Update on doubling cube poker:

pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main

Date: 11 Dec 2006 19:44:55
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Update on doubling cube poker:

My article on this poker variant is under final review by the licensing
and I.P./copyright people over at Wise Hand. Assuming they agree to the
terms (which will also allow all home games, charity, and non profit
events to use the variant rules freely, by the way!), the piece could
be up within a couple of days. Fun stuff.

Date: 11 Dec 2006 22:41:40
From: Joe Blow
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> My article on this poker variant is under final review by the licensing
> and I.P./copyright people over at Wise Hand. Assuming they agree to the
> terms (which will also allow all home games, charity, and non profit
> events to use the variant rules freely, by the way!), the piece could
> be up within a couple of days. Fun stuff.

People like you make me want to throw up.

Date: 12 Dec
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

On Dec 11 2006 9:44 PM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> My article on this poker variant is under final review by the licensing
> and I.P./copyright people over at Wise Hand. Assuming they agree to the
> terms (which will also allow all home games, charity, and non profit
> events to use the variant rules freely, by the way!), the piece could
> be up within a couple of days. Fun stuff.

If you think trying to extort some kind of licinsing fee out of people to play
poker is fun stuff then fuck you.

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:07:54
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

Bill Ricardi wrote:

> Don't bother answering that, I have no doubt that you'll find some
> bullshit way of thinking that your time is somehow of more value than
> anyone else's, and let that thought leak out of your slack jaw, dribble
> onto your keyboard, and pass onto the Internet like yesterday's tacos.
> Take your hypocritical trolling elsewhere.

Oh, hey folks, I'm also available to write angry speeches, cruel
roasts, rebuttal press releases, and political smear advertisements!
Please book well in advance, I need time to gather my venom.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:01:29
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

Joe Blow wrote:
> Bill Ricardi wrote:
> > My article on this poker variant is under final review by the licensing
> > and I.P./copyright people over at Wise Hand. Assuming they agree to the
> > terms (which will also allow all home games, charity, and non profit
> > events to use the variant rules freely, by the way!), the piece could
> > be up within a couple of days. Fun stuff.
>
> People like you make me want to throw up.

Yeah, people who make new games for the public to enjoy freely and
encourage charities to use those games at their events to raise money
for good causes. We're real callous fucks, us lot, for thinking that if
other people intend to make money off of our games, we should get paid.
We're real assholes for protecting our ideas from mass reproduction by
corporate giants who make billions of dollars a year.

Airsick bag is on your left.

Date: 11 Dec 2006 23:57:49
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

Gary Carson wrote:

> If you think trying to extort some kind of licinsing fee out of people to play
> poker is fun stuff then fuck you.

Um, no I'm not intending to charge a 'licinsing' fee, whatever the fuck
that is, Carson.

And what part of free and open use to individuals in home games, non
profits, and charity events did you not understand? The only people who
would be charged for it are people who would make money off of it.

If I create a game, do all the alpha and beta testing on it, and other
people go market it and make money off of it, I'm just supposed to
smile, fart and nod? I don't fucking think so. I'm more than happy to
let people use it for their own amusement. But if casinos start using
my ideas to fill their pockets, you're damned right I want my cut.

You're really a class act Carson, truly liberal with other people's
time and money! But you still shill your books as the Gospel according
to Gary, and you take your tithe! When are you planning to give back
all of the money you've made off of royalties for your intellectual
property to the readers who ultimately put that money in your pocket?

Don't bother answering that, I have no doubt that you'll find some
bullshit way of thinking that your time is somehow of more value than
anyone else's, and let that thought leak out of your slack jaw, dribble
onto your keyboard, and pass onto the Internet like yesterday's tacos.
Take your hypocritical trolling elsewhere.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 05:02:47
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> ...Trivial Pursuit didn't create trivia based games, the questions that
> are asked aren't in any way unique, but they created a certain package
> and format for their trivia game, and that's protected.

I don't want to be in this hatefest, but I'd like to mention that
Trivial Pursuit is an interesting case because they copied their
questions from quiz books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivial_pursuit

Look at the Columbo controversy.

Date: 12 Dec 11:44:51
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

On Dec 12 2006 1:57 AM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> Gary Carson wrote:
>
> > If you think trying to extort some kind of licinsing fee out of people to
> > play
> > poker is fun stuff then fuck you.
>
> Um, no I'm not intending to charge a 'licinsing' fee, whatever the fuck
> that is, Carson.
>
> And what part of free and open use to individuals in home games, non
> profits, and charity events did you not understand? The only people who
> would be charged for it are people who would make money off of it.
>
> If I create a game, do all the alpha and beta testing on it, and other
> people go market it and make money off of it, I'm just supposed to
> smile, fart and nod? I don't fucking think so. I'm more than happy to
> let people use it for their own amusement. But if casinos start using
> my ideas to fill their pockets, you're damned right I want my cut.
>
> You're really a class act Carson, truly liberal with other people's
> time and money! But you still shill your books as the Gospel according
> to Gary, and you take your tithe! When are you planning to give back
> all of the money you've made off of royalties for your intellectual
> property to the readers who ultimately put that money in your pocket?
>
> Don't bother answering that, I have no doubt that you'll find some
> bullshit way of thinking that your time is somehow of more value than
> anyone else's, and let that thought leak out of your slack jaw, dribble
> onto your keyboard, and pass onto the Internet like yesterday's tacos.
> Take your hypocritical trolling elsewhere.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and applogize, assuming you just
understand the meaning of the words you use.

You appear to be very confused about the difference between patent and
copyright. That seems very clear.

So maybe you don't understand the difference between a variant of poker and a
game which was inspired by poker.

So I apoligize, maybe you're not really slimey, maybe you're just stupid and
confused by language.

Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:37:41
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

Gary Carson wrote:

> The part that you made clear is the part where you're going to try to acquire IP
> rights to give you the rights to decide who can or can't play.

Try to acquire? I hate to break it to you, but if someone create a new
variant on an old concept, does research, simulations, runs live
testing on it, gathers opinions, revises the concept, and finally
publishes the results, they don't need to acquire anything. They have
the IP, they just have to choose whether or not to defend it.

> > If I create a game, do all the alpha and beta testing on it,
>
> You havn't created a fucking game, asshole.

Oh I "havn't"?

I didn't create poker based games, but I created the particular package
and rules set of this variant. Much like...

...Trivial Pursuit didn't create trivia based games, the questions that
are asked aren't in any way unique, but they created a certain package
and format for their trivia game, and that's protected. The makers of
Pivot Pool didn't create pool based games, just a swivel and plunger
for a pool table, but pivot pool is protected. Sit and Spin didn't
create merry-go-round based games, they just made them smaller, but Sit
and Spin is protected. And unlike any of the above, mine will be freely
available to the vast majority of the public.

Speaking and Sit and Spin, maybe you would like do so on any object
that's handy. Begone troll, the sun will soon be up!

Date: 12 Dec
From: Gary Carson
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:48:41
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

Gary Carson wrote:

> I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and applogize, assuming you just
> understand the meaning of the words you use.

Thank you for trying to 'applogize', assuming that was a real word.

> You appear to be very confused about the difference between patent and
> copyright. That seems very clear.

Of course, I never said anything about getting either a patent or a
copyright. I mentioned the 'I.P. / copyright people' because they
happen to be the same people who deal with both. I never specified
exactly WHAT was being done by them, did I? Nor do I plan to specify
what, because it's really none of anyone's business. Go back and read
what I said, and you'll find that people made random assumptions rather
than ask what was going on. Which is fine, because I'm not at liberty
to say.

> So I apoligize, maybe you're not really slimey, maybe you're just stupid and
> confused by language.

Thank you for 'apoligize'-ing because I might not really be 'slimey'.

Your argument about being confused by language would be a whole hell of
a lot more powerful if you took the time to SPELL CORRECTLY when
calling me stupid. At least learn to fucking spell check.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 21:02:07
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

Bronzedodger wrote:

> Does this mean you've come up with a card game, played with the normal
> 52-card deck, that you will allow home games to play at no cost, but if a
> casino wanted to run it, they'd have to pay a fee?

I don't work out details like that, nor do I have a legal team of my
own to enforce it if I did! All that crap is up to the people with the
purse strings. I just make sure that any money they make off of the
idea, directly or indirectly, I get my cut.

The real money is in the services end of creating a new game variant,
not the game itself. What I'm prepared to do on my end is education,
dealer training, marketing, writing, and event coverage involving the
new format. Casinos and professional organizations pay hundreds or
thousands of dollars a day for services such as these.

You need a unique set of skills in game theory, presentation, public
speaking, and media. You don't know if you'll be talking informally to
a bunch of dealers and pit bosses, or creating a high production value
DVD, or even presenting to a board of directors. And of course, the
money people would get their cut of my action for setting up the
contracts to do such things.

It's the same thing I do for poker and blackjack already, but I'm in a
unique position to be a paid expert on a variant that I create myself.
:) If it really takes off, pay will be higher, demand will be greater,
and the work will be more high profile than what I'm doing now. That's
reward enough for me.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 20:18:17
From: Bronzedodger
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

On Dec 11 2006 10:44 PM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> My article on this poker variant is under final review by the licensing
> and I.P./copyright people over at Wise Hand. Assuming they agree to the
> terms (which will also allow all home games, charity, and non profit
> events to use the variant rules freely, by the way!), the piece could
> be up within a couple of days. Fun stuff.

I have to ask:

Does this mean you've come up with a card game, played with the normal
52-card deck, that you will allow home games to play at no cost, but if a
casino wanted to run it, they'd have to pay a fee?

________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:41:21
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

mo_charles wrote:
> > My article on this poker variant is under final review by the licensing
> > and I.P./copyright people over at Wise Hand. Assuming they agree to the
> > terms (which will also allow all home games, charity, and non profit
> > events to use the variant rules freely, by the way!), the piece could
> > be up within a couple of days. Fun stuff.
>
> don't mind me. i'm just waiting for pokerchimp to show up and lick gary's
> nutsack clean.

Chimp is cool, she knows the difference between Gary being intelligent
and Gary off on a rant. I'm the first to admit that there are times
when Mr Carson makes a lot of sense. But then there's unreasonable
curmudgeon mode, which you just have to wait out.

Date: 12 Dec 2006 13:48:10
From: mo_charles
Subject: Re: Update on doubling cube poker:

> My article on this poker variant is under final review by the licensing
> and I.P./copyright people over at Wise Hand. Assuming they agree to the
> terms (which will also allow all home games, charity, and non profit
> events to use the variant rules freely, by the way!), the piece could
> be up within a couple of days. Fun stuff.

don't mind me. i'm just waiting for pokerchimp to show up and lick gary's
nutsack clean.

mo_charles

-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com