blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 09:22:49 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272477 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16945 Members
Latest Member: Zula
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Poker Forums
| |-+  The Rail
| | |-+  "The Online games are not fair anymore"
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... 22 Go Down Print
Author Topic: "The Online games are not fair anymore"  (Read 48851 times)
GreekStein
Hero Member
Hero Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20912



View Profile
« Reply #135 on: September 04, 2015, 07:27:54 PM »

Are bots more of a risk on anonymous tables?



I think the biggest risk on anonymous tables is collusion and it being very hard to spot.

Most sites are inept anyway or just dont care and given I (and you) like playing PLO cash I'd be worried playing it vs anons.
Logged

@GreekStein on twitter.

Retired Policeman, Part time troll.
Rexas
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1963


View Profile
« Reply #136 on: September 04, 2015, 07:29:50 PM »

It gives an advantage against other regs, because those are the people you get data on, and it means you can store and review hands easily. 50 hands, in your example, is nowhere near enough of a sample to make a judgement on someone's stats. I play approximately 29% of hands according to my vpip stat, but over 50 hands I could play way over or way less than that. Moreover, in your example, you can see the guy on your table is playing 60% of hands. If I was Sat at that table without a hud, I'd be able to watch and see that he's in almost every pot. I wouldn't have the exact number, but I'd be able to guess and wouldn't be far off. Again, by definition, a rec isn't someone that wants to seriously grind 10+ tables at once.
Logged

humour is very much encouraged, however theres humour and theres not.
I disrepectfully agree with Matt Smiley
collster
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


View Profile
« Reply #137 on: September 04, 2015, 07:44:31 PM »

So by definition what is a rec?

And EvilPie just gave you a perfect example of a situation where a HUD gave statistics (during a single mtt sample size)he wouldn't have otherwise had without it showing that it affected his play in a positive way giving him an edge through software alone. So your argument that you need thousands of hands for them to be worthwhile is flawed in my opinion.

What is wrong with the idea of only using the software that starts when you open up the poker site? Same for all users then surely? May the best man win.
Logged
EvilPie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14253



View Profile
« Reply #138 on: September 04, 2015, 07:45:17 PM »

For clarity I haven't always been a rec. I used to play enough and take it seriously enough to consider myself a reg and a winning one at that. I was pretty good and could hold my own at most tables in my bankroll whether live or online.

Things have changed for me massively and I didn't have the time to dedicate to poker so I am now a rec. I wouldn't dream of firing up 10 tables and committing myself to a 10+ hour grind as my life elsewhere doesn't allow for that any more.

At the time of my example I was very much a reg and that's my whole point. I was playing 10+ tables so I had no idea what anybody's VPIP was or even how many hands I'd played against them. Whether that guy was a reg or a rec I have no idea but at that particular moment my HUD had provided me with information that I could use to my advantage. After a while when I'd built up 100k+ hands or whatever one of the most useful things was just knowing who the regs were. As soon as someone turns up in your regular games whom you have zero hands against you automatically assume they're a rec and therefore an easy target. If you've got 1000 hands against someone you play with caution because you know they play a lot and also you know that they may have 1000 hands worth of stats against you as well.

I don't know of a world in which that wouldn't constitute an advantage.
Logged

Motivational speeches at their best:

"Because thats what living is, the 6 inches in front of your face......" - Patrick Leonard - 10th May 2015
POWWWWWWWW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: September 04, 2015, 07:47:19 PM »

It gives an advantage against other regs, because those are the people you get data on, and it means you can store and review hands easily. 50 hands, in your example, is nowhere near enough of a sample to make a judgement on someone's stats. I play approximately 29% of hands according to my vpip stat, but over 50 hands I could play way over or way less than that. Moreover, in your example, you can see the guy on your table is playing 60% of hands. If I was Sat at that table without a hud, I'd be able to watch and see that he's in almost every pot. I wouldn't have the exact number, but I'd be able to guess and wouldn't be far off. Again, by definition, a rec isn't someone that wants to seriously grind 10+ tables at once.

Are you going to be able to remember this 6 months later when he pops up again?
Logged
Rexas
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1963


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: September 04, 2015, 08:20:14 PM »

And EvilPie just gave you a perfect example of a situation where a HUD gave statistics (during a single mtt sample size)he wouldn't have otherwise had without it showing that it affected his play in a positive way giving him an edge through software alone. So your argument that you need thousands of hands for them to be worthwhile is flawed in my opinion.

How is it flawed? What I'm saying is that for most stats you need thousands of hands to have enough of a sample for that stat to be relevant. Over 50 hands, it is a FACT that the % of hands I play can vary between drastically, eventually evening out at about 29%. There is absolutely no disputing this. Furthermore, as with this example and this stat, I CAN SEE. I can use my eyes while I'm watching the table and see that this player is playing lots of hands. My eyes told me that, my HUD didn't have to. That example is a one off occasion too, can you not see that it's results orientated? If the guy happened to have AA that time, then what?

At the time of my example I was very much a reg and that's my whole point. I was playing 10+ tables so I had no idea what anybody's VPIP was or even how many hands I'd played against them. Whether that guy was a reg or a rec I have no idea but at that particular moment my HUD had provided me with information that I could use to my advantage. After a while when I'd built up 100k+ hands or whatever one of the most useful things was just knowing who the regs were. As soon as someone turns up in your regular games whom you have zero hands against you automatically assume they're a rec and therefore an easy target. If you've got 1000 hands against someone you play with caution because you know they play a lot and also you know that they may have 1000 hands worth of stats against you as well.

I don't know of a world in which that wouldn't constitute an advantage.

EXACTLY. The bog standard rec that we're talking about doesn't fire up ten tables, he fires up a couple and plays them. He watches the action, and by watching he can see exactly the same information that you can. If anything, by paying less attention to each individual table, you have given the rec a slight advantage because they can see and note everything going on. One guy might go bet bet jam with bottom pair and show it, now the rec watching the table has seen that and you haven't. He now has information on that player that you don't. So where is this advantage?

Yes, if you have loads of hands built up then you can see who the regs are, and the recs don't know that. On the flip side, I don't know anything about that particular rec. They might not even be a rec, they might be a reg from a higher stake dropping down or from a lower stake moving up. I have to watch and learn how they play before I make adjustments, exactly the same as they have to watch how I play.

The simple fact that you play more enables you to know who the regs are. You don't need a HUD to recognise a screen name, or make a note on someone that they play a lot. The rec doesn't have access to this information BECAUSE THEY DONT PLAY AS MUCH AS YOU. I mean, what we're now saying is that we should actively give recs this sort of information, because it's unfair that I've played more and hence know who the regs are because I'm one myself, right?

Are you going to be able to remember this 6 months later when he pops up again?

Not necessarily, but in the first place I don't have many hands on him to go by. Also, in those 6 months, all sorts of things could have changed. He could have read something he saw in a magazine that's changed how he thinks about the game. He could be a little strapped for cash so he plays tighter. He could be drunk. All these things make my ridiculously small sample even more worthless.
Logged

humour is very much encouraged, however theres humour and theres not.
I disrepectfully agree with Matt Smiley
DMorgan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4449



View Profile
« Reply #141 on: September 04, 2015, 11:57:03 PM »


So as a rec myself, who just wants to play win or lose and who doesn't want to start studying the game and all the tools that a pro would do, I wont play online.

My question to you is - Do you want more people like me to play online?


Dave has it right that its really just a PR issue

Truth is that when a recreational player jumps onto a 50NL or 100NL table to play ~100 hands of poker, the difference between their likelihood of winning in that game now and the likelihood of them winning in that game 8 years ago is very very small.

Now if you wanna talk about playing 100k hands then there will be a big difference, but that is for the people that want to make a living at the game to sort out, hence players having to work really hard so plough in the hours to play poker for a living.

But to play for entertainment and to have a 'punchers chance' as Matt put it? Nothing has really changed in that regard.
Logged

Longines
Gamesmaster
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3798


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: September 05, 2015, 12:49:11 AM »

Was it not the case that 8 years ago a table would have been 7recs and 3 regs. Now it will be 2 recs, 2regs and 6 Russian/Brazilian pros.
Logged
collster
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


View Profile
« Reply #143 on: September 05, 2015, 01:53:22 AM »

Rex...that example is results orientated only if you take in to consideration the opponent folde/calld. I'm only interested in the fact that EvilPie shoved due to information given to him by software giving him an ,in my opinion, unfair advantage.

Maybe we have to agree to disagree. But I'm a rec...you'd want me at your tables and I'm turning away from online due to what I perceive to be an unfair disadvantage through not being tech savvy. Perhaps I'm a paranoid uneducated fool. If I'm an isolated case or there's no bigger problem here then you and the pros needn't worry.

As a side note...just got back from the casino...I didn't win but the game was played straight up and how I like it. People even talked and there was no berating! Imagine that!
Logged
Jamier-Host
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834



View Profile WWW
« Reply #144 on: September 05, 2015, 08:53:03 AM »

This chatter prompted me to have a quick cash session last night as a completely unrepresentative experiment. Probably the first time i've played cash online in over a year.

I played on Sky at the giddy heights of 25p/50p and fairly quickly had a full 6-max game running. There was very little change in players over a couple of hours, and to my vaguely trustworthy non-HUD observations there was one other guy who was "playing", with the remaining 4 falling into the type that makes these games so dull nowadays.

  • A bit slow to respond (presumably due to multi tabling)
  • Pretty nitty so not playing many hands
  • Any hands they do play are opened or 3-bet aggressively - very rare to see a call
  • A distinct lack of "gamble"
  • Zero table chat the whole session

Obviously these are more likely to be winning players (or at least not big leaky losers) but it's really not much fun to see hand after hand barely getting further than the flop. I tried my best to upset the rhythm but even bashing up AA with 99 when i knew I was at best flipping didn't get any comment or change in style.

The thing i keep coming back to is it's just not very fun.
Logged

Side Project - making games for Amazon Alexa devices

pressthe8.com
Rexas
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1963


View Profile
« Reply #145 on: September 05, 2015, 11:55:08 AM »

This chatter prompted me to have a quick cash session last night as a completely unrepresentative experiment. Probably the first time i've played cash online in over a year.

I played on Sky at the giddy heights of 25p/50p and fairly quickly had a full 6-max game running. There was very little change in players over a couple of hours, and to my vaguely trustworthy non-HUD observations there was one other guy who was "playing", with the remaining 4 falling into the type that makes these games so dull nowadays.

  • A bit slow to respond (presumably due to multi tabling)
  • Pretty nitty so not playing many hands
  • Any hands they do play are opened or 3-bet aggressively - very rare to see a call
  • A distinct lack of "gamble"
  • Zero table chat the whole session

Obviously these are more likely to be winning players (or at least not big leaky losers) but it's really not much fun to see hand after hand barely getting further than the flop. I tried my best to upset the rhythm but even bashing up AA with 99 when i knew I was at best flipping didn't get any comment or change in style.

The thing i keep coming back to is it's just not very fun.


They're actually not necessarily more likely to be winning players, as Goulder said in a recent blog the best players aren't the ones putting you in tough spots every hand, they're the ones just playing solid. Note that solid doesnt necessarily mean tight :p I mean, how do we make it more fun? I can't change what other people do. Did you type anything in the chat box? I tend to respond if someone types something in there that isn't derogatory. Also, if you find the game slow, play a couple more tables. It's a lot less dull if you're involved in the action more often Smiley But yh, what realistically can we do to make it more fun for you?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 12:10:36 PM by Rexas » Logged

humour is very much encouraged, however theres humour and theres not.
I disrepectfully agree with Matt Smiley
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 46911



View Profile WWW
« Reply #146 on: September 05, 2015, 11:59:03 AM »

I've got money marbles and chalk sweetheart,
but I still feel like I am poor.
Cause my money won't spend, and my marbles wont roll,
and my chalk won't write any more.
Logged

The older I get, the better I was.
Rexas
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1963


View Profile
« Reply #147 on: September 05, 2015, 12:02:30 PM »

Rex...that example is results orientated only if you take in to consideration the opponent folde/calld. I'm only interested in the fact that EvilPie shoved due to information given to him by software giving him an ,in my opinion, unfair advantage.

The ONLY reason he needed that software to give him that information is because he wasn't paying attention to the table he was playing at. If you're paying attention then you have exactly the same information he does! HUDs only record what is seen, they don't tell you what to do and they don't give you any information that other players can't see. In this example, if I was playing that table and watching it WITHOUT A HUD, I would have EXACTLY the same information and be able to make EXACTLY the same decision in this spot. That information is open and available for everyone to see, there is literally no advantage to having a HUD in this example if you're watching the table.

Sorry to keep going on like this, but I find the whole thing pretty frustrating. This absolute myth that the "pros" are these big, bad, evil chatbox warriors who cheat their way to success just because they have a bit of software is completely wrong and frankly makes a mockery of all the work that I do to try and get ok at this game. HUDs aren't going anywhere (and contrary to what it sounds like, I would be very, very happy if every poker site banned HUDs tomorrow), and while they're here to stay I think we have to attack these misconceptions because if recs are genuinely stopping playing because they're worried about the power of HUDs then they have definitely been misinformed.

Logged

humour is very much encouraged, however theres humour and theres not.
I disrepectfully agree with Matt Smiley
UgotNuts
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 752


View Profile
« Reply #148 on: September 05, 2015, 01:08:20 PM »

Rex...that example is results orientated only if you take in to consideration the opponent folde/calld. I'm only interested in the fact that EvilPie shoved due to information given to him by software giving him an ,in my opinion, unfair advantage.

The ONLY reason he needed that software to give him that information is because he wasn't paying attention to the table he was playing at. If you're paying attention then you have exactly the same information he does! HUDs only record what is seen, they don't tell you what to do and they don't give you any information that other players can't see. In this example, if I was playing that table and watching it WITHOUT A HUD, I would have EXACTLY the same information and be able to make EXACTLY the same decision in this spot. That information is open and available for everyone to see, there is literally no advantage to having a HUD in this example if you're watching the table.

Sorry to keep going on like this, but I find the whole thing pretty frustrating. This absolute myth that the "pros" are these big, bad, evil chatbox warriors who cheat their way to success just because they have a bit of software is completely wrong and frankly makes a mockery of all the work that I do to try and get ok at this game. HUDs aren't going anywhere (and contrary to what it sounds like, I would be very, very happy if every poker site banned HUDs tomorrow), and while they're here to stay I think we have to attack these misconceptions because if recs are genuinely stopping playing because they're worried about the power of HUDs then they have definitely been misinformed.



If they are not paying attention to the table, then why should they be allowed that information through a HUD? If you want to have the table information as someone playing 1-4 tables then play 1-4 tables and not 10. Take the information In and make a judgement on their fold to 3 bet %, PFR% and whatever other stat you want your HUD to collect, collate and display for you.
Logged
vegaslover
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4618


View Profile
« Reply #149 on: September 05, 2015, 01:33:49 PM »

This chatter prompted me to have a quick cash session last night as a completely unrepresentative experiment. Probably the first time i've played cash online in over a year.

I played on Sky at the giddy heights of 25p/50p and fairly quickly had a full 6-max game running. There was very little change in players over a couple of hours, and to my vaguely trustworthy non-HUD observations there was one other guy who was "playing", with the remaining 4 falling into the type that makes these games so dull nowadays.

  • A bit slow to respond (presumably due to multi tabling)
  • Pretty nitty so not playing many hands
  • Any hands they do play are opened or 3-bet aggressively - very rare to see a call
  • A distinct lack of "gamble"
  • Zero table chat the whole session

Obviously these are more likely to be winning players (or at least not big leaky losers) but it's really not much fun to see hand after hand barely getting further than the flop. I tried my best to upset the rhythm but even bashing up AA with 99 when i knew I was at best flipping didn't get any comment or change in style.

The thing i keep coming back to is it's just not very fun.


Think this just about sums up poker post bubble. Bottom line is poker online for a rec isn't much fun. Post bubble there is no buzz around poker being a new thing.

When I was a reg playing 15 tables and making extra money 2/3 outers kinda go over your head and onto the next game. As a rec, I load up 3 or 4 tables, get a couple of brutal beats and think fk this, lets do something more interesting/fun.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... 22 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.302 seconds with 21 queries.