HonestHoldem Terms and Conditions

[jrbick]

His point is amazingly clear.


I've been sitting here trying to make a reasonable correlation. I think this might work:

Traffic. Speed. There are laws governing the rate of speed we are SUPPOSED to travel at per designated areas (this falls apart in that some states of "flow of traffic" exception clauses when conditions permit, but the point still works... bear with me).

However, those laws are enforced sporadically. Sometimes you get pulled over, sometimes you don't. Chaos ensues - rates of speed increase well beyond what is lawful, there is confusion as to what is acceptable beyond what is posted, enforcement is sporadic - chaos.

So, the options:

1. The Citizen -

a.) can either contribute to the chaos, taking the lack of enforcement and the actions of fellow citizens as a justified reason to drive however fast they want.

b.) choose to do what is lawful; an agent of what "should be."

2. The Law Enforcers -

a.) can choose to enforce what is lawful as thoroughly by way of their current means of enforcement. This is extremely costly and unrealistic, though. (but is it really, for poker sites?)

b.) can become innovative in enforcing what is lawful. Maybe, say, sensors built into all automobiles, placed on all roads that in essence govern the speed of your vehicle regardless of what you decide to do (obv things fall apart here).



Anyway, Ray's point is that sites are helpless when it comes to thorough (and accurate) enforcement of T/C's. He also suggests that the sites are somewhat apathetic to enforcing them since, rather, they benefit from not doing so. It's been shown in the other thread how this is not true, though (unless the sites have no intention of remaining for the long-term).


So, Ray, rather than contribute to the problem by doing what you do and encouraging it; choosing to chase what is chaseable in the short-term - why not just be straight up and pressure the sites to become innovative in their means of enforcement? There HAS to be some way. You guys are much more intelligent w/ regards to this area, however.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
His point is amazingly clear.


I've been sitting here trying to make a reasonable correlation. I think this might work:

Traffic. Speed. There are laws governing the rate of speed we are SUPPOSED to travel at per designated areas (this falls apart in that some states of "flow of traffic" exception clauses when conditions permit, but the point still works... bear with me).

However, those laws are enforced sporadically. Sometimes you get pulled over, sometimes you don't. Chaos ensues - rates of speed increase well beyond what is lawful, there is confusion as to what is acceptable beyond what is posted, enforcement is sporadic - chaos.

So, the options:

1. The Citizen -

a.) can either contribute to the chaos, taking the lack of enforcement and the actions of fellow citizens as a justified reason to drive however fast they want.

b.) choose to do what is lawful; an agent of what "should be."

2. The Law Enforcers -

a.) can choose to enforce what is lawful as thoroughly by way of their current means of enforcement. This is extremely costly and unrealistic, though. (but is it really, for poker sites?)

b.) can become innovative in enforcing what is lawful. Maybe, say, sensors built into all automobiles, placed on all roads that in essence govern the speed of your vehicle regardless of what you decide to do (obv things fall apart here).



Anyway, Ray's point is that sites are helpless when it comes to thorough (and accurate) enforcement of T/C's. He also suggests that the sites are somewhat apathetic to enforcing them since, rather, they benefit from not doing so. It's been shown in the other thread how this is not true, though (unless the sites have no intention of remaining for the long-term).


So, Ray, rather than contribute to the problem by doing what you do and encouraging it; choosing to chase what is chaseable in the short-term - why not just be straight up and pressure the sites to become innovative in their means of enforcement? There HAS to be some way. You guys are much more intelligent w/ regards to this area, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

jr,

ask me to answer the following questions:

ray do you believe that the standard live game that
involves these key features:
1) random shuffles
2) unknown muck
3) no tracking
4) no botting
5) no teaming
6) no dealer/player collusion
can be secured over the internet?

then ask me if i want to help you try and secure that
game over the internet.

then ask me what i believe will be the first type of
internet holdem to be certified in the state of nevada
such that any land casino can open their own holdem
server from a building operated by the gaming control
board.

ray

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
jr,

ask me to answer the following questions:

ray do you believe that the standard live game that
involves these key features:
1) random shuffles
2) unknown muck
3) no tracking
4) no botting
5) no teaming
6) no dealer/player collusion
can be secured over the internet?

then ask me if i want to help you try and secure that
game over the internet.

then ask me what i believe will be the first type of
internet holdem to be certified in the state of nevada
such that any land casino can open their own holdem
server from a building operated by the gaming control
board.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Ray,



Do you believe that the standard live game that
involves these key features:
1) random shuffles
2) unknown muck (this is not standard, you can ask to see a players cards before they hit the muck... that is standard)
3) no tracking (do you think that personal tracking is fine and none other, for practical reasons?)
4) no botting
5) no teaming
6) no dealer/player collusion
can be secured over the internet?

Do you want to help try to secure that
game over the internet.

What do you believe will be the first type of
internet holdem to be certified in the state of nevada
such that any land casino can open their own holdem
server from a building operated by the gaming control
board?


Thanks,

jrbick


P.S. If you are trying to say that problems of internet poker are the same problems dealt with in live games, you're right. However, measures are taken by the house to resolve these problems as best as they can.

I'm not necessarily expecting you to play an active role in the solution, but I am hoping that you'd decide to disassociate yourself from the problem and just drive the speed limit with the rest of us.

[Sniper]

My crystal ball says Ray answers No to questions #1 and #2... this much should be clear from his other posts... so, I am at least intrigued as to why he asked you to ask the questions [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
jr,

ask me to answer the following questions:

ray do you believe that the standard live game that
involves these key features:
1) random shuffles
2) unknown muck
3) no tracking
4) no botting
5) no teaming
6) no dealer/player collusion
can be secured over the internet?

then ask me if i want to help you try and secure that
game over the internet.

then ask me what i believe will be the first type of
internet holdem to be certified in the state of nevada
such that any land casino can open their own holdem
server from a building operated by the gaming control
board.

ray

[/ QUOTE ]

Ray,



Do you believe that the standard live game that
involves these key features:
1) random shuffles
2) unknown muck (this is not standard, you can ask to see a players cards before they hit the muck... that is standard)
3) no tracking (do you think that personal tracking is fine and none other, for practical reasons?)
4) no botting
5) no teaming
6) no dealer/player collusion
can be secured over the internet?

Do you want to help try to secure that
game over the internet.

What do you believe will be the first type of
internet holdem to be certified in the state of nevada
such that any land casino can open their own holdem
server from a building operated by the gaming control
board?


Thanks,

jrbick


P.S. If you are trying to say that problems of internet poker are the same problems dealt with in live games, you're right. However, measures are taken by the house to resolve these problems as best as they can.

I'm not necessarily expecting you to play an active role in the solution, but I am hoping that you'd decide to disassociate yourself from the problem and just drive the speed limit with the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

the anser to your 6 part question is a resounding no.
you can find each part answered separately below

1) yes. this is possible with player determined shuffling
such that the game server has zero control over the
next deck selected. this procedure is such that any gaming
authority and/or player could prove that the server had
nothing to do with the next deck selected. player determined
shuffling means that the players select the next deck and
not the game server.

2) no. my apologies for overloading this word. my usage of
the word extends to all dealt card info; including revealed
hands at the showdown and "mucked" hands and folded hands
before the showdown. in a live game nobody has access to
100% of this information unless all hands went to the
showdown and were revealed (which is rare). the online
game server has perfect knowledge of the first 25 cards
dealt. it's not possible to prove that information was
not destroyed. in the live game there is no need for
this proof because no entity never knew 100% of that info
any way. so you cannot deliver the mechanic of an unknown
deck (i.e. muck) in the online game.

3) no (this is related to issue #2 above). in the live game
the only tracking possible is via player gray matter. but
in the online game there is a perfect digitial record of
all information. tracking is then certainly possible on
the server side and there's no way to prove that none of
the valuable stats did not make their way to interested
parties. on the client side there is no way to prevent
the collection and analysis of those hand histories. the
potential here goes far beyond what player gray matter is
capable of.

the camera table has changed the live game in that
the "deal/muck" is now published during tv events.
but the publishing of that info occurs at the conclusion
of the event and not during.

4) no. this was refuted 2004-FEB-01.

5) no. this is easier than tracking or botting.

6) no. if the channel between the server and each player
is 100% secure then it's not possible for anybody to know
if the server is colluding with a client.

the answer to your next question about whether or not i
want to help you secure the impossible is no. i'll gladly
accept an $100/hour to explain these findings to anybody
who needs to understand it for as long as you're willing
to pay the consulting fee.

the answer to your question about the most likely form
of the game to receive cert. in nevada is:

the honest holdem t&c with no encryption
(including the house players addendum)

which would allow the gaming control board to prove that
the site operator (i.e. land casino) was not colluding with
one of the players.

the entire burden of the gaming control board would be
limited to managing the sniffers positioned on the wan
side of the game servers. the server protocol would be
a matter of public record and any deviation in even a
single bit within a byte would be entirely detectable.

ray

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
My crystal ball says Ray answers No to questions #1 and #2... this much should be clear from his other posts... so, I am at least intrigued as to why he asked you to ask the questions [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah same here... figured I'd go along w/ it for now [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
the answer to your question about the most likely form
of the game to receive cert. in nevada is:

"Honest" Holdem

[/ QUOTE ]

Ray do you agree that internet game
servers have been given certifica-
tion.

by other gaming commissions?

e.g. Pokerstars (as are other sites)
is certificated by the Kahnawake ga-
ming commisson.

Why is certification by the ngc so im-
portant to you?

Do you think that it is likely that the
ngc will one day change their certif-
ication requirements such that it will
permit an internet game server with
all it's "unsolvable" flaws to get
certification?

After all once the US authorities see
the light and regulate online gaming
won't the ngc's bias in this regard
end up costing the state of nevada
cold hard cash - and lots of it?

Do you think that the ngc will change?
or die?

If someone somewhere is bright enough
to solve your big security problems.
Would you still peddle bots on an
internet gaming server that was secure
and certificated by the ngcs present
form and who's T&C prohibited their
use?

Would you still claim to be doing
nothing wrong?

[2461Badugi]

[ QUOTE ]

assuming the population was sufficient
would you play at an online site that had
these terms and conditions


[/ QUOTE ]

I might. It's clear that such a site would require a greatly different skillset in order not to be a sucker than the current configuration of online poker. You might disbelieve that, but the fact that a lot of people here including me make a lot of money from playing online poker straight up works against you.

I'm not convinced that the necessary skills for Honest Holdem are a skillset that I'm interested in acquiring, any more than I would want to learn to play bridge. I know people who probably would be. Many of them are the same people who intentionally play bot-backgammon, so you should definitely familiarize yourself with that community.

I think this is a reasonable ruleset for a difficult-to-cheat holdem game; the fact that it doesn't resemble person-to-person poker isn't necessarily a strike against that as long as you continue to make this clear.

I don't think your statements about the site not being able to trump up reasons to take players' money hold water, though. You'll still be required (by whatever jurisdiction you set this up in, and by your payment processor) to police against identity theft, money-laundering, and other fraudulent deposits. If you hope to get traffic, you'll probably have to deal with chargebacks, bad affiliates, and bonus abusers.

Running a poker site is perhaps not as simple as you imagine.

[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the answer to your question about the most likely form
of the game to receive cert. in nevada is:

"Honest" Holdem

[/ QUOTE ]

Ray do you agree that internet game
servers have been given certifica-
tion.

by other gaming commissions?

e.g. Pokerstars (as are other sites)
is certificated by the Kahnawake ga-
ming commisson.

Why is certification by the ngc so im-
portant to you?

Do you think that it is likely that the
ngc will one day change their certif-
ication requirements such that it will
permit an internet game server with
all it's "unsolvable" flaws to get
certification?

After all once the US authorities see
the light and regulate online gaming
won't the ngc's bias in this regard
end up costing the state of nevada
cold hard cash - and lots of it?

Do you think that the ngc will change?
or die?

If someone somewhere is bright enough
to solve your big security problems.
Would you still peddle bots on an
internet gaming server that was secure
and certificated by the ngcs present
form and who's T&C prohibited their
use?

Would you still claim to be doing
nothing wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

matrix,

i agree that there are internet gaming
jurisdictions out there including but
not limited to the kgc. i am not trying
to challenge their right to exist. i am
speaking directly to their ability to
police the games they cert. given the
wording of a typical t&c for any given
internet site.

i am least worried about policing players
i am most worried about policing operators

the ngc is by their own admission "old school"
which means that they demand that all games be
fully policeable such that they (the police)
can properly do their job.

if a las vegas strip resort wants to open a
holdem site then they absolutely must demonstrate
to the ngc that the site they want to operate is
entirely policeable in all aspects otherwise the
ngc will refuse to cert. it because they would
be entirely ineffective the moment somebody filed
a complaint where there was no way to obtain any
proof one way or the other.

i've talked with the ngc several times and based
on what i know, there is no way they would ever
yield on their current stance; one of the main
reasons is that land based operaters already live
within these high standards and so there's no good
reason not to demand that an internet site, in the
state of nevada, live within those same standards.
imagine what the land based operators would do or
say if the rules were bent to favor an internet
operator but not them.

the popularity of a game has no bearing on whether
or not it can or should get a cert. the ngc does
not care about the popularity of your game
Pink-Dice-Up-The-A-S-S
it doesn't matter that a million people in the gaming
jurisdiction of Ubongeewang love to play PDUTA.
the ngc would only care about the official working
definitions for: Pink, Dice, Up and A-S-S
and whether or not they can prove that the game
operator is cheating the mechanics of the game.
so all you gotta do is show the ngc how to resolve
complaints in a scientific manner and you can get
a cert. for PDUTA. the popularity of your game is
not their concern.

given that nevada is the largest most successful
land based gaming jurisdiction in the world, i dont
forsee a day when there would ever be a reason to
forsake their current standards.

nobody is "bright enough" to solve an unsolvable
problem - that's why it's called "unsolvable"

ray bornert

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]

given that nevada is the largest most successful
land based gaming jurisdiction in the world, i dont
forsee a day when there would ever be a reason to
forsake their current standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

All things must change - or die
it is teh nature of existance.

So you are saying you expect the ngc
to die.

(if they will not change they will
die.

It's simply a question of when)

Do you imagine that the ngcs successor
will certify internet "insecure" games?

If a site were to get certified for
provision of internet based holdem, by
the ngc would you follow that sites T&C's?

Or only if those T&C's were conducive to
your cheating business?

[ QUOTE ]

nobody is "bright enough" to solve an unsolvable
problem - that's why it's called "unsolvable"


[/ QUOTE ]

Some time ago...

nobody was bright enough to figure
out how to fly.

nobody was bright enough to send
people into space.

nobody was bright enough to transmit
pictures over thin air.

nobody was bright enough to work out
the longitude.

nobody was bright enough to build a
printing press.

nobody was bright enough to deduce
the earth wasn't flat.

There is NOTHING that cannot be done.

It's simply a question of when.

Here is a simple question for you Ray.

When are you going to man up and admit that what you do is wrong, that you don't care that it's wrong, and you are doing it anyway as you can make a living out of it?