CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

Lol. In the past day I have dropped from 306 to 224. Doorman has beat me the last three games we played (and apparently the last two against Nate too). This game is rough.

There's quite a bit of discussion in this thread.

^^Yea, I know! Congrats.

Nice climb!

I'm having flashbacks of The Castle Doctrine.

Mr. Price, what are you doing here? Why are you carrying 79 saws? Don't talk that way to my wife, Mr. Price!

At least in this game you can't take my money while I'm asleep.

Very cool to see this out there. Probably the closest to a Disney ending that you can expect to see on a story about gambling.

I feel a little silly though thinking the whole week that I was going to be in the story. Oh well.

Check out the active users! This game is blowing up. What a time to have a tournament, huh?

I think the crux of it here is that the game isn't "subject to chance" just because someone could theoretically base their actions on chance. Subject to chance means elements of the game that aren't controlled by the players have nondeterministic outcomes.

http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles … -skill.htm

Sure. First, I'm going under the assumption that certain board variations are inherently advantageous (the whole point of this thread).

If that's the case, then the person that gets the advantageous rotation has an advantage. They'll also get to see the 90 degree rotation, but only if they stick around for it. Instead they could use the advantageous rotation to their advantage by using it to maximize their profit or simply force a fold and then leave.

The solution is to set aside the first and second round antes ahead of time. That way if you get the disadvantageous rotation, you can simply fold. The other player is obligated to either play out the second round or sacrifice the second round ante if they leave in the first OR second round.

Now, no one can claim they got the bad luck of the rotation order favoring their opponent. With this in place, I don't see any hint of randomness at all.

Very nice, Nate! If you do the math, that's like the rake from 10s of thousands of dollars trading hands.

That makes me wonder about economics of CM as a product. To provide a decent annual return, people would collectively have to be gambling millions of dollars per year.

.., you can check out early numbers of The Castle Doctrine here.

I'm not booing you or anything. Just rooting for Doorman at this point. He's the underdog, right?

What a hustler!

Based on Jason's latest post above, it sounds like he's dropping the Elo thing during the tournament in place of profit. I imagine there'll be a realtime leaderboard either way, since there was one last time.

AnoHito (I'll stop call you that ), you're saying a lot of true things definitely. Conservative play is favored. Correct play usually involves a lot of folding. Bluffing on the first round is indeed easily exploitable .... as you can see on the leaderboards.

I certainly don't like the idea of super short games, but you might be right that everyone is happy if it's a configurable option.

The big question is: will new players really understand the significance of the chip count? Do they currently understand the implications of the chip count? I'm not even sure I do. If the UI gets chip counts added to it (next to stakes presumably), I bet that's going to be at least a little confusing. And it also goes back to your claim that new players are actually leaving because of the chip count issue? I'm skeptical on that one. Regardless, that's an empirical claim that Jason could investigate (i.e. are droves of players withdrawing their moneys?).

[Off topic but something that is bugging me a lot. A game is what occurs before one player leaves. A round is what culminates in a fold or final scores. A ______ consists of one bet and up to one column pick. What word should I be using because round is confusing me.]

I concur, this sounds great. There's probably more worst case scenarios one could dream up, but at some point you just need to test it out.