• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


elon last won the day on April 14

elon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10 Good


About elon

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Questions & Answers

    Trophies are for the weekly team leaderboards.
  2. Feature requests

    Once you've pinned a thread, it's easy to forget about it. Several of the pinned threads are now obsolete, making people scroll around them for no reason.
  3. team-size

    A delay before sitting at a new table is a good idea, from a player perspective. I'm not sure how it would fit into the code. As a developer, you know that while anything can be programmed in, some solutions slide into the existing program flow elegantly while others generate spaghetti. From the behavior of the "Switch Table/Leave table" option, I'm guessing that there's a good place in the code to insert a delay easily. In the exisiting code, if you leave a table, then sit again within a short time (~15 secs), then try to switchtables, you only get the option to leave, not switch. If you wait, say, 30 seconds or more before re-sitting, you get both options -- so the game already has code to account for time away befoe re-sitting. A re-sit delay might also reduce play volume marginally, which the developers may not want (from Steam statistics I've seen, play volume is down from 6 and 12 months ago), but in defense of the idea, the reduction wouldn't affect most players much, and even table-jumpers wouldn't be affected much, because they'd learn that jumping tables was no longer a beneficialstrategy -- which is the desired result.
  4. team-size

    My team, at least would reather finish quickly, They modify thair play to get more team points (and a sure payoff) so they can return to playing with theirpreferred style. We do this, even though we have always finished the highest chest. I assume other teams that finish the challenge do the same. No one dislikes quick money. That's an interesting idea. It also requires additional coding that I would MUCH rathersee devoted to the "Wait for BB" option. It's be easier for the devs to simply increase the thresholds across the board. That's what the challenge has always been: "can you reach the fixed threshold?" Though programming hasn't ben my MAIN job for 35+ years (I later went to med school to become a physician, and am now retired), I've run websites for organizations, and programmed in settings from embedded systems to research applications to phone apps. I'm more an enthusiast than an expert, but every programmer knows this: each new bit of code is a headache and a potential disaster. Testing/QC is never a sure thing, and we HATE deploying unforeseen bugs. Nonprogrammers don't appreciate tha there are ALWAYS bugs

    click the box
  6. team-size

    If you increase the team size, the challenges would become easier than the developers meant them to be -- so they'd increase the thresholds. It would also increase the ability of the top players to band into fewer teams, for a better chance at trophies and faster challenge completion. I don't think anyone wants that, especially not smaller teams.
  7. Questions & Answers

    Any player can wear any hat they've ever earned. You select your hat from your Inventory. It doesn't signify anything other than your presonal taste. Most people prefer a fancy hat to impress everyone. I personally did the opposite for a long time. I won at least one hat above my level, as a team prize, early in my playing. I know people who lost their stack, but still wear the hats they won at their former higher level. Why not? Prior World Series of Poker champions wear their bracelets for life.

    It's a bit more work (which comes with thousands of angry players screaming over any errors, unforseen situations or sub-optimal choices), but I hope that, in time, the develpers will implement the choice to "wait for BB" or "pay BB and play immediately". I have suggested one approach to doing this with "relatively minimal" (not meaning to demean the effort/responsibility) impact on both game and code flow. It's not the only way, but I hoped it would help. Note that a player would encounter this same issue at ANY online cash poker game I have ever seen or heard of. Players who skip blinds had long been a fundamental issue to player satisfaction even 10-15 years ago, when I dabbled in playing Omaha High for cash. All O can say is that the cash sites invariably decided that the less onerous, fairer, solution was to allow one to wait until they would have paid the BB anyway. Either way, you pay the BB. The question is only: do you pay an EXTRA BB on your first round at a table? Note also that I said "player satisfaction", not necessarily "longterm profit to the blind-avoider OR others at the table". As far as I have been able to calculate, the edge of "skipping the blinds" is actually a razor-thin margin that rarely tips the balance in the larger game -- but I've seen GOOD players, here and in non-poker situations, become unprofitable because a bad run of luck/attitude pushed them into a spiral of "chasing every edge". A profitable player profits from playing more hands, an unprofitable player is unprofitable, period. That said: every expert book says that careful table selection is key to profitability, so forcing an immediate BB as soon as you sit down, sight unseen, is more onerous than it might seem. I urge every player to switch from an unfavorable table ASAP, even if it costs you a BB. You'll be better off in the long run -- but not as well off as you would be if you'd had the opportunity to wait/watch until the BB rolled around.
  9. A REMINDER: the button dealer rotation quirks on 5-seat HE tables, for which I began this thread in December, are still occurring. My impression is that it occurs less often now and in fewer situations, but I didn't collect detailed enough notes in Dec to back up that impression. My original request was that GoP just tell us how the rotation is SUPPOSED to work in GoP. You can make whatever rules you want -- but players are entitled to know the rules of play.

    There would be a fee if you were sending someone money (account to account), but there's no fee for buying "Goods and services". I do that all the time without a fee. In this case, you're buying a token, so no fee for you. GoP pays one, as the "merchant" in the transaction -- just like a merchant-customer transaction with credit cards.
  11. gliches

    Good, if you did that, you're at least in the right hands. I just didn't want you to miss out unnecessarily.
  12. gliches

    For your own sake, please contact the support email. The staff on this board don't handle that kind of thing.
  13. I propose a game, on this board, that explores your understanding of poker probability. To avoid any realistic possibility of cheating, I suggest that we code our answers as follows: string-hash (username + answer to 5 decimal places) in SHA-256. You don't need to understand hashes. Just use [url=https://www.fileformat.info/tool/hash.htm]this site[/url] for the hash. Feel free to use a calculator for your math. Type your username + 5-digit decimal answer (between 00000 and 99999, ignoring the decimal mark), in the "string hash" field. Click "hash",. Scroll down to SHA-256 Since my username is "elon", if my answer was 0.02565 or 2.565%. I'd round to .02561, type elon02561, hit "Hash", and post the SHA-256 string result (scroll down) (In this example, I'd post 10547353a6de9cea5769e592177a7c1e96f1017149d6fdff3e7c96bfa7b5ef06 ) No one can copy your answer. They have a different username, and SHA-256 is almost unguessable. But anyone can verify afterward that YOU had the correct answer. Here are two questions to get you started: (In English, the suits are hearts, diamonds, clubs, spades) 1) In Texas Hold 'em (the usual poker on GoP): You have Ah Ad. Another player has Kc Jc. The flop is As Ac 4d (first three board cards). What is your probability of losing, if you opponent plays to the end? 2) Same hand: the Turn (fourth board card) is Qc. What is your probability of losing, if you opponent plays to the end?

    The Spring Calendar began 45 minutes ago. Today's goal was 5 hands. None of my hands in the last 45 mins in Poker Resort was counted. It still says I'm 0/5 for the day.
  15. When can we play big win again?

    Limiting or eliminating rebuys would have several serious effects. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but it would require making other simultaneous changes to make it workable Limiting rebuys would slash the pot size and probably the # of top seats "paid off" under the current structure. It's not uncommon for players to 'splash' 5-10 rebuys hoping to get lucky quick double-ups to a "playable" stack. Jackpot size is a major limitation for "zero sum" tournaments in all venues. GoP3 currently "sweetens the pot" modestly by adding some gold coins for the very top winners. There are other ways to sweeten the pot": for example. higher winners may get automatic buyins to a higher level Big Win or a special, seasonal, or Las Vegas Tournament. This offers allure beyond the chip value of the buy-in because it offers a chance to see if you can win tournaments that would other wise remain above your bankroll for months or years -- or ever. Many tournament players harbor a secret fantasy that they could be "the next Chris Moneymaker", if they only got the chance to rise out of the style of play at lower stakes. (Moneymaker won a seat at the 2003 World Series of Poker via a $86 online satellite tournament. Though this WSOP was his first live poker tournament, he went on to win the Main Event for $2.5M). As the adage goes "all you need is a chip and a chair". As a pragmatic matter, most buy-in winners would likely wash out quickly, without affecting the highstakes tournament or GoP's bottom line -- but they'd get the excitement of a shot at the big time. If we limit rebuys (which may be a good idea to limit cheating) an important goal would be to maintain interest in the Big Win tournaments, despite lower (real) chip jackpots that transfer into the larger GoP economy. This is an advantage of winning a high-stake buyin over a Megaspin: buy-ins are effectively just free tournament chips, not "real" chips. They "cost" GoP nothing under their business model, because they have no value outside the (higher) tournament, and vanish at the end of that tournament. Another side effect of limiting or eliminating rebuys would be shorter tournaments. People would wash out faster, and be shut out for the duration of the tournament. This can be remedied by scheduling more tournaments -- but scheduling may not be the answer. There's no way to predict early washouts or drawn-out battles, and no one wants to sit around with a big stack waiting for more players to show up. A better solution may be to play the tournament out to the end (vs terminating it at a specific time) and starting a new tournament when a certain number of players have bought in (e.g. 50). Instead of a countdown clock, you'd have a "seats remaining" countdown before tournament start. Players could still join after the tournament begins and seats open up. I'm not sure this is compatible with awarding free seats to higher tournaments. Maybe you'd limit that prize option to pre-announced tournments/times. Limiting rebuys also means it'll be harder to keep tables nearly full. Normal tournaments address this by reducing the number of tables as the tournament progresses. Even so, normal tournaments have a different life cycle than Big Wins. One plays a different strategy at the early, mid and late stages. This changes the character of the game, but normal tournaments are quite popular, so this may not be a problem. GoP has a much larger active player pool now than when Big Wins began. The change might even ignite new interest. The current tabling algorithm (deciding when to break/merge tables, where to seat new players, etc.) needs work. You don't want to automatically re-seat players too often or too disruptively -- or dump new players at empty tables hoping those tables will grow. While good heads-up play is important at the final stages of a normal tournament, most tournament players aren't short-table specialists and don't like be dumped into a forced heads-up; they will leave a severely short-handed table, which only complicates this further. This is not an insurmountable issue. The convenience of coming and going as one pleases is a nice feature of a Big Win over a normal tournament, and should be kept. A lot of players only play in spare minutes, and shouldn't be expected to devote hours at a stretch.