Episode #427 - September 8th, 2016

Live from the Two Plus Two Studios - On this episode of the Pokercast: "You get a scandal! You get a scandal! Everybody gets a scandal!” - Oprah . That’s right, lots of bad behaviour this week and we are on top of it. To begin, we have caught scent of a Bacon convention that we plan to attend and talk about that before we get into the news. We’ve got a couple of stories that arose from NVG, Alex Dreyfus accused of some shady dealings, Doug Polk and Ben Tollerene attempt to settle a dispute on the forums and David Baazov involved in some more criminality. Plus a 2016 November 9er wins a tournament during the hiatus and WCOOP news. We then open your mail, we’ve got a call from the great northern state, some home game questions and more. We round out this episode with some 140 or less and review one of Ross’ hands and a couple of high stakes pots as well!

Ross Report Hands:
Hand #1 (Ross)
Hand #2 (High Stakes)
Hand #3 (High Stakes)

Click here to Listen On 2+2 Player

Direct Download mp3

Snagging first from the gym

Silver bullet

Poh Dee Umm (no relation to Kim Jong Un)

Pokercast for breakfast

Terrence sounds a little cranky this week. Maybe it's all the training.

Still, great show as always - thanks guys.

Going to be to 500 before I finish 421.

I loved the "I can't speak Engrish!" drop in the middle of the semi-heated Dreyfuss discussion

Terrence appeared to not be listening to Adam in the conversation about computer aids/study tools.
The perception of the 'dream machine' is that it's a tool that you use as you play and it updates multiple times during a hand. Sure, it may be against TOS, but the point is that only known software can (in theory) be detected.
If this software does indeed exist, the users want to keep is secret so Stars don't know what software to specify or attempt to detect. They can't ban something they don't know about.

Terrence seemed to insist on arguing about the differences between study tools and computer aids, which is a totally different thing.

I've never heard him suddenly get so defensive. Weird moment.

Those who were disappointed that Adam doesn't disagree with T as frequently as he did with Mike will get some satisfaction this week.

I think they were both making good points but having different conversations.

That was kinda tilting.

Haven't gotten to this episode so I don't know the subject, but you just described every Kaepernick-related argument I've heard in these last two weeks or whatever.

Adam said something along the lines of "Dreyfus mentioning that things aren't going well for the GPL rubbed me the wrong way, it doesn't have anything to do with this." I agree but I think you can take that a step further; it DOES have something to do with this, and I think it makes it even more obvious that Dreyfus offered a "swap" with full intention of treating it like a "loan." "Things aren't going well" = "I need money right now and don't have the funds to pay back." I think him saying things aren't going well makes it really evident that his intention from the start was to deceive, and he probably always had the idea of paying back with interest because "how can they be mad then?" At first I thought that maybe he made an honest mistake but I really support Terrence with the thought process that he does not deserve any more excuses and this was clearly scummy and deliberate behavior.

Also as others have already said, Terrence was arguing that study tools are fine and part of the game, and Adam was arguing that using software while you play is a dangerous and slippery slope. Both of you were right and were arguing two different things and that was one of the most painful discussions I've ever listened to lol

Seeing the Title of the show, I thought the episode was going to be about the ethics of Adam's speeding given the number of posts it generated (I'm still a few episodes behind)

Okay, just got to this part of the episode, and I couldn't agree more. To borrow the gun derail that briefly took place, it's as if your convo was like this:

#1: "No, guns are bad. Criminals use them to kill innocent people."
#2: "No, guns are good. We use them for hunting and sport, plus our law enforcement and military rely on them to protect us."
#1: "In that case, yes. But I'm talking about guns in a general sense."
#2: "So am I. And in a general sense, guns are good."
#1: "No, guns are bad. Criminals use them to kill innocent people."
#2: "No, guns are good. We use them for hunting and sport, plus our law enforcement and military rely on them to protect us."
#1: "In that case, yes. But I'm talking about guns in a general sense."
#2: "So am I. And in a general sense, guns are good."

[repeat ad infinitum]

I've lost track of the Ben86/WCGRider thread... has it been determined just what kind of software this so-called "dream machine" is? My understanding has been that it was some sort of advanced simulator and a training aid. In that case, using it to improve at PLO doesn't strike me as being that different than having the ultimate library of poker books. I would have to agree with Terrence – no problems from where I sit.

On the other hand, if it's something that allows you to plug in your cards in real time, then have a computer spit out some sort of GTO action before your 15-second decision window is over, then yeah, I agree with Adam that it's "troubling."

However, Adam kept defending his position by talking about software "in a general sense" – i.e. not specifically talking about Ben's whatever-it-is. The problem with that stance is that "the general sense" is too wide and varied to pin down as simply good or bad (or mostly good vs. mostly bad). That's where this discussion ultimately went: Terrence had in mind resources like PokerStove; Adam had in mind real-time situation analyzers.

So Terrence locked in on a place where poker software is a good thing.
Adam locked in on a place where poker software is borderline cheating.
[repeat ad infinitum]

I listened to Adam and Terrence talk about the dream machine with great interest. Both seemed to be talking right by each other. As a listener, I understood that Adam was talking about a real time aid and Terrence was talking about a study aid.

I had some success playing poker, largely because I spent hundreds of hours each year on PokerTracker or TwoPlusTwo.com while not playing. I may have spent 20% of my poker time studying, and I was about a 99.9% OPR tournament player. I believe the guys that were 99.95% studied more than I did, or better. And the 99.99% players even more and even better (or were smarter or more talented). On the other hand, I would talk with my buddy, who was a 98% OPR player, and I could not get him to study at all.

I was always willing to study more, within the constraints of time (I had a full time job), but I did not know the best ways to study. For instance, figuring out what starting hands to play took hundreds of hours, but it was definable. Now PokerSnowie.com gives that to me. Figuring out a good way to exploit a person with a high 3-bet range or low fold on the river takes a lot of brain time.

PokerSnowie is a great tool, but it shows only a GTO solution. What if we all had our own AI software that could play optimal exploitability on our favorite game (like .25/.50 on Stars), and not GTO, that would be something. So if I could upload my PokerTracker data (mine is 5 years old now) and have a AI software play a trillion or so hands against my competitors and come up with the best way to play the group. Then I could have that AI software play a Quadrillion more hands and find the best way to play against the regulars. That way I do not have painstakingly try to figure out from PokerTracker how to play against a variety of 3-bet ranges, (and my answer would be an accumulation of anecdotal evidence). The AI software would give me the answer.

Then I would have a massive (insurmountable for me) amount of learning a better way to play by memorizing thousands of charts.

I would program this AI machine to play practice sessions. I would play a session of 200 hands and then it would tell me the mistakes I made, like PokerSnowie does now, except this would be exploitative play. This same program will ask you to estimate each of the players VPIP and PFR and other stats to hone you skills at evaluating other players when you play live. Then when you get that, it will have you keep track of 3-bet, and so on.

If you are a pro golfer, you spend an enormous amount of time practicing. Adam knows this better than me, because he is a very good golfer, and I shoot about 92. For arguments sake say that they practice 40 hours a week and play 20 hours a week. Why would poker be any different? To get to the 99.99% of poker players, guys are going to have to study more and more. Some new "Tiger Woods" of poker is going to show up someday who will have a remarkable mind and will have learned the math to great level. Then others will want to beat him, and will be driven to study more and get even more of the math in their head. Some guy will do this for all the games in a 8 game mix, and become phenomenal.

I believe this is what the dream machine would do. All power to the guys that can program it and to the guys that can learn the most from it. We love watching golf or other sports at their highest level. So too will we love to watch poker in this way.

I am with Terrence on this one.

Digging the new TChan promos (they might not actually be new, but I didn't fast forward this time). Shout out to '140 or fewer'. The grocery store across the street from me actually changed their express checkout from 'less' to 'fewer'. I that common?

Not sure about that whole kerfuffle about the PLO Dream Machine. Weirdest argument I've ever heard on this show.

Speaking as a taller-than-average human, when I'm seated in the back of a plane I stand up as soon as I can just because I'm sick of sitting. I'll need a good explanation for why people line up so quickly to get on the plane, though. The seats in the gate area are far more comfortable. They even crowd around the gate before it's time to line up! Makes me wonder what percentage of air travelers are first timers.

I'd say it's more common for the incorrect usage to persist so long that dictionary publishers give in and change the definition to validate the incorrect usage.
I've read that airline employees call these people "gate lice." Specifically, people who crowd the gate before their group is called, blocking people who are supposed to be boarding.

I normally listen to each pokercast quite a bit of times just because... this episode.. Terrance seemed to annoy easily this pokercast.. was fun to listen to adam and him go back and forth on a couple of things. So what i'm hearing is.... Doug could be building a supercomputer!?? lol NO! There is none! And Alex is a dick! *punching hole in wall*

Guess I took a slightly different view (listen?) of the dream machine argument. Adam was saying it was "troubling" or "bad for the game long run" that people were using software tools. As I recall, TChan exactly asked if this was in or out of game -- specifically, was Adam accusing people of using in-game decision making software. I actually agree with what it seemed Terrence was saying. You have two things:

• You could have an in game decision making/assisting program. This is clearly against the ToS and is cheating by current rules. If someone is doing that, they should be outed, shunned, and shamed by whatever else the wrath of NVG can come up with.
• You could have an out of game study aid, maybe a near GTO solver or other tool. This is clearly OK, and it is normal. Good players study the game away from the table. Developing tools to study is normal, and it is nuts to think the best players are some the best at this. Even bad and mediocre players are trying.

If there are accusations of game time software based cheating, once evidence comes up it seems people will be banned. There was that big thing about smart push/fold tables in SNGs, right? That's the first bullet. The second one is just progress -- you can't say "I wish people weren't studying". You could ask good chess players. As I understand it, the norm is studying vs strong bots and the game has advanced. Wishing people won't get better is pointless. Maybe I misunderstood Adams' view? It just seems black and white, one is bad and the other is good/normal.

Airlines need to convert boarding procedure to a Keno board with seat numbers imo. Esp at McCarran

There is a reason that the Dream Machine, so-called, is different from Stove.

It's one thing if software is available to everyone that gives someone at advantage, notably as a study aid.

It's a far different thing if software is available only to certain people, even if as a study aid.

Especially if the software is being distributed only to certain people.

It creates a poker economy where certain people have a clear advantage over others. That's not good. Even if it's legal. Legal != Fair.


Also, I don't think the "study aid" thing is as clear as TChan makes it. Consider sports where people take PEDs in order to train harder. They still put in a ton of hard work, but do so at an advantage to others. Lance trained really hard. He still had an unfair advantage over (some) of the Peloton.

Why do we consider all training aids fair?

Should every Wall Street trading company be required by law or morality to share their trading algorithms? What is this "fair" world you're even talking about? Poker for profit assumes by its very nature that some people will have less information/skill than others. You don't have good enough off-line playing software, then go develop it yourself. Buy it from people who have. Whatever. Of course some people have an advantage.

Do you think that every chess grand-master has access to the study tools available to every other, or is it possible that some have access to or have developed better ones? If some people have better, are they unethical. I work in robotics. If someone has better algorithms than I do for developing motion code, do I get to complain to someone "hey, that's not fair" or I have to realize that they're a better company until I do better?
Because our definition of fair is "doesn't violate the ToS of the sites we play on". There is no limit to studying on your own or running sims. No limit to GTO solvers away from the table. There is exactly a limit against using software in real time to make plays for you. Thus, one is OK and the other isn't.

The whole idea in poker that the game is unfair because someone has access to developing information that other don't have seems nutty. Now if someone at Stars let out a few billion hands to allow AI development, I could see an argument that this private information was an unfair advantage. However, I think there is some ToS thing about using hands you didn't personally observe. Your GTO solver doesn't care about this stuff -- it is looking at theoretical distances from perfect play.

I think your perspective is a fine one and justifiable. But:

I emphatically disagree that what is FAIR is what is in the ToS. Again, legal != fair.

For example, it took some time for the ToS to catch up and be adjusted to handle in-game decision making tools. Were those fair exactly up to the point where they were banned? No. They were LEGAL up until they were banned, not necessarily fair.

Again, what is legal is not necessarily what is fair.

I'm still not convinced that it's FAIR that some people have access to software for study that others do not. Basically, what you have then is some people with a monopoly over information. I'm not saying those aids should necessarily be banned, but that their existence in only the hands of a few -- some of whom did nothing to develop them except fall into the right social circles -- is unfair.

Maybe this is taking it too far, but consider John Rawls' concept of the Veil of Ignorance:

When information is available to certain groups, but not others, and merit or hard work is unrelated to whether or not that information is available, that is unjust under the Rawlsian conception above.

Would you, for example, choose to enter a poker economy in which information is selectively available based upon non-meritocratic means? Or where only the-already-rich can pay for it? I would not. In that way, it is unjust.

Maybe the only just thing in poker is winning at all costs within the rules. But I'm not sure I believe that. Maybe turning to Rawls takes it too far, but maybe there is important insights there too.

Moreover, and Adam made this point on the show, we should not want such a poker economy. This moves us beyond discussions of fairness to discussion of the poker world we WANT and which is best for everyone.

You mentioned finance. High-speed trading is something that gave, and gives, certain traders an edge. Perhaps you can argue that there is nothing wrong with high-speed trading per se, even if it's only available to the most well-resourced traders. But even if high speed trading is morally justifiable, that doesn't mean that it is in fact good for the financial system. In fact, it's basically just caused an arms race where no wealth has been created, just redistributed, with extra risk (consider the crashes it has caused).

So, analogous to poker, the training tools may be justifiable/fair, especially if you did the work to develop them, but they may still in fact be bad for the poker economy overall. I fully acknowledge there's nothing that probably can be done to stop that.

It still may have implications for who we think the the best player is, though. Is Ben86 the best because he got Alix to write software for him which he exploited? Again, things to consider.

All that said, I would never want to ban the development of training tools, even if it WERE bad for the poker economy overall. Sharks are gonna shark and that's part of the dream.

But that doesn't mean the arms race is a good thing. Perhaps just inevitable.

The game theorists will point out that we'd all have been better off without nuclear weapons, if we just sat around and fought with sticks and stones. But we're incentivized to develop the better tools, so now we just settle for mutually assured destruction and hope Trump doesn't nuke the world. Online poker, and especially high stakes, is now at a point where it's in something like a post nuclear world.