|
|
#41
08-07-2007, 04:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Fish Manifesto
First off thanks for the discussion, even if you think I'm full of it. Many good points raised. I don't think this is or should be a major change. It should be introduced gently and as some have said will not change the behaviour of many losers who want to play the best.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you think something is wrong that others won't see it differently and act in a way that you don't want. (see UIEGA) At the very least you need to be aware of the arguments. Winning poker players have a particular view of the world which they are comfortable because it's morally and conceptually simple, just don't assume that it's the only view or even correct. [ QUOTE ] Why the assumption that players at a certain level should all be "bad". [/ QUOTE ] I didn't say this. [ QUOTE ] I really, really want to play in the NBA. Does that mean the NBA should replace all their players with pudgy, middle-aged white guys just so I have a shot? [/ QUOTE ] This is the opposite of what I said, that the top players should generally play against other good players. I had a problem with the NBA players earning a big wage for beating middle-aged white guys. [ QUOTE ] Nobody is "entitled" to play $200NL against a table full of players who are as terrible as they are. [/ QUOTE ] Didn't say this either. [ QUOTE ] Forcing fish to play with fish takes away the mental challenge and forcing them to play certain stakes may mean they are no longer playing for stakes that have meaning to them. [/ QUOTE ] A key point that I made was that the fish aren't forced to do anything. They can sit down where they like. [ QUOTE ] Create certain tables at each stakes that can only be played by people not multitabling. [/ QUOTE ] This may have a similar effect to what I'm saying but would be less invasive. It may cut multitabling generally so sites may not like it. Limiting no of tables played at certain tables is a variation. [ QUOTE ] This would most likely chase the fish away, not because you are displaying the sharks good stats, but rather because you would be displaying their poor stats. [/ QUOTE ] Certainly a risk which is why I wouldn't recommend classifying all winners. Losers will always be able to tell themselves they're break even if they want. [ QUOTE ] it's impossible to give a poker player a rating based on results unless you're doing it over an extremely large sample size. [/ QUOTE ] It's a gambling game you know. You run good you have to play tougher games for a while, run bad and you get break in compensation. Some bad players get shark ratings for a while and think they're good - just as happens now. The mobility in the system is essential. [ QUOTE ] you do realize that if you get rid of the sharks, then the least fishy of the fishies just becomes the shark. So uh, basically this whole idea is dumb [/ QUOTE ] This is important. I have said this. The winners in the easy games will get rated and have to move. But in all games there is a gradient of skill. There are no games where everyone is "equally terrible". Except for a few breakeven players, losers will lose and winners will win. The magnitudes will change. 
|
|
#42
08-07-2007, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fish Manifesto
Al Schoonmaker once wrote an article where he celebrated the 'ruthless meritocracy' of poker and strange though it seems I still agree broadly with his sentiments. He was contrasting it with an education system that was trying to make everybody winners, so poker provided a counterbalance to that as well as a wake up call and reality check. But balance is essential. Poker is not the world. It is zero sum and non co-operative. The world is not like that.
Anyway, none of you really want it truly ruthless. You want it ruthless on your terms. You regard UIGEA as unfair, not a righteous exercise of power. You complain about bots. You would feel wronged if someone hacked your account or if neteller or the FBI took your money. You wouldn't want your idiot fish opponent to come round to house and show you the real law of the jungle. (I would agree with you on all these btw). Most complain when someone talks about 2+2 or PT at the table. Most of you know this and I know I'm coming over as a dik but some do need reminding. BTW, I notice some of comments about my whining or jealousy...."he's standing up for fish so he must be one". This is exactly the kind of lack of imagination that I'm talking about.
|
|
#43
08-07-2007, 05:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fish Manifesto
[ QUOTE ]
It's a gambling game you know. You run good you have to play tougher games for a while, run bad and you get break in compensation. Some bad players get shark ratings for a while and think they're good - just as happens now. The mobility in the system is essential. [/ QUOTE ] This is so stupid. This system ensures that the sites end up with all the money. Fish aren't leaving because they're getting beaten too quickly, they're leaving because they can't get money on to the sites.
|
|
#44
08-07-2007, 05:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fish Manifesto
[ QUOTE ]
Al Schoonmaker once wrote an article where he celebrated the 'ruthless meritocracy' of poker and strange though it seems I still agree broadly with his sentiments. He was contrasting it with an education system that was trying to make everybody winners, so poker provided a counterbalance to that as well as a wake up call and reality check. But balance is essential. Poker is not the world. It is zero sum and non co-operative. The world is not like that. [/ QUOTE ] I must be missing something. You agree that poker is unlike most things in that you are rewarded in direct correlation to your skill, intelligence, and work ethic but you think that it shouldn't be this way. You think that those who work hard, study hard, and are better than their opponents shouldn't be allowed to win the maximum from anyone willing to play them. Is this correct? [ QUOTE ] Anyway, none of you really want it truly ruthless. You want it ruthless on your terms. You regard UIGEA as unfair, not a righteous exercise of power. You complain about bots. You would feel wronged if someone hacked your account or if neteller or the FBI took your money. You wouldn't want your idiot fish opponent to come round to house and show you the real law of the jungle. (I would agree with you on all these btw). Most complain when someone talks about 2+2 or PT at the table. [/ QUOTE ] These analogies are terrible. The UIGEA is unfair because it uses coercion to stop willing participants in the games(Unfair and wrong if you believe in freedom). It also prevents us from undertaking some forms of gambling but not others(Unfair in application). Bots are expressly forbidden and a form of cheating. We have agreed to play the game under a set of rules, one of which is that bots are not allowed in the games. Hacking someone's account is stealing and again you are violating someone else's basic freedoms by doing it. The FBI taking our money is just a stupid analogy that makes zero sense. Idiot fish committing acts of violence against us is again violating our basic freedoms. Talking about 2+2 or PT at the table is just stupid for someone whose goal it is to make money. When we see players who we know are out to make money doing things like this it is loathsome, but we don't ask that these players be barred from talking about these things at the table, just that they realize it is hurting all of our bottom lines and that they should stop. All of these are completely different from fish sitting down and losing at a table willingly with better players, under a universal set of rules that both parties adhere to.
|
|
#45
08-07-2007, 05:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fish Safety Sites ? Not supported by the market, but there is vari
[ QUOTE ]
Kitchen table home game =/= internet. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I understand that....in fact, thats pretty much the point of this thread. There are people out there that would like to have the "kitchen table home game" atmosphere online, but right now they have no options. Now obviously we don't want to do anything to upset the core customer base, so thats why I think OP's suggestion is bad. However my solution gives the people their kitchen table game atmosphere while not affecting other more serious players.
|
|
#46
08-07-2007, 06:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fish Manifesto
You don't have a clue.
There is no such thing as a self aware fish. Anyone who has the ability to look at a game and understand 1) that its not luck and 2) they are outclassed is NOT a fish. They are just someone who is not good at poker. this person is the same person who plays microlimits for recreation. The two creatures are very, very different. I bet real fish would overwhelming vote down your proposal. Real fish believe they are baby sharks or just unlucky at this moment. They would see your proposal as capping their future earnings.
|
|
#48
08-07-2007, 06:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fish Manifesto
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Create certain tables at each stakes that can only be played by people not multitabling. [/ QUOTE ] This may have a similar effect to what I'm saying but would be less invasive. It may cut multitabling generally so sites may not like it. Limiting no of tables played at certain tables is a variation. [/ QUOTE ] How would this cut multitabling? Your variation would cut multitabling. But since there would still be plenty of normal tables around, anyone who wished to multitable still would be able to. The only possible thing I can think of is if there isn't a ton of players to begin with on one particular level....then doing this would make that player pool even smaller for the person who wished to multitable and he may not be able to play as many tables as he wishes. Because of this I would only suggest doing this for the bigger sites. As for your original idea, its unique and creative...but dude theres seriously no chance it would ever happen.
|
|
#49
08-07-2007, 10:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fish Safety Sites ? Not supported by the market, but there is vari
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Kitchen table home game =/= internet. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I understand that....in fact, thats pretty much the point of this thread. There are people out there that would like to have the "kitchen table home game" atmosphere online, but right now they have no options. Now obviously we don't want to do anything to upset the core customer base, so thats why I think OP's suggestion is bad. However my solution gives the people their kitchen table game atmosphere while not affecting other more serious players. [/ QUOTE ] Are you for real? The friendly we're all retarded kitchen home games are for $5, and the $5 games online are just as retarded.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
