I kinda feel like the Bitcoin supporters are like the Ron Paul supporters---very vocal, but pretty much a non-factor when the rubber hits the road. One guy chimes in on every comment roll saying, "You're a fool not to use Bitcoin." Probably that's a guy who has some money invested in Bitcoin.
I'm not saying that Bitcoin isn't a good idea, but from where I sit, it basically doesn't exist in the real world.
The other problem is that Bitcoin, being anonymous and all that, further complicates all of my tax obligations and such. I think it would turn me into at least 2x the government target that I already am.
]]>It should probably chime if some other game stakes appear on that screen, right? So you can wait for an opponent in the background, and at least be "woken up" if some other stakes appear.
]]>"4) I'd like to be able to see the list of games available to join while I am waiting for a player. I might be trying to start a game for higher stakes than someone else is comfortable with, but would be fine playing for the lower amount if I knew they were out there trying to start a game. I spent a lot of the day waiting for an opponent but having to periodically cancel so that I could confirm that there weren't other games waiting that I could be joining. Maybe this won't be as important when there are more people playing, but even then it would be nice to know what other stakes are available and to have some indication of how many other people want to play."
I didn't really see it touched upon but this is by far the biggest addition I would suggest so far. I'm not familar with poker or other gambling aspects other than "its fun" but it would be immensely helpful to see what other people are looking to play for. So far Ive had good luck with the 1-2 cent games and getting a bunch of play time but id love to see whos playing for what, incase i get the confidence to play a 5 or 10$ game, but dont want to sit around for hours because no one else is randomly searching for it.
]]>There used to be a "transfer money" option for withdrawing (where, for free, you could just pass money to another account). But I need to make sure that I'm not operating a "Money Service Business" (like PayPal) by accident. There are all sorts of regs that would suddenly apply.
I agree that it would be nice to be able to gift 50 cent accounts to friends. Hmm... Still, I can't get near the territory of sending "You've Got Money" emails. Granted, 50 cents can't be withdrawn on it's own. Maybe if it was limited to a certain amount or something.
The anonymity is partially to thwart money laundering (though it doesn't totally thwart intentional money passing, obviously), and also just to ensure that each new game is a fresh slate (you can't carry knowledge about a given opponent from past games, you can't intentionally pick on a weak player repeatedly, etc.) When you join a CM game, you could be playing against a first timer or against the best player in the world. There's no way to tell. Also, you all know how much I don't like xxxTheBosSxxx appearing in the aesthetic fabric of my games.
I'll look at fixing that Old Balance thing in v9.
Perhaps you could limit transfers to a low amount (50 cents to a dollar is more than enough for someone to play, could probably even go lower), but also instate some sort of time limit (few hours?) before another transfer can be made? I'm not sure if that's enough to avoid dealing with the added headache of legal regulations, but it would make it easy for new players to get in without too much commitment.
I'd like to mention that I love the anonymity, btw. I completely agree that player-determined user names would ruin the aesthetic. I think the current name generation that we use to check leaderboards is very cool, but having any sort of indicator in-game would degrade it.
]]>I agree that it would be nice to be able to gift 50 cent accounts to friends. Hmm... Still, I can't get near the territory of sending "You've Got Money" emails. Granted, 50 cents can't be withdrawn on it's own. Maybe if it was limited to a certain amount or something.
The anonymity is partially to thwart money laundering (though it doesn't totally thwart intentional money passing, obviously), and also just to ensure that each new game is a fresh slate (you can't carry knowledge about a given opponent from past games, you can't intentionally pick on a weak player repeatedly, etc.) When you join a CM game, you could be playing against a first timer or against the best player in the world. There's no way to tell. Also, you all know how much I don't like xxxTheBosSxxx appearing in the aesthetic fabric of my games.
I'll look at fixing that Old Balance thing in v9.
]]>Rohrer figures that, if they could, then one person on one side of the country could intentionally match-make with someone on the other, put a large amount of money on the line and then throw the game, essentially wiring money to their friend.
Actually, I had a question about this. What if I want to donate a small amount (say $1) to a friend (whether by email or codename)? Use case: friend doesn't have a debit/credit card or doesn't trust the game enough to pull out their debit card. Use case 2: Someone wants to give away 10 accounts with a $0.50 balance without all the money going to the credit card company. But both cases require being able to create an account without depositing money in it.
The only thing that really bothers me is that the "old balance" value is post-stakes. I'd rather see where I was before I joined the game at all, so I know if I came out on top.
Completely agreed.
]]>I'm sorry I throw out a lot of terms and ideas that are completely foreign to most people, usually I'm trying to get across a lot of information in a small paragraph and sometimes I forget that even relatively simple poker terms are nonsense to most people (it would never even have occurred to me, for example, to define 'stack'). If I ever start writing about Cordial Minuet strategy I'll make it a point to be very careful about what I say.
]]>Players can't choose who they play against, and they can't communicate with their opponents. Rohrer figures that, if they could, then one person on one side of the country could intentionally match-make with someone on the other, put a large amount of money on the line and then throw the game, essentially wiring money to their friend.
Isn't this completely negated by being able to specify stakes? Need to transfer $20,000? Set your stakes to $19,876.54. Worst case, a random wealthy third party joins and you lose $200 on the first coin. And even that seems pretty unlikely. I was wondering if creating a finite number of stake options or limiting to one significant digit would help, but I don't think it would. Perhaps what you have is enough to say you've at least made a good faith effort to prevent this kind of thing? I dunno.
I'm starting to pay close attention to what they give me on turn one, and just flat assuming they will make a similar choice next round on turn one.
Heh. One of the things I like doing is playing what I feel is a "newb" move on the first turn to both a) see if the other player is expecting it and b) trick my opponent into thinking that's my playstyle. Is there really such a thing as I newb move? With all the second guessing, I suppose not, but picking the column with 36 feels like it to me. There's definitely a reading aspect.
(Note: I didn't bother reading most of this thread as I couldn't understand much of it)
I really tried. Stack? Shove? I looked up some of these terms, but almost everything Asminthe is going over my head. I'm awful at poker. Every time I play is essentially a charity drive for my friends. I really appreciate how CM tells me exactly which possibilities exist. Thus I can focus on reading and betting, instead of spending all my mental effort doing probability calculations. Seems like that makes it a lot more beginner friendly. The game is a lot simpler than I expected after reading the Kotaku article.
I've found it pretty easy to find games today.
I think I waited close to 2 hours this morning on a game. Too satanic for Sunday morning I guess? I had a similar complaint during TCD testing, but it'll probably be a non-issue when the game opens up. Still, it'd be nice if the waiting screen had something else to it. A way to browse leaderboards? An option to doodle while I wait (appropriately themed to CM) or some creepy visualization?
I wish I had more helpful suggestions. The only thing that really bothers me is that the "old balance" value is post-stakes. I'd rather see where I was before I joined the game at all, so I know if I came out on top.
]]>I've actually been losing a ton of sleep over critical mass. That's the main issue on my mind right now. The game had 22 active players yesterday, but there were still almost never any games available. Even when I tried to play, I found myself waiting for many minutes to find an opponent.
I've found it pretty easy to find games today. I think I saw 3 open games at one point. This is probably due due to checking the users graph and turning up when it's active. And there seems to be a certain someone who's been hanging around all day. Plus even if there are no games open, it seems like some people (myself included) irrationally sometimes would rather wait for someone else to open a game rather than doing it themselves.
As for reading skill, I think that every game I played today was against the same person today. I could recognise them from their actions even before confirming by checking the scoreboard. They probably knew it was me too. Eventually I started to learn their strategies but before that I was losing quite consistently.
Although as I said I have little poker experience, opponent modelling seems far more interesting and important in this game than poker, because you get so much more information, especially on the first turn (whereas during the later ones you don't know what the opponent's choices were). This is wonderful, though it often feels like betting is still more important than selecting columns.
]]>So like, right now I'm assuming my skill is around a 2 or 3 on a 10 point scale. If I get up to around a 5 or 6 I'd probably be happy to give lessons aimed at bringing people who are around a 1 up to a 3.
]]>