Topic: Texas Hold'em and Omaha/Omaha8 Poker Room - NL, Limit, Potlimit games - page 15. (Read 88128 times)

Please don't do this.  Just because a lot of online sites do this doesn't mean it's a good idea.  If you do this in live poker, you'll get a kick in the nuts if you do it too much.  Although this rule is supposedly designed to prevent collusion, it is very rare that it actually is.  However, a lot of nits like it since they get to see what people had.

This is bad for a variety of reasons.

First of all the rake is really high at pokerstars and fulltilt. they had complete control of the US market so people didnt really have a choice.,...but it was really bad...

micro, and low stakes cash was almost unbeatable.

also those two sites had points and vip programs or rakeback, which ended up giving up to 40% of the rake back to the players

Plus since its really buggy...just keep working on it..

It is your choice what to charge for rake, but people are voluntarily playing here...and they don't HAVE to..if u charge the rake too high they might stop....In my opinion just start off charging 1% in rake...WITH a cap...at like 100bb....so the most ur taking off a pot is 1bb....also the pot should be a minimum of around 5bb to qualify to be raked...and the pot should see the flop, no preflop only rake

If you follow these guidelines, I think it'd be fine to start charging rake immediately.

Yes I am correct. Open a play money pokerstars table, with limit betting. 200/400 limit holdem has 100/200 blinds. etc

Also I forgot one VERY important thing

You must implement all hands to be shown at showdown. At current time, sometimes only winning hand is shown. This is to prevent teamplay/collusion, people working together. All players on table should be able to see the losing hand, at least in the "dealer chat" window.

Probably his point is just to teach me or something like this. Bug was really stupid. Anyway, let me see coins on my address first. This email could come from anybody.

It would be great if there were boards to play with fake money only, perhaps use the Bitcoin test network :p

That's good to know... I wonder if he's trying to see if he can get traced somehow... Have a bunch of poker playing bitcoiners showing up at his house with guns.  ha.

Hehe. I was telling same "it's not real money" when I found someone took all bitcoins... =))

On the other note, someone contacted me via email as mikerka and said he decide to return money. So fingers crossed.. =)

yeah, you're telling me... I had my heart set on winning it all and buying a bus for my band... Sigh....  Well at least it wasn't "real" money.

-EP

wow.. that's close to $3k. real stuff!

Just FYI, I was playing with a couple of people at .50/1 no limit and there was close to 1000 BTC on the table... It was an exciting evening to say the least.  This guy named First took all my BTC!!! ;-)

-EP

5% with cap, not 5% from the whole pot. in November i had 3% rake without limit. it was annoying to some guys when they were playing with hundreds in stakes. =) Cap I believe should be somehow correlated with blinds size.

ewww 5%... Thats not much on small pots but damn that would be REALLY annoying!
start with 3%!

I personally play HU only and 7-game. There should definitely be HU only tables so people can focus on the game rather than worry about people joining in.

They have complicated enough rake structure tho.. i will probably try to implement it as 5% with some fixed cap for all table for now. Implementing rake per table will be too much for me right now =) But do not afraid - I have more important stuff to work on so this room will be rake-free for a while. But donations/tips are always welcomed! =)

I'd use the rake structure of pokerstars or fulltilt.

What is adequate size of rake?

Keeping in mind bugness and beta state of software.. =))

I wouldn't mind a rake - if it keeps you in business, go for it. Just not too big

Thanks for your input. I would like to hear what other members think about best combination of tables. This part is matter of messing with configuration files, so I can implement this fairly easy.

Also I never played anything beside hold'em, so I really do not know any details about other poker games (it just came with software and I left it as is). If there are bugs with it - please let me know. Probably it will make sense to push bug report to server software author.


Could someone else comment on this too? I do not have much experience in poker, but I always believe .01-.02 should refer to small and big blinds. Is this really incorrect? Any examples?

If you want to donate to project - you are free to do it. =)

As for information I posted here I got from google and another bitcoin forum member. If he wants me to disclose his nickname - I can do it. That's been said - this info do not identify exact physical person, so I do not believe bounty should be paid anyway =)

Hippich, first of all thanks a lot for this, really appreciate it.

Second, I have some suggestions, you need to adjust your tables really.

Here is what you should do.

Elminate all tables above 2-4 No Limit, for right now.

Eliminate all omaha and stud tables, for now. I played omaha and was only able to see 2 cards, normally you should be able to see all 4 of your cards, so thats bad.

Eliminate all FAST tables, people need more time for action since theres so many bugs right now.

Have
5 .01-.02 no limit tables
3 .02-.04 no limit
3 .05-.10 no limit
3 .10-.25 no limit
3 .25-.50 no limit
3 .50-1.00 no limit
1 1-2 no limit
1 2-4 no limit

Then have
5 .02-.04 limit tables
3 .05-.10 limit
3 .10-.20 limit
3 .25-.50 limit
3 .50-1.00 limit
1 1-2 limit
1 2-4 limit

This is a much better setup. As for table names, don't sweat it table names don't matter at all. Can just say microstakes 1, microstakes 2, highstakes 1, highstakes 2, etc or whatever you can think of.

Finally, you must fix the structure in limit tables. The problem is, the software makes the blinds 2x big as they should be. In .02-.04 limit for example, the blinds are .02 and .04, when they should be .01 and .02. This makes the opening raise size to .06, when it should be .04. Now, due to this fact you would have to have .005 and .01 blinds, if you want to keep the .01-.02, limit tables. This would be fine, and I would make 5 of those as well. Currently at the .01-.02 limit tables the blinds are .01 and .02, and the opening raise size is .03, when it should be .02, and blinds .01 and .01. That would actually work too, so either .005 and .01 blinds, or .01 and .01, if you can't do 3 decimal points.