem?

[/ QUOTE ]

not really sure.
probably the journalist in me.

ray