Unfair Advantage

[SirShortStack]

from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com)


2 entries found for unfair.
un·fair Audio pronunciation of "unfair" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-fâr)
adj. un·fair·er, un·fair·est

1. Not just or evenhanded; biased: an unfair call by an umpire.
2. Contrary to laws or conventions, especially in commerce; unethical: unfair trading.

un·fairly adv.
un·fairness n.

[unfair

adj 1: showing favoritism [syn: partial] [ant: impartial] 2: not fair; marked by injustice or partiality or deception; "used unfair methods"; "it was an unfair trial"; "took an unfair advantage" [syn: unjust] [ant: fair]



entries found for advantage.
ad·van·tage Audio pronunciation of "advantage" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-vntj)
n.

1. A beneficial factor or combination of factors.
2. Benefit or profit; gain: It is to your advantage to invest wisely.
3. A relatively favorable position; superiority of means: A better education gave us the advantage.
4. Sports.
1. The first point scored in tennis after deuce.
2. The resulting score.


tr.v. ad·van·taged, ad·van·tag·ing, ad·van·tag·es

To afford profit or gain to; benefit.


Idioms:
take advantage of

1. To put to good use; avail oneself of: take advantage of all educational opportunities.
2. To profit selfishly by; exploit: took advantage of the customer.

to advantage

To good effect; favorably: The roses were displayed to advantage in a blue vase.

[gasoltub]

from urban dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whambulance)

1. whambulance
The imaginary rescue vehicle that will rescue you from someone's incessant whining over a trivial matter. Used mockingly, but in good humor.
"Somebody call the whambulance, Stacy broke a nail."

2. Whambulance
Something you call when someone is being a bitch and wont stop crying like a [censored].
"Stop bitching or I'll call the whambulance."

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
"Stop bitching or I'll call the whambulance."

[/ QUOTE ]I agree with the tone of your post, but I'd rather have one thread here than bunches of little whines thrown through the rest of the threads on this forum. Seems like most of ShortStack's posts should be moved here...
-Sam

[SirShortStack]

This is amazing! I wonder why I am even going to waste my time responding to this.

A thread is started. It is hijacked. I initally comment on the hijacked portion of the thread. After that all my posts were one of three things. I answered questions about my comments. I attempted to clear up misunderstandings about my comments. I attempted to clear up mis-representations about my comments.

Now one of you lables me as whinning and bitching and the other one agrees with the tone of the post.

Since I am the new guy and *perceived* to have a minority view of the topic at hand, it is o.k. for you guys who are accepted in the group to insult me, call me names, put me down and ridicule me. It is alright for any old timer to the forum to say anything that they wish, any way that they desire. That is cool. That is funny. That is acceptable.

But if I answer questions, attempt to clear up misunderstandings or mis-representations then I am whinning or bitching. Juvenile gang theory at its best.

During my discussion with APerfect10 the issue of an acceptable definition of unfair advantage came up. I start a new thread, without any comments. Just a dictionary usage of the words unfair and advantage. The results are juvenile remarks from you two.

Please explain to me why you feel so compelled to comment on something when you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. Does it make you feel like a real man to insult the new people to the forum? Sam does it increase your social status at Two plus Two to ridicule folks? To put them down for not using the search system and whatever else they do that displeases you?

Well I hope you two feel better now. You made fun of the new kid on the block. Maybe the others will now respect you two more than before. If not you can always give each other high fives and laugh about it.

To anyone who is upset with me for making a comment, answering questions and attempting to clear some things up, please forgive me for thinking it was o.k. to post on a public forum.

I now know that I need not speak if it might be *perceived* as going against the view point of the gang.

What a joke!

[SamIAm]

Goodness gracious, settle down. I said I was happy to have a thread on the topic (instead of continuing a hijack). Then I said most of your posts fit this category. It seemed a fair statement. 7/8 of your posts are about the unfair advantage stuff.

I didn't call you names and I didn't make fun of you. The two sides of this debate are "It's important to discuss the unfair advantage software tools give educated players" and "No it's not". I'm just in the second camp. /images/graemlins/smile.gif[ QUOTE ]
What a joke!

[/ QUOTE ]This was the truest part of your post. It's a joke. Lighten-up.
-Sam

P.S. I can't figure out why gasoltub made a casual, light-hearted reference to you whining. Maybe he was talking about somebody else.[ QUOTE ]
you guys who are accepted in the group to insult me, call me names, put me down and ridicule me

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
Well I hope you two feel better now. You made fun of the new kid on the block.

[/ QUOTE ]

[OrianasDaad]

Good poker, by definition, is taking advantage of other people's mistakes. I would wager that any of the top 2+2 books make more of an impact on a players' game than any peice of software. I'm talking primarily about ToP, SSHE, PoP, HoH and HEPFAP. Mabye we should stop reading those books since they constitute an unfair advantage.

The use of a HUD facilitates multi-tabling. Most people use VPIP, PFR and total AGG primarily. The reads they get based on these stats are reads they could easily make at a B&M casino (where a HUD isn't possible) or single-tabling online without a HUD.

You have to establish, first of all, that people using HUD's are actually making more money than those who aren't. From a $/hr standpoint, they likely are, but from a BB/100 standpoint, they probably aren't. By and large, multi-tabling players are not playing even close to perfect poker. In fact, some of my winrate comes directly from multi-tabling tight-passive players. How? I have played so many hands against these players that I can build fairly detailed profiles of their play during offline study. You'd be surprised how many fundamental mistakes these multi-tablers make.

Furthermore, just knowing someone's "stats" won't allow you to play better against them unless you have acquired the knowledge and experience to recognize and take advantage of their mistakes.

In summary: Gaining a poker education is more important and more effective than any software tool. Many players who use a software tool still make routine and exploitable mistakes. The poker sites like multi-tablers, so it isn't going anywhere anyway.

Lastly, I've seen poker described as a "ruthless meritocracy", which isn't, by definition, fair.

[OrianasDaad]

I just picked up this discussion in an older thread.

[ QUOTE ]
It is very hard for me to believe that you can not see a difference between the following two situations. Situation one I read Super System, Pot Limit and No Limit Poker, Improrve Your Poker, Geting Started in Holdem, Harrington on Holdem vol one, The Therory of Poker and the three forums mentioned, then go online and multitable the $25 tables on Party Poker based strictly on what I learned from those books and those forums.

Situation two. I read the same books and forums, and use the previously mentioned tools to help me use what I learned from reading those books to multitable the $25 tables on Party Poker.

I know you can clearly see the difference and realize that a person in situation two has a very big advantage over the person in situation one. The only thing left to discuss is does this advantage equal being unfair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not much argument there. It is both logical and consistent. I think situation two primarily applies to multi-tabling, however.

My argument is that situation one provides a larger advantage than situation two. The tools without the books is far less than the books without the tools.

Plus, what type of advantage gain would there be for a single-tabler in these situations? The difference between situation one and two are even less different in this situation. This suggests that the HUD's and other tools primarily facilitate multi-table play, rather than confer any concrete advantage in base play.

Rather than use the word "unfair", which I personally detest and despise, because it connotates a "deservedness" that is not a factor.

Lastly, "protecting your hand" (from the other thread) is something that, regardless of what happens, you are happy when it does. If your opponent calls, then they are making -EV moves, and you are happy. If they fold, correctly, then you win the pot. Making the a statement complaining about not being able to protect your hand suggests that you have some more to learn. I know it's true...

... my HUD told me.

[gasoltub]

My sincerest apologies, if all you wanted was a discussion whether it is unfair or not. I belong to the "it's an advantage, but not unfair advantage" camp.

All I saw was a post with nothing in it but a citation of the definition of unfair advantage, and in this forum it's very likely that such a post is nothing but whining. I guess I should have added a smiley to my post because it wasn't really meant to be taken as an insult.
My first reaction to your post was to find a reference in urban dictionary to "what's your point?" but I couldn't find any and then I thought about the whambulance and just couldn't help myself /images/graemlins/wink.gif

anyway, welcome to the forums.

cheers
gasoltub

[SirShortStack]

OrianasDaad you stated {"Not much argument there. It is both logical and consistent. I think situation two primarily applies to multi-tabling, however.

My argument is that situation one provides a larger advantage than situation two. The tools without the books is far less than the books without the tools."}


I agree with your view point. The dicussion about the tools is clearly pointed at multitabling and that is why I specified that *both* situations applied to multitabling.

I agree that playing one table at a time it is much easier to take accurate notes and know what a players bet, raies ect... mean.

Your statement about my protecting my hand statement is in-accurate. I stated that I started playing No Limit because I was lied to. I was told that you could protect your hand in No Limit with big bets and people would not suck out on you. I quit playing Limit Holdem based on that statement. At the limits I have played ($200 buyins and below) that is not a true statement.

I have absolutely no problem with a person calling my pot sized bet with their gut shot draw. At the time I switched from Limit to No Limit I was very frustrated with getting drawn out on. I now understand it is a seven card game, not a two or five card game. As result I no longer consider it being drawn out on. It is just the result of statistical fluctuation.

[SirShortStack]

gasoltub

Thank you for explaining your actions.

I now realize that I should not have posted without any comments. I have been reading forums long enough to know better than that.

I apologize for starting this confusion. Please forgive me.

[SirShortStack]

Sam

He made the remarks before the ones you referenced were written.

Please forgive me for being too serious concerning this topic.

[SirShortStack]

One last thing from me concerning this topic.

You all will notice that not once did I say that the software gave any one *AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE*.

I actually have mix feelings on this topic which is why I like discussing it. I just wanted to read intelligent arguments from those who felt it was not providing an unfair advantage.

It is obvious from my post that I use at *least* three programs that give me the ability to multitable in a fairly effective manner.

I thank you all for your contribution.

[gasoltub]

[ QUOTE ]
One last thing from me concerning this topic.

You all will notice that not once did I say that the software gave any one *AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE*.

I actually have mix feelings on this topic which is why I like discussing it. I just wanted to read intelligent arguments from those who felt it was not providing an unfair advantage.

It is obvious from my post that I use at *least* three programs that give me the ability to multitable in a fairly effective manner.

I thank you all for your contribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the situation with software like pokertracker and HUDs is the same as with books.
You have to find out what books are available and buy them if you want.
You have to find out what software is available and buy it if you want.
Reading poker books gives you an advantage. Using software gives you an advantage if you use it correctly.
Equal for everyone.
As long as you are playing and making the decisions yourself (i.e. not using a bot) you might have an advantage, but not an unfair advantage.

my $0.02

/gasoltub

[excession]

I am a bit puzzled by the use of the word 'unfair' here.

'Unfairness' in poker (outside of actual cheating) is a bit of an empty concept - apart from cheating you can do pretty much anything you want - it is a ruthless environment. After all, 'Life is unfair; anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something'..

We are playing under the sites' rules and they tell us what we can and can't do.

As for PT and its HUD's these software tools are known to and whitelisted by all the sites concerned - their use is within the sites' terms of service (TOS).

The use of datamining is more of a grey area - you are using tools to scout a large number of players without having to sit down and play with them- I admit when I first came across that I thought 'Party can't be allowing this' and indeed several sites (noticeably Stars) have banned tools that do this (e.g. Starspy) and it looks like datamining will now be on its way out of Party too.

I've no problem with calling someone who in the future uses banned datamining software at Party a 'cheat' because that is what they would be (and yes guys it IS still cheating if you don't get caught), but using software that is at present permitted for use on a site and which is available to all (and is pretty well publicised to anyone who can be bothered to type 'online poker' into a search engine) hardly seems sharp practice to me.

As to why you got so many people's backs up it is because your first action seemed to be to log in and de facto accuse 90% of us of some sort of unethical conduct (because taking unfair advantage of others is generally an unethical thing to do).

To be honest I just assumed you were a troll when you hijacked that first thread and I'm sure that a lot of regaulars did the same..

[excession]

'Your statement about my protecting my hand statement is in-accurate. I stated that I started playing No Limit because I was lied to. I was told that you could protect your hand in No Limit with big bets and people would not suck out on you. I quit playing Limit Holdem based on that statement. At the limits I have played ($200 buyins and below) that is not a true statement.'

Of course it is. The point isn't that you can always stop people calling - you can't - but unlike limit you can vary your bet size so that they are making a serious mathematical mistake if they do - you seem to have a weak-tight/control issue if you want the muppets to stop calling you down when they are behind and don't have odds - sure they suck you out occasionally but in the long-run you make a ton of money off them.

And it is certainly true that if you raise your monsters pre-flop heavily and overbet the pot whenever you hit that you will be folded to a lot more often than making a single bet in Limit, so to that extent you can prevent suckouts (terrible way to play IMHO but if you really want to take a pot down right there and then when you hit you usually can..)

[SirShortStack]

Excession

If you go back and check the thread you will notice that I did not hijack the thread nor was I the first person to respond to the hijacked thread.

[Mogobu The Fool]

I think an awful lot of confusion about the concept of fairness comes from the fact that people have starting using "fair" when they mean "even." When one side has great skill and is far more likely to win, they say, "that's not a fair fight," when what they really mean is, "that's not an even match." I'm the right size and weight to step into a boxing ring and face a professional heavyweight boxer. But I've never stepped into the ring before. If I stepped in with the world champion right now, I could have a fair fight, but it would be a terribly, terribly, terribly uneven match.

When considering what consitutes an unfair advantage in poker, you have to establish the baseline of what "fair game" means in poker.

I believe that the online poker rooms are trying to provide, online, the classic game called "poker." I believe that the vast majority of poker players who approach the online game are seeking to play the classic game called "poker," albeit online. So "what's fair" in the classic game is a good base for the concept of fairness online.

In a cardroom at a table, you are allowed to have notes. Lists of values of holdings, your notes on other players, etc. Tables of odds and draws. A calculator as a math aid. All this is legit. (You may not be allowed to keep it on the table, because it makes it easy to manipulate cards and cheat, but you're allowed to have these things.)

But other people can SEE that you have these things, and there are limits to what you are allowed.

OK.

Now an example: let's say two people sit down at a real-life poker table. Call them Blue and Red. They've never met nor played each other before.

After they're both dealt in, someone walks over to Red and whispers in his ear; "I've seen Blue play hundreds of hands. He is very, very loose limping in; he never raises with less than a pair of jacks. Any bets he makes post-flop you have to take seriously, because he won't bet or raise unless he's all but certain he has you beat, but he'll routinely call all the way to the river, so you can value bet until the cows come home."

Most people would already agree that Red has an unfair advantage over Blue! But this example still needs ajustment if it's to be an analogy to the online game.

Instead of a guy walking up to Red, picture Red with a radio receiver in his ear. He gets the same information about Blue, but nobody else at the table can even tell that he's getting advice. Also, the card room rules explicitly forbid the radio device.

This is now a pretty good analogy to an online poker game where one player has a HUD which shows him stats on other players they've never played against before.

Would you say this constitutes an unfair advantage over someone using just the facilities allowed by the cardroom?

Contrast this with the skill argument:

If I sit down to play with Steve Lederer and other world-class players, the game is not fair in the common sense that "all sides have an even chance to win," but that's not the meaning of fair. If the game is dealt in an unbiased way, and everyone follows the rules and conventions, I'm getting a fair game. It will be an uneven match because of their skill, but the game is fair!

[Mogobu The Fool]

Howard Lederer, that is. I don't know anything about Steve's skill. Or who he is. I need more coffee.

[veganmav]

[ QUOTE ]
He gets the same information about Blue, but nobody else at the table can even tell that he's getting advice. Also, the card room rules explicitly forbid the radio device.

This is now a pretty good analogy to an online poker game where one player has a HUD which shows him stats on other players they've never played against before.



[/ QUOTE ]

Party does not forbid HUD. Therefore this is a horrible analogy.

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He gets the same information about Blue, but nobody else at the table can even tell that he's getting advice. Also, the card room rules explicitly forbid the radio device.

This is now a pretty good analogy to an online poker game where one player has a HUD which shows him stats on other players they've never played against before.

[/ QUOTE ]Party does not forbid HUD. Therefore this is a horrible analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]No one's debating the specifics of what Party allows. Instead, this discussion is about whether specific advantages are unfair.

That's why the title is "Unfair Advantage".
-Sam

[thedustbustr]

these programs are freely available for anyone to use. advantage for sure, but not unfair.

[SamIAm]

[ QUOTE ]
these programs are freely available for anyone to use.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, no.
-Sam

[Elevens]

[ QUOTE ]
Party does not forbid HUD. Therefore this is a horrible analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pay attention. He didn't say that.

[Mogobu The Fool]

[ QUOTE ]
these programs are freely available for anyone to use. advantage for sure, but not unfair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, even if they were available for free download, it still might be considered unfair.

Someone very savvy with computers knows how to search the web, find software makers, review 2+2, install a great HUD, configure it, collect data, and can use it.

Someone who is an expert poker player but inexperienced with computers has no "ins" in the system. They're more likely to just fire up their poker client straight-up.

Is this fair in context of poker? Sure, the difference is skill, but it's not skill at the playing of poker.

To plug this aspect into my original analogy, consider that Red is an old hand in the casino, he knows lots of people there -- players, dealers, floormen. He learned about them all by being a friendly regular. He has gotten to know "the system."

Blue, on the other hand, normally plays in a different state. In this cardroom, he knows nobody, and nobody knows him. He gets no info. Isn't he at an unfair disadvantage?

----

Now, when it comes down to it, what the house allows is "fair game." But while it's "fair" in the sense of the rules, it may not be "fair" in the sense of the game. Poker rooms have to compromise between perfect enforcement and pragmatic concerns. They have to decide "how unfair" something is to determine how "worth going after" it is. They could allow some things they consider a bit unfair, but if they're not oppressively unfair, and they're very widely used, they may not go after them.

Party, for example, forbids data-aggregations services. They were selling data after massive collection, and were not incredibly widespread. This is like Red having an earpiece from an organized syndicate that monitors everyone and sells the information. Not allowed.

Party does not (currently) forbid people to collect their own data, even observed hands, and use that as a HUD. That's more like Red just using a notebook for reference, even if the notes are not all made by himself. Doing this is not AS unfair as the service, and it's fairly common among VIP's. Going after all these people for a minor offense would not be pragmatic.

The new Party Beta takes away observerd hand histories, so clearly, they want to limit that, too, but they still write hand histories for played hands. So people will still have HUDs. The more they play, the better their data will be. But they are limiting the collection in a way that affects all people even-handedly (cutting off the data source, as opposed to hunting down individuals who collect a lot of data.)