It seems to me that the most reasonable policy is to keep higher
denom plays secret while being open on lower denom plays. It's just
my two cents, but here's my thinking:
1. Very few members can afford to take part in the higher denom
plays, so outing them adds very little benefit to the group as a
whole, anyway.
2. I think it would be naive to think that no casino personnel reads
this forum. I also think that it would be reasonable to expect that
strong plays in higher denoms are more often going to be mistakes
while strong plays in lower denoms have a better chance of falling
into the "loss-leader" category that people are using in their
arguments. I'm not saying that no lower denom plays are mistakes,
but I think it can safely be assumed that casinos are more likely to
put out a strong play intentionally in lower denoms as opposed to
higher. That being said, outing a higher denom play is more likely
to result in casino personnel being made aware of a mistake than
outing a lower denom play. I think that the group as a whole likes
casinos to make mistakes and wants those mistakes around. So if
outing a higher denom play serves very little good because few can
take part in it and results in making casinos aware of mistakes a
higher percentage of the time, I don't think it can be said to serve
the good of the group.
3. Using the argument that individually speaking, it is in our best
interest that everyone but us lose money isn't applicable to this
case. Regardless of whether this is true or not, if you are going to
run the group with that argument in mind, then we should immediately
remove all links to strategy and possibly dismantle the entire
group. I would say that the information in this group isn't serving
the goal of making "everyone else lose money," it is doing the
opposite. Wanting this group to exist as it is and wanting everyone
else but you to lose money are mutually exclusive.
4. It seems that everyone here that can afford the strong plays in
higher denoms are already of the mindset to keep them to themselves.
So anyone outing a higher denom play is likely someone who can't
afford it. If it serves the group little good to make this
information available, it really seems like the motivation for
someone to out a play that they can't take advantage of is nothing
more than "if I can't have it, no one should." I think we all can
agree that attitude is never beneficial to any group as a whole.
5. Also, for all the people arguing that we are better off seeing
what can survive in the open market:
If that is truly how you feel, then you should have no problem with
outing your own plays. If outing plays is as beneficial as you
propose (which I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with), then
there should be no reason that you would only want to out plays that
you aren't taking part in. From what I've read, it sounds like all
the people that are arguing for the free distribution of information
on plays have all been people who are playing the lower denoms. So
this fits perfectly with the idea of only outing lower denom plays.
More people can take advantage of them and they are more likely to be
there intentionally so will survive if casino personnel read about
it. If people are unwilling to out their own plays but are arguing
that the outing of plays is beneficial to the group, than I think
they have to question if that is genuinely how they feel or lip
service to justify their wanting to out plays they can't take a part
in. I think a good rule of thumb would be if you want to out plays,
just out the ones that you are taking advantage of. If you can't
bring yourself to do that, then you should strongly consider your
motivations in wanting to out other plays.
Of course now we have the problem of the subjective determination of
what qualifies as lower denom and what is higher. Maybe we as a
group can make that determination.
Of course, realistically this group will never agree on this matter
and even if such a policy were to go into effect, there would
invariably be those unhappy with it. I just think that using this
guideline we maximize group benefit and minimize individual
dissatisfaction. I really think this is the best compromise which
strikes the best balance. But then again, what the heck do I know?