the rake would be the same for the limits.

It would be a pretty shady site if you have to risk $50 to win $1 with a $5.1 rake. The rake would be the lesser of risk-reward. So both you and i would pay 10 cents in this game.

Another way to do it is only rake the winner. Poker sites dont do it this way, but i remember a trading site who does.
If I beat a guy giving me 10-1 i get $10 but pay $1 rake($9 net). The loser only pays the $10 loss no rake. Those sites would also use 5% not 10% since rake is higher on average.

Edited 12/2/2014 02:27:42

betting disparity will never happen, nor is it "fair" to anyone. Possibilities to game the system are just endless. If you find a poker site that'll give me as a noob player odds against the "pros", let me know.

Forcing uneven bets when you play random and unknown players is indeed unfair. Especially that this would mean you wouldn't even know stake before the end of game. But in 'challange' mode (as fair as i understand there will be possibilty to challange anyone you want) there should be possibilty to manually set bet's ratio. I won't play against you with even bets. And people who think i'm better than they won't play against me. It drastically restrict range of possible opponents (and number of games). Also i'm not expecting you to arbitrary decide that any ratio is unfair when two involved people thinks otherwise. The only reason i can see for not implementing it is any kind of violation of anti-gambling law.

Any system with a rake leads to the following:
Some winning money
Many losing money
One winning a lot (the one who implements the rake)

If you now change the system in regards to "fairness" you will only do one thing, decrease the disparity of winning players to losing players. When pushed to the extreme this means you are promoting a system in which everybody loses exactly the same. Namely the rake.

I think this update comes with great opportunities like cash tournaments where you have to buy in yourself in order to participate and the money would be distributed to the 1st and 2nd place. But I too think that the rake should be decreased. 10% is a lot..

10% may be a lot, but it is going to a good cause.

i like ruthless bastard's idea.

i don't think i would participate in high buy-in tournaments knowing i'm against gnuff and sze and there are only prizes for top 2. even if i was as skilled as, say timinator, it would still be way too risky. might be worth playing if there are higher coin back rewards to compensate the buy-in on each passing round. 64 player tourney where 32 don't lose so much and 16 are making a profit, top 2 making a lot of profit. that might be attractive. just saying it also needs careful balance to be attractive to join for both sharks and fish.

It will be anonymous as i understand. So you will not know if me and szew joined.
Also you still have a good chance to win against ne szew or any players.

i like that it's anonymous atleast

For there to be any noticeable amount of money to be won, there needs to be quite a bit of deposits coming Fizzer's way. I suspect there is a high probability that there will be only minimal deposits.

Perhaps Ruthless Bastard's system would help entice fish a little to deposit, but I don't think it would make a big difference. However it clearly has the advantage of keeping fish that would otherwise leave (have a $10 account, lose 6 to go to $4, win 1 to go to $4.80, lose 4 to have $0.80, do you add anything, probably not. Have a $10 account, lose 6 to go to $4, win 1 to go to $6.80, lose 5 to go to $1.80, win 1 to go to $4.80, lose 4 to go to $0.80, do you hadd anything? Maybe you will).

I don't think it makes a big difference, though. I think adjustable bet size is much more likely to succeed (e.g. players will play the level they feel comfortable with, so someone losing a lot will go down to the $0.01 games, practice there and if needed make small deposits there, and then return to higher tables later). There is the problem, though, that if there are two players willing to play for money, and they pick different bet sizes, neither gets to play for a while. So pairing is slower.

I'm assuming you can only be in one paid game at a time? If not I think the refresh button will wear out on gnuff's keyboard.

i don't think so. why you shouldn't be able to play more than 1 at the same time?

well, it's hard to discuss without knowing the UI/UX, but i keep getting an impression that this is going to turn into a race between a few people to capture the fish. i'd certainly go into every game thinking i'll be facing you.

I don't think multiple games would matter (as long as you had the 'chips' for both). since there is no rating/matchup system.

i think it'll make a huge difference. for one thing it would add more sharks. instead of one gnuff, there would be 5. 5 sze's, 5 timi's, etc. i don't think low-rated players would be playing more than one game at a time.

edit: actually, i guess since it's anonymous, they would just face each other. pay no mind.

Edited 12/2/2014 16:14:36

And all this time Fizzer be like

Wow.... I'm going to have to unretire and get pretty good again.

Any system with a rake leads to the following:
Some winning money
Many losing money
One winning a lot (the one who implements the rake)

If you now change the system in regards to "fairness" you will only do one thing, decrease the disparity of winning players to losing players. When pushed to the extreme this means you are promoting a system in which everybody loses exactly the same. Namely the rake.

If no one makes a deposit no one will make any money not even the house.

Every decision that is made needs to be how do we get people to deposit. Winners dont lose so they dont provide a pool of money they take from it. The house also takes from it. Once former winners start losing most quit, they dont start depositing. The pool of players will shrink. We'll probably have to see it happen before anything is done about it.

Poker works because fish can go on lucky runs, than lose, than think they got unlucky and deposit more. It doesnt work like that with war-light.

The more entertainment value a fish can get out of his money the more likely they will deposit again and again. The more fish there are the more winners there will be.

two most important things for wagering sites
1) Bring in fish (advertising)
2) Create a system/game to maximize how much the fish deposit

Edited 12/2/2014 19:47:59

Ruthless Bastard: i think Fizzer's plan for that risk is that the coins can also used to buy other in-game stuff, so even if folks use the coins on games against each other they can still feel the need to add more coins just to buy/unlock the other stuff (no adverts, faster ladder access, etc). enough few times to make them feel comfortable with micro-paying to have a more challenging game against the pros.

Its good in that maybe someone will want to buy something and decide to buy a few extra coin to bet with. At the same time its bad because someone might be getting slaughtered and say screw it ill use my last coins to unlock a bunch of stuff instead of giving it to the expert players.


It all comes back to get the fish and keep the fish
advertising)(first time deposit bonuses)(reload bonuses) Its cumulative you can never do too much when it comes to this.

Edited 12/2/2014 20:43:06