Today's Reading ...

[ShaunWhite]

I think my personal obscure topic of the week is....

Screenshot_13.png

I look forward to the relevent data being available in Guardian

[firlandsfarm]

That's some amazing stuff you've uncovered there Shaun … just need to be reincarnated so I will have enough time to read and apply it!

[firlandsfarm]

I just came across this from Betfair. It's probably well know to many and if not the content will be but I found the 'Diary' on pages 64 - 72 might be an interesting read for any newbies to serious betting. I explains the practical application of 'value' and how a (maybe fictitious) professional goes about his work.

[JuiceyJones]

Some that have really helped me in the last year with trading. I trade small potatoes to most here though.

Antifragile - Nicolas Taleb
Trading in the Zone - Mark Douglas (available on Youtube for free if you prefer to listen)
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Made Simple - Seth Gillihan
Thinking Fast and Slow - Daniel Kahneman
Happiness Hypothesis - Jonathan Haidt

[jimibt]

one for the nerds among us

[jamesg46]

[firlandsfarm]

Just came across this on the onlinebetting.org.uk site in respect of the possible new Gambling Act that was due this year but now delayed …

"Operators are private companies and their ultimate objective is to make profit and one way they do this is to limit or close accounts for players that win. This practice has been going on since the advent of online gambling, indeed prior to that bookie shops would ban people who won too much.

Some account limiting is genuine, often due to bonus abuse or hedging, but in reality it is used by companies to improve profits. There has been little said on whether this will be addressed in a new act but if the UKGC are listening to punters this will be an area they may look into. This may include a minimum bet guarantee (e.g. any customer must be able to stake up to £100)"

Many other issues are discussed in the article and may make interesting reading.

It is of course speculation but would be interesting how it would affect the market if they have to accept bets up to a certain ceiling. Maybe odds overall will drop, maybe more accounts will be closed (maybe the Act will foresee that and insist on closure reasons being disclosed and contestable!). I do understand the bookies' argument that the punter can choose how much so why can't the bookie do likewise but I don't agree with banning/limiting as I have been for taking advantage of bonus offers. Here the argument is reversed … I didn't ask them to offer a bonus so why should I be discriminated against? If I buy a new Ford every year taking advantage of a marketing discount every time I don't expect Ford to tell me I can no longer buy cars with marketing discounts!

Anyway the Act may be something to keep an eye on when it starts to become active in Parliament and maybe some lobbying of MPs should be considered … you can bet ( ) the bookies will be doing so and if it's all one way we need to have at least tried.

[wearthefoxhat]

Just came across this on the onlinebetting.org.uk site in respect of the possible new Gambling Act that was due this year but now delayed …

"Operators are private companies and their ultimate objective is to make profit and one way they do this is to limit or close accounts for players that win. This practice has been going on since the advent of online gambling, indeed prior to that bookie shops would ban people who won too much.

Some account limiting is genuine, often due to bonus abuse or hedging, but in reality it is used by companies to improve profits. There has been little said on whether this will be addressed in a new act but if the UKGC are listening to punters this will be an area they may look into. This may include a minimum bet guarantee (e.g. any customer must be able to stake up to £100)"

Many other issues are discussed in the article and may make interesting reading.

It is of course speculation but would be interesting how it would affect the market if they have to accept bets up to a certain ceiling. Maybe odds overall will drop, maybe more accounts will be closed (maybe the Act will foresee that and insist on closure reasons being disclosed and contestable!). I do understand the bookies' argument that the punter can choose how much so why can't the bookie do likewise but I don't agree with banning/limiting as I have been for taking advantage of bonus offers. Here the argument is reversed … I didn't ask them to offer a bonus so why should I be discriminated against? If I buy a new Ford every year taking advantage of a marketing discount every time I don't expect Ford to tell me I can no longer buy cars with marketing discounts!

Anyway the Act may be something to keep an eye on when it starts to become active in Parliament and maybe some lobbying of MPs should be considered … you can bet ( ) the bookies will be doing so and if it's all one way we need to have at least tried.

Recently a poker site, GGPoker, held a successful WSOP online series as the live one was abandoned this year.

They have started to ban "winning"cash game pro players from their site. First time I've seen that.

https://partypoker.ua/partypoker-news/g ... ontroversy

[firlandsfarm]

Well that leaves me a little confused. I thought poker sites made their money from a levy on the pot in which case why do they care who wins?

[wearthefoxhat]

Well that leaves me a little confused. I thought poker sites made their money from a levy on the pot in which case why do they care who wins?

Reading between the lines, they believe they are looking at protecting the poker eco system. If the best (pro) players take all the money, then the new/recreational players will go to other sites, or give up altogether. As you say, it shouldn't matter who wins as the rake is paid either way.

Maybe they should use the Betfair PC as a new poker business model for those players.

Poker online is booming again, but the U.S players have to travel to regions thats allow it, ie: New Jersey/Nevada. Some went to Mexico for a couple of months to play on the GGPoker site for the WSOP. The Main Event smashed the $25 million guarantee for a $5k buyin.

[firlandsfarm]

Maybe they should use the Betfair PC as a new poker business model for those players.

Poker online is booming again, but the U.S players have to travel to regions thats allow it, ie: New Jersey/Nevada. Some went to Mexico for a couple of months to play on the GGPoker site for the WSOP. The Main Event smashed the $25 million guarantee for a $5k buyin.

Hmmm I can see where you are coming from but it's not the same as the PC is it. The PC is charged because the commission on profit does not reflect the turnover of stakes whereas the poker charge is on turnover.

Interested it's booming again, guess people need to do something in lockdown! I've never played online but I understand websites try to spot BOTs and ban the users … is that correct? If so wouldn't the way around it be to have a "side BOT" where you input the game as it happens and follow the BOT's instruction? I've heard that some BOTs try to simulate human play by varying the time to play their hand and even making the odd mistake on low stakes to show infallibility!

[wearthefoxhat]

Maybe they should use the Betfair PC as a new poker business model for those players.

Poker online is booming again, but the U.S players have to travel to regions thats allow it, ie: New Jersey/Nevada. Some went to Mexico for a couple of months to play on the GGPoker site for the WSOP. The Main Event smashed the $25 million guarantee for a $5k buyin.

Hmmm I can see where you are coming from but it's not the same as the PC is it. The PC is charged because the commission on profit does not reflect the turnover of stakes whereas the poker charge is on turnover.

Interested it's booming again, guess people need to do something in lockdown! I've never played online but I understand websites try to spot BOTs and ban the users … is that correct? If so wouldn't the way around it be to have a "side BOT" where you input the game as it happens and follow the BOT's instruction? I've heard that some BOTs try to simulate human play by varying the time to play their hand and even making the odd mistake on low stakes to show infallibility!

I see what you mean re-Betfair PC charge. It does impact the better/most profitable traders/players, if they want to do that and keep them, something similar wouldn't be a far stretch.

Yep, the poker sites are "trying" to combat the bots that infiltrate the sites. Some are very sophisticated and can be coded to change up "their" play to throw other players off the scent. The sites do have ways of detecting them, but seem to be a little way behind. Some sites limit the number of tables one user can play, other than let one multi table 24 at a time! (bots luv those)

The bit about manually inputting the data into a side-bots is probably where some are at for now. I've seen poker vlogs where the player have spreadsheet solver(s) that can help calculate likely ranges and probability. With practice, entering data, your hands, flop/turn/river, would be easy enough, then all you need to do is decide the range of their hand and act accordingly. (maybe with a recommendation by the spreadsheet/programme)

No Limit holdem hasn't yet been solved by computer..yet. (Limit holdem has) The push/shove charts for tournaments short-stacks (11-12 big blinds) has been mathematically proven, so over time, so will other big blind scenarios.

My view, is bring on the bots. I'm a tournament player, so there are many variations, predictable/unpredictable, that can be used at varying times during a game. I would go as far as allow a bot to play in a live tournament, would be fun.