Perplexed comments on Verifying Rationality via RationalPoker.com - Less Wrong

32 Post author: Louie 25 March 2011 04:32PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (154)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Perplexed 26 March 2011 06:23:39PM *  15 points [-]

Incidentally, this also presents a solution for those of us looking to earn money from anywhere with a flexible schedule that leaves time for outside interests.

Also, if you sign up for one of the online poker rooms like Full Tilt using our affiliate links, the residuals get donated to Less Wrong/Singularity Institute. That way, the more poker you play after you sign up, the more money you direct towards raising the sanity waterline and creating provably friendly artificial intelligence.

This all sounds great, but there is a nearly complete absence of numbers in this posting or at your site. Here are some estimates I came up with that may provide a more complete picture.

Suppose you sign up to play using one of their affiliate links, and then become very good at poker. Good enough to win (on average) $50/hr playing. If you play 20 hrs/week and 50 weeks/year, that gives you a comfortable $50K/year income (before taxes) and plenty of time for outside interests. So far, so good.

Next, I'm going to assume that you make that $50/hr by playing in 5 person games in which each of you bets about $2000 per hour. You win back a collection of pots totalling $2050 each hour - hence your $50 'earnings'. What happens to the other interested parties?

Well, the total 'action' is $10000 per hour. From this, the 'house' rakes its cut of 5% or 500 dollars. $100 of that is attributable to you, one of the five players at the table. Of that $100 gross revenue, the house is going to claim 'administrative expenses' of about $75, leaving $25 of net revenue. The affiliate's cut of that is 20% leaving a payment to the affiliate (SIAI) of $5/hr. That is about $5K/year toward raising waterlines and constructing FAI. Cool!

But what about the 4 less rational people sitting there at the virtual poker table with you ( the 'fish'). Since poker is a zero sum game, and you are winning $50, and the house is raking $500, that is $550, or $137.50 each / hr that the fish are losing. If they play poker as much as you, they are losing $137.5K/yr. Luckily for them, they are probably not irrational enough to keep doing this for long. Instead, for the sake of your own moral peace of mind, imagine that you have 40 victims, each playing poker against you for only 2 hrs/week. So each of your 40 victims loses only $13,750/yr. They can afford it. right?

So here is the bottom line. SIAI gets $5K. You get $50K, having spent 1000 hours that could have been spent actually creating something useful. The house rakes $500,000 of which they call $375,000 'administrative costs'. Of the $125,000 'net', $25K gets distributed to the affiliates - $5K to SIAI (who recruited you) and $20K to the less virtuous websites that recruited the 'fish'.

And the fish? Each of these 40 fools is soon separated from $13,750 of his or her money - an amount that will hurt (a lot) but which they can probably afford. Think of it as a semi-voluntary lesson in rationality.

Who knew that making the world a better place could be so ... exciting?

Comment author: [deleted] 26 March 2011 06:50:32PM 15 points [-]

Judging by this, it seems as though the best plan of all is to be the house.

Comment author: Aleksei_Riikonen 28 March 2011 04:59:59PM 2 points [-]

It is, but there's a lot of competition in that market, and major established players (i.e. very popular very good poker sites, that put a lot of money into R&D and all else required to stay on top).

Comment author: Gabriel 27 March 2011 01:54:57AM 7 points [-]

And what will change for the victims when our hypothetical player, moved by your analysis, selflessly decides to refrain from taking part in the game? Pretty much nothing. And now think of all the poor, confused consequentialists who got caught in your blast of moral indignation.

Comment author: Perplexed 27 March 2011 03:01:50AM 7 points [-]

... your blast of moral indignation.

Clearly, you have never seen me indignant.

Yes, there was a subtext in my analysis, but you missed it. It wasn't that our hypothetical player is immorally stealing from the innocent fish. It is that our would-be shark runs a very high risk of just becoming another fish himself.

Comment author: Aleksei_Riikonen 27 March 2011 03:43:34AM 1 point [-]

very good at poker. Good enough to win (on average) $50/hr playing.

I would call that good, but not very good. Many poker players make an order of magnitude more, and that's without being one of the very best.

Comment author: wedrifid 27 March 2011 03:54:14AM *  9 points [-]

I would call that good, but not very good. Many poker players make an order of magnitude more, and that's without being one of the very best.

Or, perhaps, they could be very good at poker but poor at the meta game of finding high stakes players who are stupid. A far more important task! Actual technical skills are far less important than putting yourself in the right positions at the right time.

Comment author: Cyan 27 March 2011 04:23:38AM *  9 points [-]

A far more important task!

This sounds emphatic, but I actually think you've underemphasized this point. So...

The key to making money at poker is to hunt fish ruthlessly. (via)