Alice and Carol wish to play a hand of poker using mental poker protocols as defined by CC.
Alice opens a channel for the max amount of chips she wishes to use in the hand, timelocked to expire if carol simply disappears at some point.
This channel allows Alice to commit to putting “chips” in the pot by announcing spends of a fraction of the max amount of chips to Carol and the rest to herself.
Carol does the same for her chip stack.
Alice and Carol enter a contract by which the end result of a poker hand history decides which player gets what equity % of the total monies that ends up in the pot.
Each line of the hand history must be valid as defined by “Poker Rules”.
The suggestion here is that each player, when announcing their current decision, also validates the oppenents previous decision. In this it can be understood that all previous decisions are deemed acceptable by the next players’ subsequent decision. Then it is understood that only the last decision on the hand history and/or the next decision to be made can possibly be contestable.
“Poker Rules” then becomes a contract that evaluates the validity of the game flow to a point where equity is paid out to each player (from 0% to 100%).
Keeping in mind none of this is needed provided all players stay honest.
Reneging players force all live players to show their hands and equity is paid out based on the %’s and money in the pot. The suggestion is each player that is live is dropped to a lesser player pool with the possibility for external (third party!?) solutions as described here.