[eyhung]

Quote

I doubt Bob would be much interested in a game for less than 50 cents a point resulting in card fees of $50 to $100 per session. That seems reasonable.

But I can't imagine that clubs would charge as little as $1 or $2 per session to their players who play in the 1 cent games.

Even though I'm not a fan of directly applying poker rakes to bridge, I would like to point out that this is why brick & mortar poker rooms don't offer tables with blinds in the penny ranges, but online poker rooms can and do. For example, PokerStars
(http://www.pokerstars.com/rake.html) charges no rake for their microlimit tables because either the rake would be insignificant or the amount too expensive for players to win, while the cost incurred to them by these tables is negligible. A brick & mortar poker room simply can't afford to offer microlimit (under $1 blind) tables.

I think it is important to differentiate between a rake model that is fair for the game (rake / hand to give players a reasonable chance of beating the rake) and a rake model that is fair for the service providers (rake / hand to recoup their costs of hosting the service). I am thinking Justin was citing Bob's idea of a rake policy that is fair for the game, not necessarily fair for the service. Justin, can you clarify?

I also don't like the idea of charging people transaction fees for putting money in BBO. People are doing BBO a favor by letting BBO hold their money and earning interest on the float -- I do not think you want to disincentive them from doing so. If you want, you could impose a withdrawal fee to cover the costs of electronic transactions, but a deposit fee seems to me to be detrimental to the interests of both players and providers.

Eugene

[fred]

eyhung, on Mar 9 2006, 03:07 AM, said:

I also don't like the idea of charging people transaction fees for putting money in BBO. People are doing BBO a favor by letting BBO hold their money and earning interest on the float -- I do not think you want to disincentive them from doing so. If you want, you could impose a withdrawal fee to cover the costs of electronic transactions, but a deposit fee seems to me to be deterimental to the interests of both players and providers.

I don't like it much either, but it is not BBO that is charging these fees. It is PayPal (or whatever other companies we eventually use for this purpose). I would guess that increased competition from new PayPals and improved technology will eventually reduce these fees, but they are not going away any time soon.

In order for Money Bridge on BBO to be profitable, the money we take in has to be more than enough to cover the expenses. The transaction fees are an expense.

We can either charge the customer up front for these fees or make it transparent to him via a bigger rake. The numbers can be arranged so that, from a financial point of view, it makes no difference to the average customer in the long run.

But from a practical or psychological point of view it might make a difference. That is what I was wondering. So far it seems like most people favor the idea of building the expense of the transaction fees into the rake.

However we decide to handle this, of course we will do whatever we can to minimize transaction fees. This is clearly in the best interest of both our company and our customers.

Thanks to all the people who have made thoughtful posts on this subject.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2006, 11:38 PM, said:

Consider the following: If BBO generated its revenue by taking a percentage of the money that changed hands each deal, BBO would make more money if very good players were matched against very bad players. Conversely, BBO would do worse if two even matched players competed against one another. I'll note in passing that the BBO software also controls pairings: You have the power to determine which players compete against one another. I don't believe for a moment that BBO's management would take advantage of this power. With this said and done, I think that adopting flat table fees could potentially avoid some "conspiracy theories" down the road.

Taking a % of the winner's money on each deal would also make it advantageous for us to make GIB go for 1700 (for example) every few hands.

More generally, since GIB's behavior will have an impact on the average number of points win/lost per deal and since we have some control over GIB's behavior, there will likely be conspiracy theories in this area if we make our money by taking a % of the winnings.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[AceOfHeart]

Since BBO is a online bridge service, It has the flexibilty to come up with more innovative rake methods.

For example you can charge the rake to time( per sec billing). I.E every one sec in bbo cost like 0.1cents or less.

Or you can charge the rake to winnings(not %) but a flat fee like 1 cent per player for the 1 cent per pt games etc....Not alot but when there is signicant amount of tables the rake is quite hugh.

Or you can charge rake during withdrawals like 1 to 2% whenever a withdrawal is made.

Or just a monthly suscription fee for the money bridge and no rake at all.

Or a combination of the above methods

[Gerben42]

Wouldn't buying BBO $ work better than including Paypal in every hand? This is how online Poker rooms and offline casino's work also. You buy a number of chips. This is also to control people who are addicted but constantly losing but really can't afford it.

[Miron]

Slightly off-topic
Would it be possible to play for money in four players (no GIBs)?

[uday]

we can't allow 4-human games until someomne finds a way to make that game cheatproof (and that is unlikely to happen soon).


Paypal is not involved on every hand

1. player buys "money" using paypal or by writing a check
2. player plays several hands
3. player withdraws "money" or by us writing a check


Only step 1 and 3 involve credit cards, paypal or checks.

Maybe we did not make this clear earlier, but BB$ cannot be used in Moneybridge. Moneybridge is played with, for lack of a better word this early in the morning, money. You add money in the MoneyBridge area via a credit card. You play with money. you withdraw money.

Money can't be transfered. You can deposit it, play with it, withdraw it. You can't use it for tourneys or in the bridge store (altho if people care, we'll support the this later).
Money has nothing to do wth BB$, and is used only in the MoneyBridge area for now.

Hope that made sense. If not, will repost when the sun is higher.

[Echognome]

uday, on Mar 9 2006, 12:53 PM, said:

we can't allow 4-human games until someomne finds a way to make that game cheatproof (and that is unlikely to happen soon).

Having thought about this, I can only think of one way, and even that is not foolproof.

Cut for partners. You play 4 hands Chicago style against three randomly drawn partners. You may get lucky and drawn a friend whom you can IM/phone/etc with. But chances are that you will not draw a friend most of the time. Of course you would also not allow kibs in any money game.

I do like the current money bridge set up though and GIB is certainly as good as a random partner you'd cut for anyway.

[andych]

Echognome, on Mar 9 2006, 12:59 PM, said:

uday, on Mar 9 2006, 12:53 PM, said:

we can't allow 4-human games  until someomne finds a way to make that game cheatproof (and that is unlikely to happen soon).

Having thought about this, I can only think of one way, and even that is not foolproof.

Cut for partners. You play 4 hands Chicago style against three randomly drawn partners. You may get lucky and drawn a friend whom you can IM/phone/etc with. But chances are that you will not draw a friend most of the time. Of course you would also not allow kibs in any money game.

I do like the current money bridge set up though and GIB is certainly as good as a random partner you'd cut for anyway.

Agree. I would like to play with human beings (partner/opps) also in the Money Bridge Club. Players take their own risk.

Refer chapter 'Emperor of the 2 cents game' of Bob Hamman's 'At the Table', I would be most happy to see the LA Bridge Club back to life in BBO. There is also cutting of partners.

[uday]

The random blind partner setup is open to exploitation by a group working together. Every now and again ( frequency depends on size of field, size of this cheating syndicate) the syndicate will be in a position to hose its victims.

We explored variants of this on paper but we couldn't find anything satisfactory. sure, playing against 4 humans might be better. But some of the humans are going to cheat. It isnt going to work. It isnt enough to say 'buyer beware' when we know the innnocents will be abused.

Maybe down the road i'll let a third party run 4-human games, with this 3rd party dealing with all the inevitable issues in exchange for a fair share of the fees but for now I don't want anything to do w/this...maybe we'll come up with a sensible 4-human variant in the future but not now.

[Sigi_BC84]

fred, on Mar 8 2006, 11:46 PM, said:

We asked PayPal and they checked with the lawyers.

The lawyers said "bridge is a game of skill - this is not gambling - we can work with this company".

This is interesting because I know for sure that they don't service online poker sites. Now one can argue about which game involves more skill (Hold'em or Bridge) but in my eyes when dealing random hands and paying out the score in $$ and throwing GIB into the equation Bridge becomes quite comparable to poker (regarding the luck/skill ratio).

Well, good for you that PayPal's lawyers disagree.

--Sigi

P.S.: To the people knowing both games well: What do you think? Does Poker require more luck than Money Bridge?

[uday]

The discussion of legality and poker and what not probably belongs in the watercooler (Rain's new discussion area) or rgb, not here.

I only have this to say about the law for now;

"if playing for money is not legal where you live, don't do it on our site"

We'll sort out what is legal for us and what isnt w/our lawyers. This is one of the very few occasions where customer feedback is unlikely to have an impact on my plans.

We're hoping to roll the test over into production in a couple of days, perhaps as early as tomorrow. Still funny money, of course, and then we'll introduce the ability to add real $ soon after.

The tables now show running session totals, and each hand is followed by a breakdown of the score and fee. I have been tweaking the robot settings and I'm somewhat happier with them now.

[pigpenz]

Jlall, on Mar 9 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 9 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

fred, on Mar 8 2006, 11:46 PM, said:

We asked PayPal and they checked with the lawyers.

The lawyers said "bridge is a game of skill - this is not gambling - we can work with this company".

This is interesting because I know for sure that they don't service online poker sites. Now one can argue about which game involves more skill (Hold'em or Bridge) but in my eyes when dealing random hands and paying out the score in $$ and throwing GIB into the equation Bridge becomes quite comparable to poker (regarding the luck/skill ratio).

Well, good for you that PayPal's lawyers disagree.

--Sigi

P.S.: To the people knowing both games well: What do you think? Does Poker require more luck than Money Bridge?

US law seperates games of skill with games of chance. Poker is defined as a game of chance and thus is gambling while bridge is defined as a game of skill.

As for poker being defined as a game of chance, that is complete and utter nonsense. The mere fact that it has professionals and consistent winners should be enough to show this.

When discussing total points and say.. no limit hold em I would say total points has more short term luck.

In califonria its a game a skill so is legal

[jdonn]

uday, on Mar 9 2006, 09:49 AM, said:

The random blind partner  setup is open to exploitation by a group working together. Every now and again ( frequency depends on size of field, size of this cheating syndicate) the syndicate will be in a position to hose its victims.

We explored variants of this on paper but we couldn't find anything satisfactory. sure, playing against 4 humans might be better. But some of the humans are going to cheat. It isnt going to work.  It isnt enough to say 'buyer beware' when we know the innnocents will be abused.

Maybe down the road i'll let a third party run 4-human games, with this 3rd party dealing with all the inevitable issues in exchange for a fair share of the fees but for now I don't want anything to do w/this...maybe we'll come up with a sensible 4-human variant in the future but not now.

Personally, the only reason I would want to play money bridge on BBO would be to play with my friends and acquaintances. If BBO takes that ability away then there is no point, surely there are better things to do with one's money than put your faith in something as random as GIB. The fact that GIB's antics will even out in the long run is moot. Just like bad beats in poker, it is the individual dastardly things GIB does to a player that will weigh on the player's mind for all eternity, regardless of whether it ultimately evens out. Online bridge, even for money, should be a far more social setting than online poker; having GIBs thrust upon me would ruin the experience. If my three friends and I trust each other then that should be enough.

I don't understand your point of view, Uday. Why would a clear disclaimer that the players are playing at their own risk not be enough? Perhaps there are legal or liability issues involved that I don't understand, but it seems like if online poker could allow players to take the risk of cheating then online bridge could allow it. One would think that the money players are a slightly more sophisticated group than the open room players, so if they are willing to put their money on the line then they understand the risks involved (including that of cheaters) and don't need BBO to play mommy. Give the 'innocents' you refer to a little credit, they need not be as naive as you think. If they are worried about cheaters then they will only play in set games with people they know. If they are not worried about cheaters then that is their risk to take.

One of the money games I play in is held at a bridge club in Los Angeles next to their regular club game. Imagine a hypothetical situation: Instead of playing amongst ourselves, each of us in the money game has to partner a random player from the regular game, and they aren't playing for money but we are. Even if the randomness of all our partner's evens out in the long run, do you think any of us would want to keep playing? That is what forcing us to play with GIBs instead of people would do, and that's why unless I could play with only people at my own discretion I would hardly be interested in this service.

Two more quick comments. One is that despite what may be perceived as a harsh tone, I still love BBO and everything you guys have done with it. The other is that since it seems to have been discussed to death I won't add much to the rake discussion, except to say that ten cents a hand is outrageously high at penny a point, in my opinion. (Allowing a table of four people would allow the rake to be significantly lower as well, no?)

[mike777]

Funny enough in many areas having disclaimers is not enough. I have no idea what the law is in this area but I can see two concerns.
1) You still get sued and it takes money and time to defend yourself.
2) Is BBO required to be proactive to some extent to prevent cheating? If so how much?

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Mar 10 2006, 01:42 PM, said:

Hi Josh,

Welcome to the forums.

A few comments. There are two main reasons people might want to play money bridge on BBO

1) To make money.
2) As a social thing.

For group 1, this setup is great (aside from the high rake). I do not want to contend with cheaters cutting into my equity, and would not play money bridge on BBO with people I didn't know except in this kind of format. You call gibs random, but as pointed out earlier they are quite a bit better than the average players at a rubber bridge club. Their cardplay is generally good, and their bidding has a method to it. I won't go into details on that, but if you figure gib out you can bid reasonably intelligently, albeit primatively, with it.

For group 2, people like you this setup sucks. However, people who play socially have many options such as main bridge club, team games, tournaments, etc. They are not hung out to dry. I agree a feature to enable set up games of 4 people would be good for this type of player though and give them another option.

Your analogies seem flawed. Online poker does take the risk of cheaters, but the edge in cheating in poker as you know is much much less significant than in bridge. In bridge a group of cheaters working together simply kills the game. The point is not about the innocents being naive, it's about them being helpless against cheaters.

What up homeslice

The thing is, you are right about the two main reasons to play, but wrong to divide the players into distinct groups based on those two reasons. Many or most would play for both reasons. You say you don't want cheaters cutting into your equity, I say I don't want GIBs cutting into my equity. The skill level of GIB relative to players from the main bridge club is irrelevent. Who cares, I wouldn't have fun playing with most of those players for money either. It has nothing to do with randomness anyway, that refers to skill variance from bid to bid and card to card, not to skill level.

If BBO is really concerned about being sued, why couldn't players just sign a waiver stating that they understand the risks and agree not to sue, otherwise the option to play with four people would simply not be activated. They probably wouldn't play with strangers for money in any case, it would just give people the capability to have set games with those they trust. This is such a more desirable option that I just assumed it would be the case, and couldn't believe when I found out that playing with GIB was the only option. I think BBO will see, the money bridge will never become popular in that format.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Mar 10 2006, 11:41 PM, said:

They probably wouldn't play with strangers for money in any case, it would just give people the capability to have set games with those they trust.

Given the scenario you propose, what need is there for any involvement by BBO?

Just set up your own paypal accounts and use them to transfer money back and forth. (I assume that if you trust people not to cheat, you also trust them not to welch on a deal)