|
|
#71
10-30-2007, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
- The current situation doesn't represent a free market A: Why not? [/ QUOTE ] Artificial barriers to entry placed by the government. The current situation is more representative of a black market than a free market. 
|
|
#72
10-30-2007, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Exactly. You are so right, people don't want to shoulder the cost. That's exactly the reason why government is around. Government is a giant cost externalization mechanism. If you gave people the promise of government regulation to facilitate a safe and fraud free gaming environment and put the actual cost of that say, on the card rooms. Everyone would jump all over it. In the end, the card room would find a way to put the cost back on the player, but the player wouldn't care because they would already think they were getting the goodies at no cost to themselves. [/ QUOTE ] Right, but "having to shoulder the cost of your preferences" is the single most important driver of society, IMO. Thats the whole point of pvn's "Give everyone a free pony" line. If people arent faced to pay the price of realizing their preferences then there are no limits. The poor will drive themselves into oblivion with their whims. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Just make it "everyone" and we can all be satisfied.
|
|
#73
10-30-2007, 02:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
There's three things the ACists are claiming here. Let's examine them separately: - The current situation doesn't represent a free market A: Why not? There's a huge number of voluntary participants, and a significant free market review and oversight mechanism through blogs, affiliates, forums, and the free press. All of the things that should be acting, are. And to claim that the problems stem from a lack of the most reputable players is silly. Both PokerStars and Party Poker offer secure alternatives with a strong focus on security and game integrity - at least as far as the end consumer is concerned. Many of the current fish would probably play elsewhere if they knew of the scandal. But they don't - and it highlights beautifully the failure of the end consumer review process due to lack of time, lack of resources and understanding, and lack of interest. Transaction costs, smart people. Another point to add is that no reputable body has sprung up to provide certification to these sites, despite the supposed consumer value of a such a body. The only certifying body is the KGC, which has its hand in the pocket of the very sites it's pretending to be overseeing. We didn't know how much until the scandal broke, because there are no laws for transparency. So what exactly is missing from the equation? Are the things listed above not strong enough for the market to work? Most of practical AC philosopy requires the assumption that they are. - The current situation doesn't matter in the scheme of things A: There's two problems with this position. The first is that ACists often claim that the market will do a better job than government, in everything (cue Borodog). This doesn't appear to be happening here, and it would be nice if that was at least conceded. The second is that the current situation is harmful for the market overall. When people get blatantly ripped off, and the perpetrators suffer no consequences, it reduces trust and provides incentive for others to follow in their path. This is bad for everyone. As far as individuals go, you can argue that the stupid are getting their just desserts, but that's a pretty cynical view of the world. - Legal remedies would exist in a AC world A: Are you sure? Unless a site agreed beforehand to be overseen by a binding arbitrator, AND that arbitrator (whose motive is purely profit) was impartial, there is little chance of justice in AC land. Who has the power to go in and audit the books of a corrupt company with someone to hide? Absolute no one. And there is absolutely no reason why sham arbitration companies wouldn't exist, why sham regulatory bodies wouldn't exist, or why consumers would know the difference between them. The companies that lack this can just do clever marketing or rely on the innocence/trust/lack of knowledge of their customers, such as AP and the KGC have done here. You guys are kidding yourselves if you think that companies won't be able to bend the rules and cheat their customers significantly more in the absence of a body with the absolute power to regulate, fine, and shut them down. Simple utility should make that obvious. You guys understand utility, right? [/ QUOTE ] FWIW, other ACists might be asserting those things but I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying that people whine about a lot of [censored] that they dont really care about because whining is cheaper than acting. Its sort of irrelevant, to me, whether its a completely free market or not. In a 100% free market, people will still "want" ponies and not have them.
|
|
#74
10-30-2007, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
- The current situation doesn't represent a free market A: Why not? There's a huge number of voluntary participants, and a significant free market review and oversight mechanism through blogs, affiliates, forums, and the free press. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not going to speak for the rest of the ACists but I would agree here that there is enough competition that the poker market is essentially a free market. There is enough competition and rediculously low barriers to entry that theres no excuse for people not switching providers. However, it is a black market. There is no legal recourse for americans. If it was regulated the American government (or private legal system in AC land) could confiscate servers an persecute offenders. As such any Americans that are playing poker are doing so illegally and cant really complain when they get ripped off. There are risks to online poker, if you cant handle them you shouldnt play. You cant Nanny-state people that are violating your laws preventing you from protecting them. [ QUOTE ] - The current situation doesn't matter in the scheme of things A: There's two problems with this position. The first is that ACists often claim that the market will do a better job than government, in everything (cue Borodog). This doesn't appear to be happening here, and it would be nice if that was at least conceded. [/ QUOTE ] Until someone actually gives me numbers on how much money was lost and shows me that it is a significant amount to conern the average player then I'll be worried. Until then this is not an issue for the players, online poker, or AC. Do you think the average player is going to care or notice if they are being ripped off .1 BB/100? Obviously the result of the market has shown that they dont. Why do you care that people dont care? [ QUOTE ] - Legal remedies would exist in a AC world A: Are you sure? Unless a site agreed beforehand to be overseen by a binding arbitrator, AND that arbitrator (whose motive is purely profit) was impartial, there is little chance of justice in AC land. [/ QUOTE ] Legal Remedies might exist in AC land they might not. They might both exist for those that are paranoid and not exist for those that dont care. As it is right now legal remedies dont exist because the american government (the organization that is supposed to protect your property) has no interest in protecting the property and needs of a small niche constituency. Democracy in action!
|
|
#75
10-30-2007, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, the market in the long run appears to be driving the industry off a cliff. [/ QUOTE ] Seriously, for the professional poker player its already there and it wasnt driven off the cliff by the market.
|
|
#76
10-30-2007, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
The problem I'm having with this thread is that you guys are looking at an industry where people willingly go in to lose money. They lose a little more money and you are shocked that they dont care and then want to extrapolate this to free markets in general. Like I pointed out earlier, live casinos "rip off" their customers all the time. Nobody cares, get over it.
|
|
#77
10-30-2007, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
The problem I'm having with this thread is that you guys are looking at an industry where people willingly go in to lose money. They lose a little more money and you are shocked that they dont care and then want to extrapolate this to free markets in general. Like I pointed out earlier, live casinos "rip off" their customers all the time. Nobody cares, get over it. [/ QUOTE ] And again, why is it assumed that perfect information is necessary in AC?
|
|
#78
10-30-2007, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The problem I'm having with this thread is that you guys are looking at an industry where people willingly go in to lose money. They lose a little more money and you are shocked that they dont care and then want to extrapolate this to free markets in general. Like I pointed out earlier, live casinos "rip off" their customers all the time. Nobody cares, get over it. [/ QUOTE ] And again, why is it assumed that perfect information is necessary in AC? [/ QUOTE ] For easier strawman construction LDO.
|
|
#79
10-30-2007, 03:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A/C in Action: The AP Case
[ QUOTE ]
That's the second time you say you haven't read the thread or a critical post. In the nicest possible way, what are you doing replying? [/ QUOTE ] ??? I replied to you/mosdef. Afterwards, Phil posted a reply to someone else. Why is this post necessarily "critical" to what I was asking you? I didn't have time to read it, but I did notice a "Re: ALawPoker," so I read your post. Rather than address me in your own right, you said to me "read Phil's post". Umm, OK. I responded by saying I don't have time to address it right now, but that I'll address what you have said in the meantime and that I'll read his post in a bit. Why is this some sort of problem? Calm down. I mean, the thing about Phil is that he is actually capable of raising tough arguments, so I can see why you'd want to deflect me to just read his post. But since when has it been against the rules to respond to *your* point without having read someone else's arguments. I was just being honest and admitting that I haven't yet read the thing you were asking me to read. "In the nicest possible way," you really do come off as a very confused individual.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
