|
|
#81
10-30-2007, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
Like I pointed out earlier, live casinos "rip off" their customers all the time. Nobody cares, get over it. [/ QUOTE ] Casino games are -EV, but people know that (or at least they can figure it out if they do the math). That's not even close to the same thing. 
|
|
#83
10-30-2007, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Like I pointed out earlier, live casinos "rip off" their customers all the time. Nobody cares, get over it. [/ QUOTE ] Casino games are -EV, but people know that (or at least they can figure it out if they do the math). That's not even close to the same thing. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with you, there is definitely a difference between a casino looking at your hole cards and profiting honestly by playing by the set of rules that you already agreed to. Absolutely. (EDIT: No pun intended.) I think Ianlippert would agree too and change his wording. But, what he was alluding to is critical to the issue here. The clientele is the type of clientele who will not be grossly bothered by what happened (because they're people who are gambling on the internet). I think that's all he meant (but he can speak for himself).
|
|
#85
10-30-2007, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
So it's ok to rip off gamblers, because they're degenerates who love throwing their money away anyway? Not very convincing. [/ QUOTE ] No? Not sure how you got that. The point is, the fact that the online poker industry is sort of sketchy is already built into the group of people who play there. Most online poker players lose. I forget what the % is of players who beat the rake (I think it's less than 20%, maybe as low as 10), but most lose. Sure there is the entertainment aspect, but still the online poker community is hardly a beacon of rational decision making. Why would we expect them to analyze this situation the same way we might? We should expect bad decisions, and expect to have to deal with it (because humans are not omniscient and thus life is not perfect). People make bad decisions, and yes, it affects all of us when they do. (That's the beauty of self-interest and why encouraging rational decisions is so good for everyone.) The issue shouldn't be "are people making bad decisions" (they obviously are). It should be "if we restrict their decisions, does that make things better or worse still?" So the debate really should focus on whether regulation (or whatever you're proposing) would actually make things better or worse. Right now you are basically just saying "[censored] happened." I'm not sure what solution you're proposing or why you think it would work better than the market response. The reason it's not good for you when you rip off degenerate poker players (and why I think no centrally planned consequence need apply) is that the consequence to you is more likely to be bad than good. Do you honestly think AP doesn't regret this? Really, do you think they're sitting there saying "Ha, well that worked out awesome guys, let's wait it out a little bit and then bust out the super user accounts again!" People have already listed the specific ways they've lost. (Lawyers, audits, loss of customers, bad reputation.) And that's all AFTER they supposedly pay everyone back. (If it wasn't for that promise, or if they fall short, you can expect more people still to leave.) So, I don't really see what AP has "gained" from this, or why this case isn't evidence of the inherent incentive AGAINST cheating.
|
|
#86
10-30-2007, 06:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
So it's ok to rip off gamblers, because they're degenerates who love throwing their money away anyway? Not very convincing. [/ QUOTE ] People who don't think it's ok probably won't keep playing there, those that do still are. Some people might not be ok with it, but still play because they feel the games are too good that its worth the risk. They think they know what to look out for and they know players who they can exploit so what do they care. They have their marks, and as long as they are around there's no reason to go elsewhere. And seriously, it hasn't been that long. I think it's too early to be freaking out saying "ZOMG! Look they aren't being punished! Market failure!!!!" Even if some govenmental agency was regulating this it would probably take at least a year before any sort of punishment was handed out, then there would probably be apeals or some such nonsense.
|
|
#87
10-30-2007, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
I forget what the % is of players who beat the rake (I think it's less than 20%, maybe as low as 10), but most lose. . [/ QUOTE ] It's more. Rake effectively eliminate's one winning player at a 10 player table. That still leaves 4. Of course, if all players are equally skilled, then the rake makes them all losers, but this is seldom the case, and the limits where this is the case the rake is extremely tiny compared to the pots.
|
|
#88
10-30-2007, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So it's ok to rip off gamblers, because they're degenerates who love throwing their money away anyway? Not very convincing. [/ QUOTE ] No? Not sure how you got that. The point is, the fact that the online poker industry is sort of sketchy is already built into the group of people who play there. Most online poker players lose. I forget what the % is of players who beat the rake (I think it's less than 20%, maybe as low as 10), but most lose. Sure there is the entertainment aspect, but still the online poker community is hardly a beacon of rational decision making. Why would we expect them to analyze this situation the same way we might? We should expect bad decisions, and expect to have to deal with it (because humans are not omniscient and thus life is not perfect). [/ 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 ] The reason it's not good for you when you rip off degenerate poker players (and why I think no centrally planned consequence need apply) is that the consequence to you is more likely to be bad than good. Do you honestly think AP doesn't regret this? Really, do you think they're sitting there saying "Ha, well that worked out awesome guys, let's wait it out a little bit and then bust out the super user accounts again!" [/ QUOTE ] Do you honestly think the consequences were significant enough to be an adequate deterrent? [ 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.
|
|
#89
10-30-2007, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ 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.
|
|
#90
10-30-2007, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I forget what the % is of players who beat the rake (I think it's less than 20%, maybe as low as 10), but most lose. . [/ QUOTE ] It's more. Rake effectively eliminate's one winning player at a 10 player table. That still leaves 4. Of course, if all players are equally skilled, then the rake makes them all losers, but this is seldom the case, and the limits where this is the case the rake is extremely tiny compared to the pots. [/ QUOTE ] How'd you get that number? It's not as simple as just factoring the % of rake and then comparing it to peoples' avg profit. Because even in the absence of any rake, eventually people will lose to someone. It's just that there is always more money coming in that makes it seem like half win and half lose. If you looked statically at the current player pool, over infinite time, all but one player is -EV. So it's sort of complicated to measure how many of the current clientele are actually +EV. Winners are more likely to stick around and to play more, so they'll be more likely to comprise a lot of winnings into "1 person" than a big loser would be to comprise a lot of losings into "1 person." So player by player, you should expect that less than half have long-term equity even before rake. I seem to recall the expression "There are more people who beat the game and not the rake than there are who beat the game and the rake." (Indicating that it would be less than 25% at most.) But that could just be some old hick's tale. But now that I explain this, it sort of highlights why it didn't mean anything in the first place. Because the "1 person" who just plays more obviously accounts for more of the market share at the same time. So the fact that maybe only a small percentage of people beat the rake doesn't really mean anything since these people will also simply account for more of the market's actions. I basically just brought this up for the hell of it, but it wasn't a good example of anything. But now I'm sort of curious what the % actually is. Maybe your 40% is accurate, I'm just not sure how you got there, and really think it must be way less. No need getting into it here though I guess, heh.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
