computerscreen's avatar

computerscreen

54 points

This is what we want to avoid, it doesn't contribute to discussion, and its sole purpose is to be rude. And so it shouldn't be suprising that you post in a thread addressed to the owners and mod's, CLEARLY showing you are nothing but a troll to this community.


July 5, 2014 | 12:14 a.m.

"This should put it to rest. Computerscreen, you were extremely
disrespectful many times over in that thread and you started being that
way very early in it. It wasn't as if you were insulted time and time
again and then fought back. You were rude and condescending. 

That
thread as a whole is an absolute embarrassment to RIO and I wish my Mod
capabilities included being able to lock and/or delete threads because I
would have pulled the trigger a long time ago. 

I really hope these boards can get back to being the best poker community on the internet. "

I agree the thread is super bad for rio, and even bad for poker.  However I don't' think it was me at all.  I think that we have an issue that spreads across all community forums, especially in the poker world. This thread was not my first attempt, but we should note no proper discussion took place until about 80 posts in!  How can we expect a sincere poster to wade through all of that trash? 

Its very easy to have a normal discussion here as long as one is not bringing something new to the table.  But many threads with new or different types of discussion either remain empty or fill up with trolls and unintelligent posts (posts in which the people are ignorant on the topic yet give their 'respected' opinion anyways). 

How does one call attention to much needed and urgent discussion?

Or is it that here at RIO (and other forums), the only allowable disussion is that which is individualistic and therefore creating a forum model that is BAD FOR THE GAME.

July 4, 2014 | 7:12 p.m.

You have taken my posts out of context, however I agree they are wrong/rude and should be mod'd (or never said) by me as well.  HOWEVER, this is not the first time I have had my threads swarmed with such obvious non content posters. I try and discuss the subject, and I get swamped with players not commenting on the OP but rather on me and my writing.  Its a terrible issue because by the time someone sincere comes along there is a page full of peoples suggest the OP is shit.

To understand why specifically in that thread, I started out completely berating for example the poster 'game theory' we can think of 2 threads:

1) Decentralized poker and your fears and mythological beliefs-this would be a great thread for unknowledgable posters to post complaints and misunderstands about Dpoker.  People can troll it as much as they want.  Call each other crazy I don't care.

2)Decentralized poker THE SOLUTION WE ALREADY HAVE-this is an incredibly needed discussion with sincere members that ACTUALLY have the intent to understand what dpoker is and how we are to implement it.

I would like to create thread 2, but I CANNOT when the first 2 posts are from respected 'knowledgeable' members that clearly do not have a clue about the OP yet they have already signaled to everyone that the discussion should end immediately because they have debunked it.

I have ZERO utility or want to argue with this players about the VALIDITY of decentralized poker, and I would like to bring the TRUTH and UNDERSTANDING of the actual solution and implementation of it in order that we might free the entire economy of poker and give it back to the players.

So when I suggest someone is 'not intelligent'  my definition is that they are halting TRUE progress in the implementation of the progress, and so shooting themselves and everyone in the foot based on the fact that they THINK they understand game theory and poker, which they clearly cannot based on their posts. 

When I refer to someone as a 'troll' it is by the definition they came into the thread with clearly no intent to inquire into the OP, but rather simply to add a no content post, further cluttering and destabilizing the conversation.

On a separate not, posts about people sanity, clearly designed to attack the OP's image, should be absolutely moderated to the fullest extent.

In light of that, when the same "unintelligent trolls" change their approach, they are instantly refered to as intelligent and not trolls.  Which seems quite fair, and to be honest seems to be the best teaching method we have available (in light of lack of moderating).

I outline a certain pro you have, and it might be more polite to not name them, although they clearly have a strong backbone, but I really think such a posts lack poker intelligent in the most significant way.  We have ruined the game with this type of thinking:











July 4, 2014 | 7:05 p.m.

THAT is what a good mod would do, thank you, and I realize many were mine.

July 4, 2014 | 6:52 p.m.

give me a moment to respond before we delete anything and ill rectifying (change) my bad posts (with an explanation I changed them so that I don't get to hide from the 'bad' things I said)...i'm just typing it up now.

July 4, 2014 | 6:46 p.m.

This is why I say I am a better poker player than you.  I obviously realize that you likely have better cards skills than I do, but imagine if millions of players started to care about the overall state of the game.  I think then we wouldn't be in the economic position that we don't even realize or admit we are in.

The kids think I'm crazy tho...I'm worried they are being taught wrong.


July 4, 2014 | 8:04 a.m.

But if hes not good for the game, then he hurts his own ev.  How could his math be that bad if hes |so good|?



July 4, 2014 | 7:07 a.m.

I defined it, in my writings, and it (good player) includes those that seek the profitability and sustainability of the game. Knowing that entertainment is the thing that donators pay for, and that the pros need to provide it (and yes some entertainment is the possibility of winning the poker lottery for the rec).  He hurts his winrate by not providing it...and he hurts all of our winrate.  And somehow doesn't recognize it.



July 4, 2014 | 7:06 a.m.

focus on learning and not winning, and it will all sort itself out.  Players mistakenly do the opposite, and it's disastrous for the bankroll AND mental health. Learning is the fun of poker, winning is just a meh bonus.  If you're thinking about it another way, you're doing it wrong :)


July 4, 2014 | 5:18 a.m.

My thoughts are they are an old school and bad player that isn't good at poker, I've been trying to explain the exact reason he is wrong but we have been taught by too many bad player's 'what poker is'.  He DOES owe it to poker and the community to give those interviews and it is quite a disgrace to walk away from the part of the community that donates their entries for entertainment.  He is bad for the game, ungrateful, and completely not necessary for it.

Poker can be a good thing for both 'loosing players' and 'winning players'.  He doesn't have the correct fundamental viewpoint, poker can be an incredible help to the global economy, he's just doing bad math:

http://www.runitonce.com/chatter/moral-poker-as-a-function-of-integrity/

July 4, 2014 | 4:46 a.m.

July 3, 2014 | 7:32 p.m.

July 3, 2014 | 7:31 p.m.

Yes....I am seeking help http://www.runitonce.com/chatter/the-missing-link-to-decentralized-poker/

July 3, 2014 | 7:44 a.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

Here is the best I have got kids: http://www.runitonce.com/chatter/the-missing-link-to-decentralized-poker/

consider its value sincerely.  Troll it if you want, I wrote what I could the best I could.

July 3, 2014 | 7:44 a.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

We ALL know cooperation can yeild greater results... I have the EXACT key to bring it about!

July 3, 2014 | 12:04 a.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

"guys he's saying that if we fixed the poker economy that we would pay less in rake therefore there would be more money to be shared by everyone.  recs lose less (theoretically although I'm not sure if I  believe that) pros save money they would have paid in rake, etc etc."
Yes you have a religious belief such a thing is not possible.  It's just your religion. 

"I get what he's trying to say.  I just don't believe that you can convince a large enough group of people to exist in such a cooperative state.  Especially when the philosophical foundations of the game are individual vs individual competition."  And who laid the mathematical foundation for this? http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs286r/courses/spring02/papers/nash50a.pdf

"CS I think you have some valuable thoughts here on economies, markets, and ethics.  But the
fact is that what you are presenting is for academia, and without further development doesn't have any practical application.  "

Ah you think I should got to academia with the works I have about re writing the POKER economy? I think they would send me back here, are you ok?  

"And more importantly, poorly applied could result in more disastrous results for
the market than if it was left in it's current inefficient competitive state."

lets hear nash on this subject:

So I wish to present the argument that various interests and groups, notably including
"Keynesian" economists, have sold to the public a "quasi-doctrine" which teaches, in e effect,
that "less is more" or that (in other words) "bad money is better than good money".

And from ideal poker:

"SoI wish to present the argument that various interest and groups, notably including PSFTFBICIADOJ has sold to the players a “quasi-doctrine” which teaches, in effect, that “less is more” or that (in other words) “raked poker is better than not raked poker”.


"so if you want to flesh out the theory by actually trying to provide some real world strategy for implementation (ie how are you going to successfully get players to work together to form their own site that can function in this more ideal manner) then you have
something worth discussing."

Thank you....thanks....so then I have something worth discussing, would you mind not polluting the attempt to present it?

"Otherwise I believe you've come to the wrong place as most of us don't have much to add in terms of academic theory on economics."
Which is interesting because you all seem to be well studied on game theory and Nash's works on it, and all it is, really is high level game theory.  Its just too far over your heads,  I need someone with more intelligence than you.  I'm not calling you stupid, its true.

"(this is where you reply and tell me what an idiot troll I am despite my polite and reasoned response to your thoughts)"

You seem to be doing the finest job of that.

July 3, 2014 | 12:02 a.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

The reason I keep suggesting you are being an 'idiot troll" among the fact you keep publicly calling me crazy when I'm simply conveying something that is so far above your head that you do nothing but attack my credibility, is this is NOT intended to be a thread where YOU the mightjim, responds.

It is TOO far over your head, but you keep THINKING this thread is for you to comment in.  I keep "slapping my face" (don't worry its a metaphor I'm NOT actually hurting myself), is because you INSIST on doing the VERY thing I am asking you not to do.

Every 'random' and 'unreasonable' thought you are conveying is the exact reason I need you to leave the thread, and the exact reason I need to have dialog with a SINGLE respected member of the community.

We are on over 100 posts in this thread, and you are STILL coming in with a child's understanding of the world, and with a BASIC inability to understand the very PURPOSE of this thread.

You DON'T get what I am trying to say, nor are you capable.  You THINK I'm being arrogant, yet I have something to discuss in which is plainly and simply OVER YOUR HEAD.

Let the big boys talk please.

And stop calling me crazy because you have an extreme inability to understand simplicity.


July 2, 2014 | 11:48 p.m.

Yes, yet I am perfectly balanced, and you do not understand my posts.  I have a real life, and in it I am well liked, well understand, and known for being quite grounded.  You are NOT qualified to give such an opinion, and its a DISGUSTING thing to say to someone in the public community setting.

I worry rather about the other people you have done this too, who might not have such a strong back bone or mental state as me.  I don't want to talk to you about it.  I would like to address those responsible for upholding such malintent.

It's not acceptable behavior, and I'd be blown away to be told that it is inline with the spirit of this forum.  you don't just go around publicly calling people crazy because you don't understand what they are saying and they don't write very well.


July 2, 2014 | 11:40 p.m.

July 2, 2014 | 11:26 p.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

There are many other more important examples, for instance we have re written the entire staking models that the players are used to in a fashion that is more profitable for the players, and more favorable for the overall economy of the game.  It's quite "new" thinking tho (again based on Nash's works), so its another important discussion that we can't yet seem to have.

This thread, and most others are quite sad to me, because we are nearly 100 posts in and we have only just begin to have a civil discussion, which is quite the expected out come when the first few posters are "respected" for their mathematical ability to ignore good poker.

They don't understand, or research about the discussion or any topics with in it, yet they make sure to take the time to derail, berate and discredit so no discussion takes place.

If you are a poker player there is no more important discussion to be had, and no place to better spend your time trying to profit. 

WHERE ARE THE RIO PROS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

July 2, 2014 | 10:32 p.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

"which would exclusively come from recreational players"

Just to be clear, with "cooperative" ev BOTH recs and pros gain.  (what you call maybe losing and winning players but I don't like those words so much).  It's not zero sum, which is kind of a mind trip for the average forumer.

July 2, 2014 | 10:03 p.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

Yes in the 2 + 2 forums there is a thread where players may suggest changes to poker stars via a single stars rep.  But its a terrible process because everyone simply throws out random ideas.  Some are good players giving good ideas that help the players.  Some are bad players giving bad ideas that hurt the players.

Stars is able to quote the bad ideas and tell the players they asked for it.  Its a very bad and inefficient bargaining process for BOTH the players and the site rep (very head achy for the rep that must respond to 100's of posts mostly berating the changes and the messenger of them).

IF the players could separate their discussion into a thread that stars can't "officially" quote bad ideas, then the players can have a chance to truly cooperatively discuss and decided on beneficial changes.

Its true stars doesn't have to listen, but its tough to argue this wouldn't benefit the players.

Furthermore, if the players recognize that stars must make money too, they MIGHT even come up with ideas that are good for BOTH the players and stars (like good advertising ideas for example, or structure changes that make regs AND recs happy thus bringing more money to the game.)

I have MUCH more to explain on this topic alone, as to how the process might work and bring great favorable change, but I hope you can at least understand both what I mean by 'cooperative' poker, AND agree that such changes can be favorable for the players, in a non zero sum fashion.

As we start to agree I have something value to offer the players, we will begin to see an accelerated change in the game at a fashion and speed we have not thought possible.

Thank you for your question and sincerity. (and I do have many more TANGIBLE cooperative "strategies")


July 2, 2014 | 9:55 p.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

I have many solutions and concrete examples for 'cooperative' poker and mutual gain, but we are too busy thinking we can concentrate on individual gain.  I'd like to point out the current state of the game is in shambles because of our individual 'play'.  However uneducated players seem to have a belief that any 'current' state of the game is the 'correct' equilibrium for it.  Nash CLEARLY doesn't agree, nor do it.


July 2, 2014 | 9:46 p.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

No its not what I am trying to say, nor Nash, but rather if we work together on the overall economy of the game, we can all gain.  This has deep esoteric meaning, and once the process formally beginnings, I think you will see a conscious shift in accelerated real time. This is what posts like this refer to but they don't get read you see (apologies if I mis use the language but YOU might understand it perfectly now) from http://www.runitonce.com/chatter/moral-poker-as-a-function-of-integrity/:

We tend to see two separate markers in a certain players archetype:
intelligence and awareness in regards to individual efforts in relation
to the game of poker (I'ev for individual ev), AND intelligence and
awareness in regards to cooperative efforts in relation to the overall
economy of the game (C'ev for cooperative ev).

In today's
current viewpoint and environment, the ideal player is judged mostly on
their skill level, with 'extra' considerations to other aspects of their
character.  We tend to think of a players worth in terms of their I'ev,
and consider any C'ev a bonus to the players overall worth.

Instead
I'd like to suggest we realize the truth of this, and see that players
have always really been a function of both I'ev AND C'ev, or that: 
Player value = I'ev + C'ev. 

So we might understand that
although it is a seemingly new viewpoint it is not a change to the true
fundamental natural of the game, but rather a return the truth and
therefore the source. 

Players might always have been a function
of these two components but that in the past the average player paid
little or no regard to C'ev and focused and developed primarily I'ev.
Many players were birthed with a very low or even 0 C'ev
intelligence/awareness.  Where as players in the future (one might
hope), would at least covet them equally and possibly in an ideal poker
economy there might even somehow be a shift towards C' > E'.

One wonders what changes this shift might bring about...

July 2, 2014 | 9:44 p.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

I feel like we just had a moment of real discussion.  Took forever!  Yay for "US"

July 2, 2014 | 9:35 p.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

Yes you are functioning under the belief that you make more money playing individual poker than cooperative.  Its not true, Nash wants you to know that.  I have spent much time thinking about and analyzing the overall economy of the game.  Cooperative leaks fixed pays you A LOT more reall money than grinding an working on your own game. Math:

When one studies what are called \cooperative games", which in economic terms include
mergers and acquisitions or cartel formation, it is found to be appropriate and is standard
to form two basic classi cations:
(1): Games with transferable utility.
(and)
(2): Games without transferable utility
(or \NTU" games).
In the world of practical realities it is money which typically causes the existence of
a game of type (1) rather than of type (2); money is the \lubrication" which enables the
ecient \transfer of utility". And generally if games can be transformed from type (2) to
type (1) there is a gain, on average, to all the players in terms of whatever might be expected
to be the outcome.

Maybe if you still aren't convinced you might leave the players with a little thought or belief that it might not be beneficial to suppress my intended discussion?

We thank you.


July 2, 2014 | 9:33 p.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

What specific math are you asking about.  The math involved spans every single subject up to and including quantum physics and Einsteins works on relatively. EVERYTHING has been re written (likely much is alluded to and we don't yet have access.

If you really wanted that it would be hundreds and hundreds of links.  We don't' have that time, but we CAN expedite this process and take our game back over night (most of us don't realize we don't own our own game yet) if someone could simply explain to this group I am explaining something that at this point is over their heads.


July 2, 2014 | 9:30 p.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

I know that we all have real life and real things to do, but I'm smuggly letting you know...there is nothing more important to each and everyone of us than this realization, both of 'ideal money' AND of 'ideal poker'

Ideal poker is a precursor to all this, and the moment one of you with credibility tells everyone I'm not crazy, but that I have clearly gone through a bulk of this works....then we will start to realize how and why poker is so important in all of this.

July 2, 2014 | 9:26 p.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker
It doesn't exist, he broke it up into parts: ideal money is the outline (like chapters).  Nick szabo is like the content or the pages of the book.  Satoshi is a ghost, that posts an interesting paper that leads creative people to an anonymous chat group (starting 5 years ago).

Here is an example, Ideal money starts:

The special commodity or medium that we call money has a long and interesting history.
And since we are so dependent on our use of it and so much controlled and motivated by the
wish to have more of it or not to lose what we have we may become irrational in thinking
about it and fail to be able to reason about it like about a technology, such as radio, to be
used more or less efficiently.

That is the "chapter"....and "szabo" gives the content: http://szabo.best.vwh.net/shell.html



July 2, 2014 | 9:24 p.m.

Comment | computerscreen commented on Rake free poker

It is all on my reading list, however I have been reading at a pace that would make people believe I am crazy if i told them how much.  I don't have such time right now to read extra stuff, since we HAVE our solution to liberate poker and I simply need the credibility to present it.

Ideal money is an esoteric paper with great hidden meaning but if we can walk through it and show that it is an outline for szabo's works, then the meaning becomes clear as day.

July 2, 2014 | 9:19 p.m.

Load more
Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy