Open question to Stars about real-time adviser apps

[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do Stars allow the use of real-time ICM calculators in SNGs, yet are so against data-mining? There has already been a tool around for quite a while that does this and now an even more advanced tool has been created (see this thread)

[/ QUOTE ]

Juk, I replied you on this in another thread on the software forum. This same tool is available via web interface too (i wont post links). Soon similar things will be massively spread via many web interfaces. I know a person that implemented such tool, finding nash equilibrium in SNG, last time we were in touch he was selling his algorithms and work to tool developers for several thousands of EUR.

Casino can do nothing if there are 100 sites offering this on the web.

It is as simple as that: If game get solved from GT PoV, it get solved, and sites can do nothing to save it. The best thing they can do in the meantime is fight multi accounting and teaming which is the only issue they can and make sense to fight (and they can of course do marketing of their wonderful anti-whatever measures).

[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A bot that makes decitions and a program that tells you wich buttons to press real time are virtually the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong.

A bot can play 1,234 tables at the same time while you're sleeping, working or having a candle light dinner. It's not a tool to help you play better - it's a malicious piece of software deviced to releave huge amounts of poker players of fractions of a percent of their EV

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

A bot can play 4-8 tables, as any other player. Anything beyond that is called multi-accounting.

It also does not provide you with any unfair advantage, from game theory standpoint (like other tools e.g. poker edge, does).

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
Juk, I replied you on this in another thread on the software forum. This same tool is available via web interface too (i wont post links). Soon similar things will be massively spread via many web interfaces. I know a person that implemented such tool, finding nash equilibrium in SNG, last time we were in touch he was selling his algorithms and work to tool developers for several thousands of EUR.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm beta testing a real-time nash ICM program for SnGs - and it's allowed by stars and FTP (and Party I think?) - and it works with as many tables as you can play at once even on multiple sites at the same time. Anyway if you only follow when to push/call by only using the program I don't think you'll be a winning player. Using nash it's pretty rare when it says you can push any two cards when you have a smaller stack than the players left to act because it assumes your opponents call loose enough - which is rarely the case. Even blind vs. blind it doesn't recommend ATC very often at all which is missing a lot of shoves - especially against some uber-tight nit.

[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Juk, I replied you on this in another thread on the software forum. This same tool is available via web interface too (i wont post links). Soon similar things will be massively spread via many web interfaces. I know a person that implemented such tool, finding nash equilibrium in SNG, last time we were in touch he was selling his algorithms and work to tool developers for several thousands of EUR.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm beta testing a real-time nash ICM program for SnGs - and it's allowed by stars and FTP (and Party I think?) - and it works with as many tables as you can play at once even on multiple sites at the same time. Anyway if you only follow when to push/call by only using the program I don't think you'll be a winning player. Using nash it's pretty rare when it says you can push any two cards when you have a smaller stack than the players left to act because it assumes your opponents call loose enough - which is rarely the case. Even blind vs. blind it doesn't recommend ATC very often at all which is missing a lot of shoves - especially against some uber-tight nit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree, I think the original question from Juk is to what extend you can use such tools. On theory there is no easy way (if at all) to distinguish helper tools. Nash equilibrium calculator is already VERY powerfull tool, it's true there is more to make you a winning player, but it's not a huge step.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A bot can play 1,234 tables at the same time while you're sleeping, working or having a candle light dinner. It's not a tool to help you play better - it's a malicious piece of software deviced to releave huge amounts of poker players of fractions of a percent of their EV

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

A bot can play 4-8 tables, as any other player. Anything beyond that is called multi-accounting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, what?

There are lots of players here who play 16+ tables on one site...and then of course you can play across multiple sites. 1,234 is an exageration, but the number is certainly a LOT more than 4-8. Multiplying by 10 wouldn't be unrealistic without multi-accounting. Whether that's "technically" feasible from a software/hardware standpoint, I have no idea, but it would NOT have to involve fraudulent multi-accounting.

[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A bot can play 1,234 tables at the same time while you're sleeping, working or having a candle light dinner. It's not a tool to help you play better - it's a malicious piece of software deviced to releave huge amounts of poker players of fractions of a percent of their EV

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

A bot can play 4-8 tables, as any other player. Anything beyond that is called multi-accounting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, what?

There are lots of players here who play 16+ tables on one site...and then of course you can play across multiple sites. 1,234 is an exageration, but the number is certainly a LOT more than 4-8. Multiplying by 10 wouldn't be unrealistic without multi-accounting. Whether that's "technically" feasible from a software/hardware standpoint, I have no idea, but it would NOT have to involve fraudulent multi-accounting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mostly refered to the limits on the number of open tables that most of the sites impose. I know some allow 4, some are 6, Full Tilt is 16. I do not see a problem to put a limit of 16 tables which is not only reasonable for any human play, but also good for one's health. Now if you tell me there are a lot of players that play 16+ tables, ok, maybe I'm just getting older ...

So I mostly refered to this limit, however by coincidence 4-8 is a reasonable for a bot on one PC, due to resource constrainsts. Actually this is the very best case, many people are hardly able to run 4 tables with 1 PC, some even less. If you need to have a second PC, you need to have a second account and a second ISP, and you are already in the multi-accounting game.

[freecard4all]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if you tell me there are a lot of players that play 16+ tables, ok, maybe I'm just getting older ...

[/ QUOTE ]
if you are tight and don't care about slowing down the games you can easily 16table.
I don't but if I would be 5% tighter (and have finally the table opener, Dave ) then I could easily 16 table.


[ QUOTE ]
If you need to have a second PC, you need to have a second account and a second ISP, and you are already in the multi-accounting game.

[/ QUOTE ]
AFAIK you can run the ICMs on one core CPU. I don't know how much is a bot CPU intensive.
But if you have a bankroll for that you can buy 32processor machine (I'm not sure but I saw an advertisement for personal computer with 8 or 16 CPUs (I think it was AMD Opteron). Looked like my PC (except that performance [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[indianaV8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now if you tell me there are a lot of players that play 16+ tables, ok, maybe I'm just getting older ...

[/ QUOTE ]
if you are tight and don't care about slowing down the games you can easily 16table.
I don't but if I would be 5% tighter (and have finally the table opener, Dave ) then I could easily 16 table.


[ QUOTE ]
If you need to have a second PC, you need to have a second account and a second ISP, and you are already in the multi-accounting game.

[/ QUOTE ]
AFAIK you can run the ICMs on one core CPU. I don't know how much is a bot CPU intensive.
But if you have a bankroll for that you can buy 32processor machine (I'm not sure but I saw an advertisement for personal computer with 8 or 16 CPUs (I think it was AMD Opteron). Looked like my PC (except that performance [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans: OK. I take it, I myself was doing 10 tables some time ago, and I though I'm cool. Apparently I'm getting older.

Bots: It is not only the algorithm that is CPU intensive. You need to read the screen etc (let's not go in details) It depends on many things, and your particular framework architecture. The current wide-spreaded frameworks are slow. You may have some botter that is ultra geek and will code everything ultra fast and so on (like Nevad Khan can 30-table) but this is ultra rare. The people that use bots for fraud don't care for speed, as they can buy (often much cheaper) say 40 PCs and create many fake accounts, so they don't care to optimize. They have no problems with that, because some profitable casinos spend resources on things like eliminating bots (public image) instead of focusing that to eliminate fraud.