New Software Announcement - SIXTH SENSE

[bhudson]

Dan,

Like I said, if you are using a HUD, it needs to be open and join. If you aren't using a HUD there is no need to open the table so joining from the lobby would be far less cluttered. For those who just want to mine or look around, it needs to be just open without joining. People have different needs [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Double clicking should probably be just open the table. After all you are forgoing much of the automation, you can click another button if you really want to - AutoResizer takes care of the next click anyway.

I would just make it an option to choose between the three and if you want to go overboard in user-friendliness, perhaps put it on a separate tab and assign a hotkey so someone could quickly switch between different methods should they need to.

[SixthSense]

[ QUOTE ]
Dan,

Like I said, if you are using a HUD, it needs to be open and join. If you aren't using a HUD there is no need to open the table so joining from the lobby would be far less cluttered. For those who just want to mine or look around, it needs to be just open without joining. People have different needs [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Double clicking should probably be just open the table. After all you are forgoing much of the automation, you can click another button if you really want to - AutoResizer takes care of the next click anyway.

I would just make it an option to choose between the three and if you want to go overboard in user-friendliness, perhaps put it on a separate tab and assign a hotkey so someone could quickly switch between different methods should they need to.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you wrote is exactly what Ben and I discussed, and will be coding today [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Those monster tables are still being a pain in the arse though...

For those of you who tried to use the table opener with the monster tables - did it absolutely never work for you? It seemed to work in streaks for me... It could find and open maybe 3 or 4 in a row, and then it would stop. I still havent been able to figure out what is causing it.

So if anybody could post their personal experiences with it, let me know via PM or reply.

Thanks alot,
-Dan

[zram21]

I have read several posts about this being much faster than PTS, but I have been unable to even get through one round of scoring so far. It has been running for the last 14 minutes and says it is still loading table 2 of 93. Any ideas on why it is running so slow?

[SixthSense]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read several posts about this being much faster than PTS, but I have been unable to even get through one round of scoring so far. It has been running for the last 14 minutes and says it is still loading table 2 of 93. Any ideas on why it is running so slow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Open up your Log file (From the Menu select Log). Does it list any errors? It shouldn't be that slow.

-Ben

[Josh.]

compacting the database makes a huge difference. to be honest, i don't find it any faster than PTS (both work super fast for me, except PTS inexplicably just doesn't work about 20% of the time), but the support and features (and future features) for sixthsense are far and away better

[zram21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have read several posts about this being much faster than PTS, but I have been unable to even get through one round of scoring so far. It has been running for the last 14 minutes and says it is still loading table 2 of 93. Any ideas on why it is running so slow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Open up your Log file (From the Menu select Log). Does it list any errors? It shouldn't be that slow.

-Ben

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that as soon as it hits the first StatQry it hangs.

[SixthSense]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have read several posts about this being much faster than PTS, but I have been unable to even get through one round of scoring so far. It has been running for the last 14 minutes and says it is still loading table 2 of 93. Any ideas on why it is running so slow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Open up your Log file (From the Menu select Log). Does it list any errors? It shouldn't be that slow.

-Ben

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that as soon as it hits the first StatQry it hangs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How big is your database? Is it Access or Postgres? Did you configure SS to connect to many databases or just one?

Like Josh said, try compacting your database. You can also defrag your hard drive.

-Ben

[zram21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have read several posts about this being much faster than PTS, but I have been unable to even get through one round of scoring so far. It has been running for the last 14 minutes and says it is still loading table 2 of 93. Any ideas on why it is running so slow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Open up your Log file (From the Menu select Log). Does it list any errors? It shouldn't be that slow.

-Ben

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that as soon as it hits the first StatQry it hangs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How big is your database? Is it Access or Postgres? Did you configure SS to connect to many databases or just one?

Like Josh said, try compacting your database. You can also defrag your hard drive.

-Ben

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now it is only trying to pull from one database that has about 500k hands in it. It is a Postgres database. I have run a full vacuum on it and my hard drive qas recently defraged. Still having the same issues.

[TheProdigy]

Hey,


How do I turn off all the "averages" or what-not? I think any data is important, and I don't like the weighting at all..

Example: If I have a table with 2 players for the sake of easiness, and one I have:
1,500 hands, 15% vpip, 3% pfr, 1 AF
and
15 hands, 92% vpip, 26% pfr, 4 AF

I don't think I will ever see this table because of the weighted averages. The only thing that weighted averages show me is that I have a couple players that I have a lot of hands on and they bring down the average. I would MUCH rather find a table with a 92% guy that I have 15 hands on than a table with a 35% guy that I have 400 hands on.

Also, the weighted NumData I am wondering if I can turn off too for the same reason. If I have 5 hands on a guy it may not make a difference, but in my mind the difference between 15 hands and 200 is not a huge amount because no matter how hot they are if they have played 80% of their hands on only 15 hands even, I WANT TO FIND THAT PLAYER.

Thanks man

[dacubbie]

Man has slowed to a halt to. It was very speedy until the recent udpate. Now it takes over 30 minutes to go through 55 tables.