-2

So as the title suggests, what if you could play cash games on this site but instead of using cash you use reputation.

I'm mainly suggesting NLH and PLO.

Pros:

  • Could encourage activity on the site to help it grow.
  • Gives additional weight to the reputation e.g. players with more reputation are arguably more skilled players, thus likely to have more experience to offer.
  • Could be a fun and interactive element that makes this StackExchange unique.

I would suggest 1/2 rep games with a minimum sit-down of 100. Also, you would need say 500 reputation to play at all.

It's probably a crazy idea with a lot of development work required, limited servers and limited players with 500 rep plus, but it certainly would be interesting!

Another point: I think it would be best if the game was not in real-time.

So in other words, you would post your decision (check, fold, raise) within 24 hours. This could encourage users to continue to browse the site, answering and editing posts, etc, and would limit the strain on servers greatly when compared to real-time.

It also encourages users to engage with the site potentially over months to get a large number of hands in. Finally it reduces the chance of players blowing their rep within a short period of time.

Buy-ins and Number of Tables:

When you "buy-in" to a game it would be like bounty where the reputation is locked in. When you cash out it would be added to what you currently have.

Also, to prevent people focusing too much on the site games, you could have a limit of one table per 500 rep.

1

Simply put, no. I don't see it as practical, or likely feasible.

  • It would be way too easy to cheat.
  • That's not what SE is for. A similar suggest has been made and shot down on Chess.se
  • The reputation system is in place for a reason. It should be earned through participation and knowledge sharing, not out-drawing or out-flopping another user.
  • Most poker players don't sit down with the intention of having to wait hours or days for their opponent to make a decision.
  • In what way would it be easy to cheat? I do agree with the middle two points. The last point is arguable because the game in mind wouldn't be a traditional poker game, and RPG's have been successful online that require long commitments. – user4555 Aug 15 '17 at 15:40
  • Cheating would likely occur the same way it does on regular poker sites. There are plenty of questions about it here and on various poker forums. Giving the players more time to think over their decision doesn't make it a non-traditional game. It would be like playing WoW, and having to wait hours or days, for a mage to decide which spell to cast, or a fighter to decide if, of which special attack to use, to use an RPG example. – Herb Wolfe Aug 15 '17 at 17:54
0

Everyone on SE could up vote this and SE is not going to do this.

SE is not going to get into the business of running a poker site.

SE is not going to undermine reputation.

A one day shot clock is terrible idea. A hand could take a month.

  • Ah I didn't think about the inter-connectivity of reputation between sites. – user4555 Aug 21 '17 at 12:33

You must log in to answer this question.