2p2 data breach/security exploit

And the portation is VERY mathematically sound it is a WLOG extension/based proof:

Without loss of generality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Without_lo...

We apply Nash's work to poker, as a specific use case, but in doing so, we don't eliminate the generality, mean then later OTHER similar network and system can use the poker example of how to implement the game theory in Ideal Money in THEIR networks.

A lot of people won't understand this point, but its higher level math point that I'm hoping someone here with high level math who is sincere reads.

These ideas are interesting . I dont know how to make those ideas applicable to poker games.

You should publish your ideas somewhere, or perhaps implement them yourself.
No one on 2p2 is stopping you from doing this.

Lol button. WLOG doesn't mean you apply a general proof to a specific case. It means you select one option out of a set of symmetrical options. If, for example, the problem is "find natural numbers a,b,c >0 such that a+b+c=5", we can start our working as "WLOG, assume a<=b<=c", find the solutions meeting those constraints, then permute them to provide an exhaustive list of cases. Basically, we find the solutions 1+1+3 and 1+2+2 and then permute them.

It is not a "higher level math point", it is something that is self-evident to anyone with a basic grasp of arithmetic, even if they don't know the formal name for it.

Oh, Okay Billy

For anyone who's keeping track, so far the man is the world's foremost expert on bitcoin, the best poker tournament player, a highly respected cyber security expert and of course, the world's greatest communicator.

If only he could get a grasp on what WLOG means, he would have revolutionised the whole poker and cryptocurrency space single handedly by now.

Really?

2p2 was a concerted effort to cheat the players out of a fair game and I have proof now.

How come no one here is interested in responsible disclosure for the players 😀

JoeyChicago was OBVIOUSLY a part of it. Which is why he's trying to get in between everything right now. Joey and his friends target players that can't manage their own bankrolls and they 'manage' them for them.

Joey was used by 2p2 to help sell to the players dnegs endorsement of the large scale 'scampaign' about more rake being good for the game. Thats how joey is front any centre nvg. Obviously if he DID give me a chance to make a counter argument at that time, 2p2 would have made him disappear etc (it would never happen.)

Button now giving a masterclass on how to make friends and influence people. Just call them scammers!

Dude, Joey showed up in this thread and patiently tried to make sense out of your incoherent ramblings for 2 days, which is a lot more than most people would do. The least you could do is say thank you. And you wonder why people think you're an ass/hole.

I think this is the Publisher's Note that you are referring to, July 2018:

Publisher’s Note

by Mason Malmuth

Last month, I wrote about how the current high rakes are affecting the poker games in a negative way. Well, there’s more to say on this subject. So, let’s look at poker tournaments.

When I first moved to Las Vegas in 1987, and before that when living in California, most tournaments, especially small buy-in ones, were sort of a loss leader for the cardroom. They were cheap, had small juice, got over quickly, and they left the players who were quickly knocked out of the tournament to play in the cash games, or at least that was the hope.

But today, things are different. Poker tournaments have become an entity of their own, and over the years have achieved tremendous growth, and this can easily be seen right now (as I write this) with all the players in town for the World Series of Poker. But they also come with a tremendous rake.

Most large tournaments seem to rake at least 4 percent for the entry fee, and sometimes much higher. So if the tournament is a $1,000 buy-in and there are 200 entries, we’re talking at least $8,000 coming out of the tournament. Of course, additional money is usually also held out to tip the staff, but for purposes of this note, I won’t distinguish that from the other money that comes out.

Here’s an example from this year’s WSOP. It’s Event #62, the $10,000 Razz Tournament in which $600 of the $10,000 entry fee, or 6 percent, was held out. Now there were 116 players in this tournament, and 116 tines $600 comes to $69,600. Fifth place paid $69,223, and when looking at it from this perspective, that sure seems like (to me anyway) a lot of money coming out of the tournament.

Instead, if we were to look at event #61, the Colossus Tournament, here $65 out of the $400 entry fee was taken out. That’s over 16 percent, and with 13,109 entries, that comes to $852,085. The winner of this tournament, since it’s still going on as I write this, will get $454,272. So the rake is close to double what the winner will get, and is only about $87,000 less than what the top three finishers get.

I think that’s all that needs to be said about this subject. You can be the judge as to whether the rake, at least in the two examples given, has gotten to high for there to be a long term healthy poker eco-system.

or it could be this one from July 2018:

Publisher’s Note

by Mason Malmuth

As I’m sure everyone knows, the World Series of Poker is currently going on in Las Vegas at The Rio Hotel and Casino, and the town is packed with poker players. This means that every poker room in town is full, and every type of poker game and poker tournament that you can think of, at all sorts of stakes, is available somewhere.

But there’s also a strange and somewhat comical billboard just outside The Rio and easily seen from Flamingo Rd that says “More Rake is Better .com, and of course all this is an attack on comments that Daniel Negreanu made. But from my perspective, there’s a whole lot more to this than what Negreanu said. Let me be specific.

In the early 1980s, when I lived in California, I began to play poker in the cardrooms of Gardena. My early game of choice was $3-$6 Jacks-or-Better to Open Draw Poker (stud and hold ’em were not yet legal in California) and to play in the games it cost me $0.50 every 30 minutes. While it’s true that the time charge in California for their high stakes games in the early 1980s was high, if you were a low stakes player it was quite reasonable to play. And most important, this low rake gave someone like me a chance to learn how to play and become a life-time poker player.

A few months ago, I took a short vacation and spent two nights in Laughlin, Nevada. I wasn’t there to play poker but did sit in a $1-$2 limit hold ’em game for a little over an hour at The Colorado Belle Casino. The rake was $5 which is just ridiculous. Yes, they had some promotions which gave some of the money back, but I couldn’t help but think that no one who starts playing in this game will have much of a chance, as I did over 30 years ago, to learn how to play and become a proficient at the game.

So this brings us back to “More rake is better.” It seems to me that virtually everyone involved in the running of cardrooms, and this includes many of the games on the Internet, must also think this way. Yes, by having the higher rake more money will be made today. But what about the future? It’s my opinion, that unless some of these rakes come down relative to the stakes, the number of poker games we’ll see in the future will be diminished. And while Las Vegas may still get packed with poker players during the WSOP, I doubt if the poker business will be good at other times in the year, and this goes for more places than just Las Vegas.

Dnegs is so narcissistic he can't not flaunt his inability to understand that any reasonable poker player KNOWS you don't call peoples hands in poker. That was over 10 years ago, people are starting to realize now. But my friends that watch TV don't understand my point.

Which mod here or which account here wants to argue in front of everyone that dnegs knows so much about poker that he can call peoples hands to win poker instead play ranges?

Someone quote this and say I'm making a hilarious accusation. No wonder Mason and dnegs don't get along.

Why was I banned for pointing out the campaign of more rake is better hurts the game mason? Why was Nash's work banned from your site?

Why can't the players talk about Ideal Poker?

Mason how much truth is there to what I'm saying?

How come I'm not allowed in the cheat expose threads.

And what about EFFECTIVE rake, when the players can't determine it but the SITES CAN.

Btw, PSA for anyone not paying much attention: this whole Ideal Poker thing is an essay or some other work called "Ideal Money" that button ripped off from John Nash, where he simply did a find and replace on several terms so that instead of referring to "money", the text referred to "poker" and "rake". He has then spent the best part of the last 10 years trying to imbue the resulting text with meaning and accusing anyone who won't listen (i.e. everyone) of being pro scamming, cheating, participating in industry-wide cover-ups, etc.

In my book Cardrooms: Everything Bad and How to Make Them Better; An Analysis of Those Areas Where Poker Rooms Need Improvement there's a chapter titled "Excessive Rake." I suggest you get a copy of the book and read it:

https://www.amazon.com/Cardrooms-Everyth...

But I think you should be able to deduce my answer from the title of that chapter.

By the way, when someone uses sarcasm such as in a statement "More rake is better," for the sarcasm to be good a small percentage of the people reading it need to take it literally.

Mason

When the UB scandal came out the idea was there was a sole person exploiting the players. I don't know this story well it all, its not my business. But I remember the vague notion of some people trying to suggest 'there is more to the story'.

My understanding is that UB had type of master account that could see all of the players hole cards. We can understand the justification for the existence of this. Its something that is there from the VERY BEGINING of a poker sites existence. Its a backdoor for the developers to debug their code.

In bitcoin land, in GOOD security design, what Nick Szabo explains, the paradigm is different:
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/library/tr...
[QUOTE=Szabo]TTP Minimizing Methodology

We now propose a security protocol design methodology whereby protocol(s) are designed to minimize these costs and risks of the TTPs. [/QUOTE]

All traditional casinos use trusted third parties as security SOLUTIONS, but our design sees trusted third parties as security HOLES.

You want to argue its fair to slightly mislead for the dramatic effect, while having an underlying intelligent point to make.

Mason 2p2 was a great co-conspirator in selling to the players that more rake is better for poker.

jbouton rambles along, Mason responds with an Amazon link to one of his books. Not sure if it's getting any more hilarious than that.

This thread is about the suppression of Nash's work, which is EXTREMELY high level game theory, and how 2p2 moderation actively worked with non-moderator accounts to suppress the significance of it and its relation to poker.

As well as how this all affected the integrity of poker.

Mason is trying to provide exonerative evidence. Not legally exonerative, but speaking to being a moral poker player. He wants to show he was moral, even tho 2p2 CLEARLY worked against the integrity of the game behind the scenes.

See when Josem proved to the players that NIO NIO was MATHETICALLY cheating, Josem also thus proved he UNDERSTOOD the concept of effective rake. He understands the power of the meta data that the players don't have access to.

Thats how I IMMEDETLY know that he can't be a TRUSTWORTHY security advisor for COINPOKER when coinpoker is making false security claims that Josem KNOWS are false.