Not really a New Subject but still puzzled why games such as No Devil are allowed

[Tal Tuqiri]

Since LL pulled the plug on Zyngo some time ago, a new game of chance has taken it's place, "No Devil". The same elements are in this game, when truly it is akin to rolling the dice and not too different than Bingo. It is pure gambling when for example, on 1st spin, one might see the Spider 2x and 3x multipliers revealed. It's very possible you will still lose, and another example, one can nearly clear the board and sit like a monkey pressing next turn maybe 8 or 10 times and gaining no further score, losing the game, when even 1 tile clicked would net a win of the prize.

The 'Feels Bad' effect is often a result of playing this game; You may win or lose regardless of skill in playing due to the heavy element of chance. LL should revise their skill gaming policy and all such games should be banned. I want to disbelieve that chance plays a role, but my RL bank account disagrees lol

The heavily-weighted-by-casino owners/gamblers Lindex is a big chunk of LL's cash flow. It might be a while before they decide to shake things up and redo the skill game policy. It just seems they turn a blind eye when comes to psuedo-skill gaming, though even when Zyngo was revised to incorporate some real skill (Zyngo Wyld), it was canned by powers that be and even it's creator is left wondering why when quite similiar games were later allowed to thrive.

[Alwin Alcott]

If you really think it's that bad... report it to LL by a ticket or written letter.

Placing it here will perhaps give a nice discussion between residents, but thats about all whats going to happen.

[wherorangi]

when something feels bad then stop doing it

for sure can be a bit trite this advice but is no other way really

[Amethyst Jetaime]

All games are weighted to the house, or there wouldn't be anyone wanting to run casinos.  That's why IMO all gaming is foolish unless you don't have to pay anything. 

If this game is so horribly 'unfair' and is all chance no skill,why do you continue to play it? 

[SkillsFurrystorm]

Report it and wait for the wheels to turn. Using the Zyngo example, you can expect swift action around 2019.

They didn't choose the Talk To The Hand corporate logo for no reason.

[Callum Meriman]

Just stop playing rather than waiting for the Lab to help you stop?

 

Personal responsibility is a wonderful trait to develop.

[Ilithios Liebknecht]

I hear ya. LL's determination of what games of skill are could use some work. They ban poker (a definite game of skill) and yet allow No Devil and gambling Greedy machines which, while there is some skill invlolved, are primarily games of chance.

You just have to throw your hands up and accept it. And of course don't play them if you don't like it. I don't. If they'd allow poker back, though, I'd be all over that.

[wherorangi]

---

Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:

... LL's determination of what games of skill are could use some work. They ban poker (a definite game of skill) and yet allow No Devil and gambling Greedy machines which, while there is

some

skill invlolved, are primarily games of chance.

---

just on this part. LL dont determine what is, and what is not, a game of skill, hazard or chance

is also not quite true this about poker. Poker is a game of hazard. Combines skill and chance. Hazard is a legal term in this case. The more skilful players will win more over the long run, but they wont win everytime bc chance

games of hazard are specifically outlawed in most US jurisdictions. And by US federal law, the transfer of monies to play games of hazard online is specifically outlawed. The games are not outlawed, the transfer of monies is

also as well. With poker then there is US legal precedent already established. The US Justice Dept shut down the online poker rooms for US residents. Which kinda sucks for lots of US people, but has everything to do with the US Congress and nothing to do with companies like LL

 

+

how games like No Devil are able to be hosted in SL then need to read the ToS. Which specific says that whether a game is a game of skill, hazard or chance is a legal definition, and the host/promoter of a game must get their own legal opinion of their game

also the way judicial law works in the USA is the Chain of Trust which is a legal construct under the Proscriptive Principle of common law. Basically is Safe Harbour, a legal opinion obtained from a reputable lawyer can be acted on in good faith (trusted by all persons affected down the chain) until a actual Court orders otherwise

basically if anyone wanted to contest No Devil then they would need to challenge in a US Court, the legal opinion obtained by the owner of this game. A legal challenge that LL are not required to do to retain Safe Harbour for themselves, bc Chain of Trust

 

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

I don't understand addiction from a personal, experiential point of view, but I have seen how immune to reason and rational thought processes psychological addictions can be in others and how adept the profiteers are at exploiting this. I just want it all to stop. :matte-motes-sour:

Please don't give your money to them, even if you can afford it. They are harming people who can't.

[Ilithios Liebknecht]

I hadn't really looked into it that much since I'm not much of a gambler, but you convinced me to go look up the actual policy. It doesn't mention the legal distinctions you talked about, but I did happen to notice this part: It defines a skill game as one in which the "outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance."

That means that not one single "skill game" I have ever seen in SL is a skill game by the policy's own definition. Every single one of them is very much contingent upon chance.

What that tells me is that SL's skill gaming policy is completely meaningless. They say one thing and then arbitrarily allow whatever they feel like. If they stuck to their own rules, every "skill game" in SL would be gone.

I've never seen people in "skill gaming" regions putting money down on actual games of skill like chess or go.

[wherorangi]

on the legal opinion: Section III

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Second_Life_Skill_Game_Guidelines#REASONED_LEGAL_OPINIONS_MUST_ATTEST_TO_A_GAME.E2.80.99S_LEGALITY_IN_ALL_PERMITTED_JURISDICTIONS

+

about games like No Devil and similar

i never seen the scripts for this game, but for it to be ToS compliant (a game of skill) then it goes something like:

these games can be won without getting a bonus. Winning in this sense means you get your money back when you play skillfully, minus a fee for playing. Charging a fee to play a game of skill is not illegal

bonuses gained during gameplay are offered to draw people in, and have no bearing on whether a player can win the game

the total bonus pool available to players is typically equal to the total sum of money not returned to ("won") by the less skilful players

if all players were equally skilful then they would all get their money back, minus the playing fee

i think where the ToS (> Policy > Guidelines) could use work is that operators should be required to publish what the fee is that they charge people to play

+

eta: i just add something to think about

am not saying that the operators of No Devil actual do this. I just add it as something for people to be aware of when playing any kind of skill game

bc winining the game is not dependent on gaining a gameplay bonus, then a operator doesnt have to give all players a equal chance to obtain a bonus

+

eta more, for completeness

the design of games of skill are typically based on the "noughts and crosses" game principle. A skilful player who moves second will draw the game when a first move skilful player doesnt make a mistake. The first mover will win when the second mover makes a mistake

when neither player makes a mistake then is a draw everytime, and both players get their money back minus the operators fee

 

 

[Tal Tuqiri]

Just a last thought. I would be agreeable that the skill gaming poilcy be refined in more detail as to games of hazard, chance and skill. The games of chance exist because people play them. I'm not whining that I'm butt-hurt on losing some L's to games like No Devil, but rather that LL arbitrarily allows such and such while banning another similiar, without a clear defined policy.

I would applaud a Linden server dedicated to skill games so that scripts could actually have an AI that allows games as Chess, Checkers, Go, etc. Scripting limits don't allow 1000's lines of code, making even a simple but good chess engine like the open source, "Crafty" possible in SL.

Yes, I need to reign in my personal flaws that keep me trying the current games in SL, but I'm hoping a new or very defined policy makes big changes in SL gaming. Developers will be forced to be more creative if some walls are put up in the current line of  thinking.

[Ilithios Liebknecht]

Yes, I saw the legal opinion section, I just mean that the specific legal terms like "hazard" and whatnot are not in the document, but that's really unimportant anyway.

All that about fee + bonus sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. Even most modern slot machines can claim that. "Oh yeah it's not a gambling game... we just charge you a fee to play... and take money that we'll give back if you win... but you don't know how much the fee is... and also it gives bonuses sometimes... but yeah totally not a gambling game. It's a game of skill!" haha what a bunch of balogna. Sounds like the kind of nonsense a gambling company's PR people might put together to get around gambling laws. Wait, that's pretty much exactly what it is.

In any case, I don't really care if there is gambling in SL. I'm not against gambling; I just don't usually do it myself except poker sometimes. My point is that right now the gambling that exists in SL is all completely against LL's own gambling policy. Yeah they call it a "skill gaming" policy for legal reasons but it's a gambling policy, let's cut the crap.

 

II. SKILL GAMES MAY NOT BE CONTINGENT, IN WHOLE OR IN MATERIAL PART, UPON CHANCE

Regardless of anything else, those words are in the policy which makes No Devil and its ilk against the policy. No matter if they want to try to call it a fee plus bonuses and all kinds of other wordplay, it doesn't matter. It is still contingent on chance in material part. From the same section of the policy: "gambling occurs even if skill is the dominant factor, as long as chance is a material element." So it all doesn't matter how it's rationalized, every "skill game" in SL I have ever seen is against the "skill gaming" policy.

Like I said, I don't care if there is gambling or not, but the hypocrisy by LL is a little annoying.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:

They ban poker (a definite game of skill) [...]

---

No it's not. Imagine there is no betting - you just deal the cards and turn them over. The one with the best hand wins. There's no skill in that, and yet that's the game of poker - deal the cards and the best hand wins.

So you add betting to it to make it more interesting. Yes, there is a degree of skill involved in the betting, even if the skill is simply knowing that jack high is unlikely to win. But that's just a degree of skill. The game itself is wholly about the cards that are dealt - chance - to which is added betting. So poker is rightly described as being "contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance".

 

[Ilithios Liebknecht]

Oh you are certainly right that poker is contingent in material part upon chance and definitely does not fit the "skill gaming" policy. Of course neither does any other "skill game" in SL, but you are right that poker does not.

I was simply saying that poker is more, or at least as much, a game of skill as the "skill games" currently in SL, not that it fits within the scope of the current policy as written.

On a completely different note, you cannot take the betting out of poker. Betting IS the gameplay of poker, not just something to make it more interesting. The betting IS the game. That's why even free to play poker games contain fake betting because poker is not "just deal the cards and turn them over. The one with the best hand wins."

[wherorangi]

which part of "noughts and crosses" are you not understanding ?

[wherorangi]

i am just going add this here

+

i give you a proposition which is not a game of chance

we play "noughts and crosses" which also sometimes called tic-tac-toe

you pay $1 to play each game. If you dont beat me then I keep your $1. If you do beat me then I give you $100

and I will let you always have first move

[Ilithios Liebknecht]

That would be a bad bet for me to make since even a child figures out very quickly how to make every game a draw. :-)

Noughts and crosses, of course, does not have a chance component, so that game you outlined would actually fall within the definition of the "skill gaming" policy even though no one very bright would play it.

but yes I do understand and always have understood what you are saying. I'm simply pointing out that it is rhetorical tomfoolery when applied to the gambling games in SL. There is a fee to play the game, but as was pointed out by the originator of this thread, whether you win or lose is largely dependant on chance. Therefore, it is no better than a slot machine. I often laugh at the people who play those skill-based slot machines in casinos. You don't stand the chance to win any more because they are skill based. You just now have the ability to win less because you didn't play perfectly. Same thing here.

[Phil Deakins]

I know I'm being somewhat nitpicking here, but dealing the cards and the highest hand wins IS the game of poker. When it's played, another game is added - betting on who has the highest hand, which also includes bluffing. When played, the two together are called poker. In fact, it's understood that there's betting when you sit down to play poker. Nevertheless dealing the cards and highest hand wins is the actual game of poker.

Incidentally, that style of betting isn't unique to poker. It's done with other games too. So the betting isn't poker. Dealing/highest hand is.

[wherorangi]

---

Ilithios Liebknecht wrote:

That would be a bad bet for me to make since even a child figures out very quickly how to make every game a draw. :-)

Noughts and crosses, of course, does not have a chance component, so that game you outlined would actually fall within the definition of the "skill gaming" policy ...

---

yes correct

what everybody who plays skill games in SL (and everywhere else these skill games are offered) mostly only ever sees is the $100 for $1. Or $50 for $1, Or $500 for $1. Or $1000 for $1. Or $10,000 even. And sometimes the house player (a scripted bot), will give the contestant a  big number of $ for beating them, by letting the player beat them. With whole bunches of lesser numbers mixed in. Like $2, $3, $5, etc

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I know I'm being somewhat nitpicking here, but dealing the cards and the highest hand wins IS the game of poker. When it's played, another game is added - betting on who has the highest hand, which also includes bluffing. When played, the two together are called poker. In fact, it's understood that there's betting when you sit down to play poker. Nevertheless dealing the cards and highest hand wins is the

actual

game of poker.

Incidentally, that style of betting isn't unique to poker. It's done with other games too. So the betting isn't poker. Dealing/highest hand is.

---

Please show us an authoritative definition for the game of poker which doesn't include betting as a fundamental quality.

[Ilithios Liebknecht]

I can tell you have not played much poker if at all. I'm afraid you're incorrect here. The betting in poker is unique to poker, no other game has the same kind of betting, and if it did, that game would be a variant of poker.

If you think that "dealing the cards and the highest hand wins" is poker, you must think that a game in which two players turn over the top card of a deck and the person who turns over the highest card wins is a form of poker because that is an equivelant sort of game to the one you think poker is. If this game were changed slightly so that both people drew a card and then employed poker style betting with the ability to fold and so forth then this game would be poker. It is indeed entirely the unique poker-style betting that defines a game as being a game of poker. While poker also involves cards, a game that used, say, dice but utilized the poker betting style would still be much more a game of poker than some "game" in which you just deal out cards and compare them.

In fact, in a game of poker very few hands indeed ever get to the point where anyone shows their cards. Maybe 1 out of every 10 hands in a game with at least reasonably decent players, and often far fewer ever get shown down such that the values of the cards held mean anything at all. The game is entirely played through betting.

[Phil Deakins]

Brag, of various numbers of cards, bets like poker.

I did say I was somewhat nitpicking when I said that the highest hand wins is the game itself, which meant that it wasn't a serious thing, although that may not have been obvious. I also said that the deal, together with the betting, and then the highest hand left in wins is expected when you sit down to a game of poker. Nevertheless, the actual game is simply the deal and then the highest hand. It can be played without the betting. It would be a dull game, but it can be played that way.

I'm not being serious enough to get into a long discussion about it. It's just a very minor view of mine. I don't care if it's agreed with or not. It really doesn't matter. It's just the way I see it, that's all.

[Ilithios Liebknecht]

The betting in Brag is not the same as poker. It is somewhat similar though, unsurprisingly since Brag is considered by most to be an ancestor of poker. In fact, the only difference between Brag and Poker is the different betting style. If you were to play Brag with poker style betting, you would be playing poker.

I agree that it is certainly not a topic worth getting any more deeply invested in than the casual conversation we are having. I do find your view a bit confusing, though. Let's take the simple poker game I described before. The game is simply that each player at a table draws one card from a deck. Betting progresses around in poker fashion. This is clearly a game of poker, but what makes it a game of poker? By my view, it is a game of poker because it employs poker style betting. In your view it is a game of poker because... cards may be compared to determine a winner? I don't understand it.

By the way, the poker game I described without the betting is almost exactly the card game called War, the simplistic child's game in which cards are drawn and compared and the winner is the one with the highest card. If you believe that poker is still poker without betting, you must therefore believe that the card game War is poker, a conclusion very few would agree with.

[wherorangi]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Nevertheless, the actual game is simply the deal and then the highest hand. It can be played without the betting. It would be a dull game, but it can be played that way.

---

ii can be a whole lot of fun. Show poker

we play show poker at Xmas. Even the littlies can play. We call it the chocolate game. Can be heaps of people playing at the same time, like 20 or more sometimes

how we play is

1) Any number of people can play. When is not enough cards for everybody then add decks and shuffle as one. 5 of a kind is highest, and then normal poker ranks after that

2) Everybody has to put a chocolate in the middle

3) The cards are dealt face up to everyone. (which is how the littles can play, bc can show them how to play everything being face up)

4) Then each player can discard as many as they want and draw new cards

the fun is when dealing the new draw cards. bc the cards come face up

like everybody goes: dont give them that card. dont!!! dont !!!. and the person goes: give it !! give it!!! and they get it. and everybody goes: nooooo!!! and the person goes: yay woohoo!! I am gunna win all the chocolates

and then the next person gets dealt their draw cards and it starts all over again. gimmme it !! noooo! dont give it !! omg you gave it ! ahhh! nooo! u never gave it !!! i am going to just lie on the floor and die right now ok (:

rule 5)  this the best rule. You discard when is your turn to play. What you discard depends on what hand is already showing as the hand to beat

it gets pretty exciting the way we play. Table talk is totally encouraged. Like everybody is also giving plenty of advice about what cards each person should discard

is heaps of fun (: