Congratulations WPEX on dumbest improvement ever

[Bobo Fett]

Now I wonder what group of "players" might like tables to be totally untrackable. Hmmmm...let me think...

Paging Mr. Gatorade. Well, on second thought, maybe not.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I wonder what group of "players" might like tables to be totally untrackable. Hmmmm...let me think...

Paging Mr. Gatorade. Well, on second thought, maybe not.

[/ QUOTE ]

One other semi-critical factor I didn't mention for dark tables is whether or not the site shows players arriving/leaving. This would be a very important issue for those interested in level 5 (session) tracking - the level 6 trackers are already shutdown with the removal of player names but the level 5 trackers would still survive.

Max-dark conditions would mean that all tables would always show Player1 to PlayerN seated either playing or sitting/out (i.e. all chairs always look occupied). You would not be able to tell the difference between a genuine player sitout and a player exit. You'd only see sitting in/out and that's it. These types of tables would hinder the level 5 trackers and botters. The best they could do would be to reset stats when they see a change for the sit in/out state for any chair.

There is actually one additional measure that utterly ruins level 5 tracking and that would be to randomly shuffle the players before the start of each hand. From the end-user POV they would see (in the case of a 10-chair table with 5 playing) the sit in/out state appear to randomly change each hand such that they cannot know the location of the guy who was Player2 from the previous hand. The best any player/bot can do at a table like this is level 4.

RIIT

[Triggerle]

They should have tables where the holdings randomly change in the middle of hands. This would be the ultimate protection against exploitative poker players.

[Pokertini]

Better still, the card values could be completely hidden. We wouldn't have any idea what cards we were holding or what the board was.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
They should have tables where the holdings randomly change in the middle of hands. This would be the ultimate protection against exploitative poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then you're not playing poker anymore [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]. The main reason for my comments is to highlight the differences between tracking levels 4, 5 and 6. The WPX HH'less tables pretty much eliminte level 6 tracking (but not level 5). The original comment (I replied to) speculated about who/what might not mind level 4 or level 5 conditions. There are more than a few level 4 and 5 bots out there that simply are not hindered by tables without level 6 tracking info - they were never using it in the first place and so they are actually helped (in theory) if opponents no longer have level 6 info at their tables.

The real demand for level 5 tables remains to be seen. Hopefully the WPX GM will post some stats for us.

RIIT

[Choparno]

Jesus this has to be a joke.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus this has to be a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I think Triggerle and Pokertini were joking; But their comments are accurate in the context of level 3 tracking. The 6 tracking levels have to do with the scope of information referenced at any given time while playing poker.

Level 1 - Available buttons only
Level 2 - Current state only
Level 3 - Current round only
Level 4 - Current hand only
Level 5 - Current session only
Level 6 - All possible information

The level 6 tracking databases contain info that spans days, weeks, month, even years. They are possible because sites force end-users to play with a single trackable screen name. There are more than a few players that have been requesting the ability to use multiple screen names as a means to counter level 6 info.

For me personally, I think level 6 tracking data is a very natural part of the computer age internet environment and it seems to me that those who are against it are wanting something that goes against the grain of the online game.

I applaud the WPX GM for this experiment because it will go a long way to gather hard facts about what players want. And even though I think there will be lower demand for the HH'less tables, I still like the idea of actually putting the tables out there just to see what happens. I much prefer hard experimental data over and above the opinions and predictions of 2+2'ers.

RIIT

[Pokertini]

I really don't know how much validity this data will provide. There are very few tables running at WSEX, often times 1 table for a given limit/structure. If I want to play $100NLH I sit at the one table where a game is running. Sometimes the table offers HH, other times not.

If I'm lucky enough to find 2 or more tables for the limit(s) I want to play, I tend to choose the table generating the bigger pots or has players against whom I like to play.

For what its worth, I do collect PT data when able. Although PT no longer catalogues all my hands, it at least provides me a snapshot of particular sessions.

Edited to add: I imagine the casual poker players pick their tables much the same way (bigger pots or against players with whom they want to play) albeit for different reasons. I suspect casual players don't concern themselves with whether the HH are available or not.

[Triggerle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They should have tables where the holdings randomly change in the middle of hands. This would be the ultimate protection against exploitative poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then you're not playing poker anymore [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]. (...)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the game is already not Poker anymore somewhere between level 6 and level 5. Gaining information about your opponent is part of the game both in brick and mortar and in online games.

Even if the concern over database-assisted information gaining was legitimate (which I don't think it is), dumbing down the game is not the correct way of dealing with this.

And, yes, I was joking.

[RIIT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They should have tables where the holdings randomly change in the middle of hands. This would be the ultimate protection against exploitative poker players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then you're not playing poker anymore [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]. (...)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the game is already not Poker anymore somewhere between level 6 and level 5. Gaining information about your opponent is part of the game both in brick and mortar and in online games.

Even if the concern over database-assisted information gaining was legitimate (which I don't think it is), dumbing down the game is not the correct way of dealing with this.

And, yes, I was joking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you. The natural tracking level for live b&m play ranges from level 4 (i.e. you sit down at a table of total strangers) to level 6 (i.e. you've been playing in the same cardroom for 10 years and know xyz about player abc having played against them dozens of times).

The natural internet environment heavily favors tracking. Those who are against tracking are failing to understand the normal characteristics of the environment.

The natural conditions of the internet are:
a) computers outnumber humans 2 to 1
b) players cannot physically see each other

RIIT