[uday]

I have enabled real money bridge on production for those of you that are willing to actually lose or win money .

- the money bridge admin screen inside MB allows you to deposit $ and look at account/hand history. When you deposit money, you receive slightly less than you deposited because of the cost of transfering money in via Credit Card/Paypal. You can send a check if you prefer (specify your username and that it is for money bridge) to

BBO
10550 Hope Mills Drive
Las Vegas, NV
USA 89135


- for now, email moneybridge@ for withdrawals and let us know how much to withdraw. What we'll do is refund your original CC if possible. If there is stuff left over, we'll send it to you via paypal or a check on a US bank (send us your address). I'll add a 'withdraw' option to the admin screen, and in a week or two this whole process will be automated.

- incomplete hands are "settled" as follows: the hand is played out (starting where it left off) by 4 robots using the same speed/skill settings as the original table. We might add human oversight to this at some point. A hand waiting for settlement locks up 2500 points in your account until it is settled. Settlement is automated and if it runs smoothly, a typical hand will be settled within a couple of minutes. Hand history will only show a final score for now. I will eventually create a real hand record from the robot actions.

- we'll keep an eye on all this. We're still in beta. if something goes awry with the settlement or anything else we'll correct it manually. That is, if a bug deposits 1,000,000 into your account, I probably won't let you keep it.

- Fees have been reduced to 5 points per hand, with a 2-cent minimum. This is taken from the winner and the loser. No fees for passouts.

- Uday and Gerardo won't be allowed to play Money Bridge except with people who understand that they're playing with people who could in theory cheat. I'd be happy to give it MB a whack with anyone who cares to try, and will trust me not to take advantage of my access to the system.



Uday

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Mar 10 2006, 01:02 PM, said:

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?)

Lol, now all you do is play with gibs!

[jdonn]

Oh there is no doubt I changed on this over time. Although part of it is that the gibs have hugely improved since then. And money bridge with all real players would still be way more fun.

Seriously I could probably count on both hands the amount of people who spend more time on the forums than I do, and I never find myself searching around several-year-old threads. And I thought I was weird...

[jdonn]

Btw I like your reply to that post of mine.

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

Hi Josh,

Welcome to the forums.

♥

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Feb 18 2010, 11:43 AM, said:

Oh there is no doubt I changed on this over time. Although part of it is that the gibs have hugely improved since then. And money bridge with all real players would still be way more fun.

Seriously I could probably count on both hands the amount of people who spend more time on the forums than I do, and I never find myself searching around several-year-old threads. And I thought I was weird...

Haha just kidding man, I was curious what your first forum post ever was and then I thought it was funny.

[hanp]

In 2006 cherdano did not double 4H with AKxxx, I wonder what he would do now.

[jdonn]

This was really my first post? Go me.

[cherdanno]

hanp, on Feb 18 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

In 2006 cherdano did not double 4H with AKxxx, I wonder what he would do now.

He still wouldn't double as his GIB partner would pull!