I like szew answer!!!

Stahp it.. This will be a game of skill where we bet real money, any system that doesn't result in the most skilled players winning the biggest amounts of money is bullshit.


I agree that keeping alot of players (and attracting new ones) in this "arena" is important, but what some ppl are suggesting is ridiculous.


That being said, I like the idea of playing games with odds like Richard describes:

About the only method I can think of is allowing for disparate wagering, much the same way professional sports matches are given odds to balance the betting. The stronger player has to put up a higher stake when facing a lesser opponent. For example, if I were to play Gnuff I would put up the standard $0.80 while he would have to put up $2.40 due to his superiority (effectively giving him 3-1 odds)

To be clear, I mean that this would be a nice feature to have if we are able to make customized personal challenges against eachother.

Edited 12/1/2014 22:52:36

@ Gnuff

I can't believe you are suggesting a way to limit better player to make money.
Ofc top player aren't going to play each others and isn't fair 2-1 3-1 4-1 etc based on the streak.
The fair thing is let the game be free of match making.

trust me my suggestions are to make it possible for good players to win more money not less.
Youll win a lot more money with a pool full of fish vs a pool with just you szwen and timinater swimming around. With rake all 3 of you will lose in the long run.


@ szeweningen

Yeah, cutting the discussion short, 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.

When there is fish vs shark debate the only thing to consider is the influx of new players. If there are enough players, quantity by itself will make it sustainable. Most players cannot perceive skill well enough to differentiate between good/great/top players, so I'd expect ego of newcomers feed them, at least for a while. If there are enough average players in the mix, even if they lose long-term (which is unavoidable for most players) they'll have enough wins to psychologically motivate themselves to play.

Im not sure which of the many ideas youre responding to, but my idea dpesnt have this hole. Lets say im at a poker site with my idea and you join as a noob. Our 1st game is 1-1 you would have no hidden edge against me.

If fizzer does nothing to hold on to the fish he has he'll need to spend millions of dollars in advertising to keep the fish count high. If he doesnt we'll end up in that scenario above where its just you gnuff and timinator swimming in the pool. This isnt poker remember where short term luck can last a long time. Warlight is more comparable to chess, how many successful money chess sites are there?

Edited 12/1/2014 23:06:08

Yeah, poker sights attract new fish by giving them free chips to start out. They also have the luck factor, so it is still possible to out draw a much better player. In WL setup, there is basically no chance of a noob not going broke very fast if matched against everyone else that still has chips.

I sympathize with the notion that it should just be best get the most without any formulas, but as we are saying, that is not sustainable unless Fizzer keeps giving handouts. If he's willing to give back a portion of his net every so often, then he can keep the system afloat without doing a matchup formula, odds, etc. The bad players will still lose their handout to the elite's. But without something, it will be the elite's simply losing chips to the house over time and no influx of new chips.

Edited 12/1/2014 23:09:15

@ Ruthless Bastard

Let's make a small calculation, let's count what should be the expected win rate for me long-term in order to be profitable. Since 0% is not profitable, 100% is profitable and the function of long-term profit is rising with win-rate, thus we have a break-even point. There is a 10% rake, so I'll need roughly 55% win rate without your system. Now, what happens with your system? Let x be my long term win rate, 0<x<1, P(x) is the probability of winning n-games in a row. For simplicity I'll use more round numbers of 1$ buy-in where 0.2 is the rake. Also for simplicity n-th game n to 1 odds (it'll work similar with any linear transformation)

First game I earn 1.8*x, so obviously I need 1.8*x>1, but that is not enough. What is my income on n-game streak?
P(n)*(1.8+2.7+...+(n+1)*0.9)-(n+1)-n(n+1)/2=x^(n)*0.9*((n+1)(n+2)/2-1)-(n+1)(n/2+1)

Oh wait, that's negative for any x for sufficiently large n? Yep, with your system there will come a point where 100% win rate is not profitable for me. How come? Easy, 10% rake exceeds my possible win. If you'd want to modify it there are options you could try, but overall all of them would make it practically impossible for anyone to make a profit... bar Fizzer of ourse :)

@ Sze

Thats wrong youre not going to play everyone to a loss. The turn over rate on these types of sites are huge. Players come and go at insane numbers. You could beat a player 10 in a row and never see them again. Most likely youll beat 100's of players 1-3 times in a row then never see them again. This is with a system that tries to hold onto fish, without this system there just wont be any fish.

Your odds are individual to every player. So if you beat me 10 in a row than play gnuff you and gnuff will be 1-1 when you get back to me youll be laying me some nice odds. if i quit because everyone is beating me youll never see me again and have 10 games profit off me.

Also the more fizzer makes the more he can give back or use on advertising to keep the fish pool high. There are a lot of poker players who dont make any money at the tables, but they profit because of rakeback, the site gives back some of their rake if they play at a high volume. Its an incentive system that works very well.

Edited 12/1/2014 23:52:43

@ Rutjless Bastard

Yes, that might be the case, however putting a system like that has an inherent huge risk, especially if in the beginning there are not that many players. the fact that I might not be paired up with someone I beat 10-0 is another way of saying I might be forced to put up 10$ and if I win I get 9,9 back, if I lose I get 0. I agree that odds might be ok as an additional features in challenges, however for an automated system I heavily doubt it'll work, especially for an early build. If we had millions playing already, it might be viable, but still, it's an awful lot of risk to take.



I guess your system might work if the odds would increase very slowly AND would have a cap. True, it's not the case I'll play everyone to a loss, but long-term I should account for that.

Edited 12/1/2014 23:53:49

@ szwe

If we play $1 a game and you win 10 games youre up $10 less 10 cents a game rake. so youre up $9 if you lose the 11th game you have to pay me $8 + the 10 cents rake. So after 11 games you only make $.90 However when you factor in all the players who quit before they beat you you could have some nice profits. (assuming we end up betting more than $1 a game)

we played 11 games so the house took $2.20 so we can calculate how much i lost going 1-10
house = $2.2
you = $.9
me = -$3.1

thats not that bad as a fish i might deposit more money and slowly lose all my money. Vs getting crushed saying F*** It and quitting for good.

EDIT
my bad my original odds were for 5% rake odds below are for 10% rake.
1-1
1.25-1
1.5-1
1.75-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
and so on

oh and if you change limits the odds are separate.
so if you win 10 in a row at $1 games you will give me 8-1 on our next match

if we didnt play any $1000 games and we played one while you held that streak at $1 you would give me 1-1 not 8-1. So i cant hustle you at $1 than rob you at $1000.


This may seem like a lot of trouble, but any fool proof system wont be easy. No system and warlight for money will be a ghost-town.

Edited 12/2/2014 00:15:37

i could use these wins for lunch money..jk. I cold buy chaos helicopters or gem for my Clash of Clans village!I have one minor suggestion: can the money be in the use of Apple cards or google play cards not Paypal..it is difficult with all of that paper work to be able to "pay" for stuff. Play music or book cards would be much appreciated.

Edited 12/2/2014 00:09:22

If we play $1 a game and you win 10 games youre up $10 less 10 cents a game rake. so youre up $9 if you lose

That is not correct, the rake is not 10 cents, it's 10%. If I have to put up 2$ against 1$, the rake goes up from 20 cents with 2 dollars to 30 cents for 3 dollars.

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.