Sites should take these steps immediately...

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
1) If you ban HUD's only savvy people will have them. Consider this:

A computer connects to the site with the official client. Unbeknownst to the poker site, this "computer" is actually a vmware virtual machine. Pokertracker is running on the host machine. A HUD is running on the host machine.

Result: The same thing we have now for the user but the poker site has no idea that PT is even collecting data, let alone that there is a HUD overlay.

2) Forget setting up multiple computers to multi-account. Again vmware comes to the rescue, this time fully over the cheating "line". 1600x1200 display on host machine. Four vmware virtual machines running simultaneously @ 800x600. These either use a full service proxy or four physical connections in the host machine to avoid dupe IP addresses. Simple.

Result: Same ability we have now, just slightly more complicated for the end user. This is a case of giving greedy people enough rope to hang themselves. If a cheater is prevented from connecting twice from the same IP he/she may think, "How can I get multiple IP's to all display on this monitor?" The way it is now there is a very good chance of catching them. If separate IPs were required then there would be nearly no trace in the network, you'd be down to standard collusion/softplaying detection methods. Give the cheaters enough rope, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your arguement is that the sites should knowlingly allow cheating and unfair advantages to some players because they are powerless to stop it anyway?

[MrWookie]

I'm a moderately tech savvy guy, but maybe some gurus could answer me this: would it be possible to filter by MAC address instead of IP address? Sure, it wouldn't be the end all be all in that it wouldn't stop someone who was using a desktop and a laptop simultaneously, but it'd at least prevent shenanigans with one guy from on one comp w/ multiple clients running. And fortunately, each computer does have a unique MAC address.

[O Doyle Rules]

To further illustrate why steps need to be taken immediately....

2 + 2 post in Gossip forum

[smoore]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) If you ban HUD's only savvy people will have them. Consider this:

A computer connects to the site with the official client. Unbeknownst to the poker site, this "computer" is actually a vmware virtual machine. Pokertracker is running on the host machine. A HUD is running on the host machine.

Result: The same thing we have now for the user but the poker site has no idea that PT is even collecting data, let alone that there is a HUD overlay.

2) Forget setting up multiple computers to multi-account. Again vmware comes to the rescue, this time fully over the cheating "line". 1600x1200 display on host machine. Four vmware virtual machines running simultaneously @ 800x600. These either use a full service proxy or four physical connections in the host machine to avoid dupe IP addresses. Simple.

Result: Same ability we have now, just slightly more complicated for the end user. This is a case of giving greedy people enough rope to hang themselves. If a cheater is prevented from connecting twice from the same IP he/she may think, "How can I get multiple IP's to all display on this monitor?" The way it is now there is a very good chance of catching them. If separate IPs were required then there would be nearly no trace in the network, you'd be down to standard collusion/softplaying detection methods. Give the cheaters enough rope, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your arguement is that the sites should knowlingly allow cheating and unfair advantages to some players because they are powerless to stop it anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't put words in my mouth. I do not condone cheating, nor do I think that the sites should overlook it. I think they should leave it technically trivial so that the lazy, greedy people that are going to do it will do it in a way that makes it easy to detect.

I think HUDs are fine.

[smoore]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a moderately tech savvy guy, but maybe some gurus could answer me this: would it be possible to filter by MAC address instead of IP address? Sure, it wouldn't be the end all be all in that it wouldn't stop someone who was using a desktop and a laptop simultaneously, but it'd at least prevent shenanigans with one guy from on one comp w/ multiple clients running. And fortunately, each computer does have a unique MAC address.

[/ QUOTE ]

The way it was envisioned, each node would have it's own MAC address. SUN followed this standard.

Cheap intel based "PC" machines however are different... each interface has it's own MAC. So, if I want to have four MAC addresses all I need to do it put four NICs in my machine.

It's pretty trivial to spoof your MAC anyway.

Even using some combination of MAC/Client Version/OS version to generate some "unique" ID wouldn't work very well because of the virtual machine problem.

edit: This is a document showing just how easy it is to spoof a MAC. Ban a cheater via his MAC? He just uses a different one.

[Telex0]

[ QUOTE ]
And fortunately, each computer does have a unique MAC address.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. You can clone a MAC address (they're quasi-unique, but in most cases programmable) and in some cases you can just make one up as you go. (I know that plenty of routers allow you to clone the mac address of a network card if your cable ISP is retarded and only allows one computer to access it, and this technology exists for network interfaces as well usually).

The only drawback here, is that obviously if they start checking for things like this, the tech savvy people will gradually learn how to get around it through defeating MAC addresses. Plus you could just buy a handful of network cards and stick them in a machine and be connected to the same site multiple times with multiple addresses. Hrmph. (ultimately not a viable solution unfortunately).

The only real change will happen when the internet FINALLY moves to IPv6 everywhere, and every computer does in fact get a unique IP address and network admins will have no excuses other than being lazy to give every machine their own unique IP address, as IPv6 allows for pretty much everything connectable to the internet on the entire planet to have a unique address assigned to it. So it's an un-fixable problem.

You can always buy more/new lines, and in plenty of areas you can just connect to a different wireless network if you want to. There are always ways around things, and much like the money involved with drugs seems to override any fear of getting caught, I think the money involved with cheating at online poker probably outweighs any minor expenses and hassles involved with doing it unfortunately. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[O Doyle Rules]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) If you ban HUD's only savvy people will have them. Consider this:

A computer connects to the site with the official client. Unbeknownst to the poker site, this "computer" is actually a vmware virtual machine. Pokertracker is running on the host machine. A HUD is running on the host machine.

Result: The same thing we have now for the user but the poker site has no idea that PT is even collecting data, let alone that there is a HUD overlay.

2) Forget setting up multiple computers to multi-account. Again vmware comes to the rescue, this time fully over the cheating "line". 1600x1200 display on host machine. Four vmware virtual machines running simultaneously @ 800x600. These either use a full service proxy or four physical connections in the host machine to avoid dupe IP addresses. Simple.

Result: Same ability we have now, just slightly more complicated for the end user. This is a case of giving greedy people enough rope to hang themselves. If a cheater is prevented from connecting twice from the same IP he/she may think, "How can I get multiple IP's to all display on this monitor?" The way it is now there is a very good chance of catching them. If separate IPs were required then there would be nearly no trace in the network, you'd be down to standard collusion/softplaying detection methods. Give the cheaters enough rope, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

So your arguement is that the sites should knowlingly allow cheating and unfair advantages to some players because they are powerless to stop it anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't put words in my mouth. I do not condone cheating, nor do I think that the sites should overlook it. I think they should leave it technically trivial so that the lazy, greedy people that are going to do it will do it in a way that makes it easy to detect.

I think HUDs are fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I did not mean to. It was just how I interpreted your argument and it is how the public at large is going to view all this that I worry about.

Losing our game entirely because large numbers quit playing and new players don't ever start playing because of all this, I think is a real possibility.

[smoore]

And wait a minute, o doyle... aren't you the guy that made the "army" (union) to give high volume players "incentive" (special treatement) from poker sites?

So now you want to eliminate small-time rakeback so that anyone who isn't a high roller can't participate?

Holy Hoffa move. Talk about unfair trade practices.

edit: the tone of this post is petty and rude. I apologize, ODoyle. I'd delete it but I think that's a d-bag move worse than leaving an insulting post [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[SmileyEH]

Something else to consider is most players think online poker is rigged, or that the possibility is very real. Doesn't stop them from playing however.

-SmileyEH

[playerzero]

[ QUOTE ]
And wait a minute, o doyle... aren't you the guy that made the "army" (union) to give high volume players "incentive" (special treatement) from poker sites?

So now you want to eliminate small-time rakeback so that anyone who isn't a high roller can't participate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess Stacks didn't come through. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]