+1

They would still need to find the correct stat before then can use it. Not very botlike at all.

@eldorian

! I AM PRETTY PISSED!

@evans

fwiw they can be winning regs with explitable spots not bad players...

but please dont ask me why am i concerned that bad players will loose less money ? lol...

wtf.. it doesn't ADD anything to your database. It's just an extra query on the database you already have. Your legitimately obtained data is sitting there, and you have the right to query the **** out of it in any way you wish.

Obtaining external db's or sharing hh's is cheating, this is not.

3 betting v's vpip 24 pfr 23 computed to 4 decimal places is...

(pause)

I'm all in.

"All your base are belong to us"

You keep mentioning bad regs using these stats that they are not entitled to.
I lean towards the side of those posting that a bad reg with more stats
is a good thing.

They will make more mistakes based on misinterpretation and that
means more money for the solid regs.

I can not agree with you on the botting. Apples and oranges IMO.

I just want to add to this a bit. I recently started playing Holdem again as sort of a challenge for a group of people I am coaching. I won a lot of money at Holdem when that was really hard to do because the games weren't that big. After that decent run my attentions took me elsewhere and while the games have more nits now they play exactly the same. I am sure my BB/100 was insane and would have come down due to variance if I would have continued to put in severe volume but I didn't. Nits are nits, you can put a naked Victoria Secret model across the street from them and tell them they have a 99.9% chance of making it across the street and they wouldn't cross. That is what separates the men from the boys in poker. Maybe you just need to spend more time on exploiting regulars and focus on more meta game type issues.

this is exactly the thing, it just takes out so much explotable profitable preflop spots against regs.

[ ] Capslock helps OP make his point

so you're saying people are incapable of telling how often a certain person 3bets them without a hud telling them so

i disagree strongly. frequent or infrequent 3betting vs self sticks out way more than anything else stats are used for.

i also don't see the second part of it (how often 3b vs certain stats) being effectively implementable in the software

and there is nothing bot-like about it. at all.

ps. u are clueless and simply bad so dont post how this is a problem lol cos IT ISN'T and rational people probably c why

true, WHATS UR POINT IN THIS THREAD THO ?

i loled have u played more than 5 hands online at reasonable stakes ?

edit: i dont really care if u did so no need to answer

@hitthedeck
ur clueless please dont post in this thrad, u dont understand the lack of extent of this etcetc

i was too slow with my up edit

OP, this is just another HUD stat, and a long overdue one at that. If other HUD stats are OK, there's absolutely no reason why this one wouldn't be. Relax and think more.

OP if you are so concerned about HUD stats then play at a site that does not allow it.

Sorry to break both your attempted restrictions, but either *any* stat which uses only past information is fair game, or none of them are.

I reckon sheer number of stats is going to be an issue. You can have this type of stat for soooo many situations. Then there is the even larger sample size needed, possibility for misinterpretation, whether people even bother to use these stats etc.. Im just not sure this will be a big deal. If someone is competent enough to use these stats to make significant improvements I bet they are competent enough to not need them in the first place.

Also, these stats are exactly the same as the simple VPIP stat from an ethical point of view. They just measure a much more specific situation.

So if someone writes an AI/real-time advisor that works only on past information, it's completely fine, as long as it doesn't click any buttons?

Actually no it doesn't. But since you are completely incapable of discussing this rationally and are just stuck on how it's obviously so bot-like there really isn't much point in attempting to educate you.

This thread is awful. And the subject line is REALLY terrible since there is nothing bot-like about this suggestion.

I don't think it's a super-great suggestion either but it certainly isn't the end of the world as OP portrays. Okay...some guy has 3-bet me 4 times out of 11 in the hands we've played against each other. WOOT!! What an awesome sample-size!

I'm not sure the logic extends all the way out that far, but yes, it might get close, which is why HUDs are somewhat murky in my view.

It would certainly be very difficult to create a good AI/advisor if it is not allowed any information on the hand in play, or to derive such information from past results.

But they are allowed information from the hand in play, look at the real-time pot-odds calculators (HEM is adding that too IIRC)

HUDs can *already* be viewed as real time advisors, but with the "advice" they offer being highly ambiguous. If you allow the *combination* of info from the hand in play with past information, conceivably one could come up with complicated derived stats that tell a player quite clearly what to do. (There's no practical difference between text saying "you should fold" and a score of 9.7 out of 10 on a "you should fold" stat)

Adding a pot odds calculator to HEM does not necessarily add this functionality (I would actually expect it *not* to do so). If it does, then it's asking for trouble since HEM is an officially allowed tool. One would just have to hope that the level of complexity of the stats required to make a good advisor would be too high for on the fly calculation.

If you don't allow the interaction of past and current info, there's not too much to worry about regarding HUDs being used to create advisors. Not because it couldn't be attempted, but because in practice the output isn't going to be useful. If you *do* allow that interaction, then you're going to have to eliminate the ability to have custom stats in a HUD, and individually approve every "official" stat. The latter seems like more of a headache to me.

HEM simply offers the ability to analyse raw data from played hands at a speed much faster than a human could possibly do. It then lets the user choose how much of that analysis to display while playing. If a player doesn't actually know what the analysis all means then how does having more of it help bad players. It's just more numbers they (we?) don't comprehend.

HEM is not a bot, it doesn't play the hand for you when you switch it on. It doesn't even make suggestions of whether to fold or bet or check. It simply condenses historical performance into some numbers.


Cliffs

[ ] bot
[ ] dangerous
[x] HEM feature
[x]

It's fine and you just have to adjust.

Actually, you really won't have to adjust at all.

FWIW - I definitely don't think HUD's should be allowed to basically do all the work for you. Thankfully, this isn't even close to being the case. And this little aspect that was suggested to HEM (which I've thought of as well) really doesn't change that at all.