I think this is a big point, it sure will be unfair to casual pros & fair players & the players that really are using this to its maximum will find a way around it and gain an ever bigger edge & preventivt huds & softwares like HEM/PT will makes it even harder to find bots/people cheating, an arena where a lot of players have succeded where PS failed(see PLO-bot)

I was talking about HUD.

Patently false? "Suspect"? Cutting a quote just before an or and then claiming the first bit is false is pretty mischievous.

Anyway - which s/w on the approved list provides the street by street dynamism? I'd like to review it. It is slightly odd though that I suggest there is dynamic information provided by street, you say that is false and then claim there is software that does this. I find that a little confusing.

That's very reassuring news.

Do you want to join the discussion on whether such software should be allowed in the future?

I spent some time to read some questions and here are my answers:

-Notecaddy used in it's FULL POTENTIAL without any restriction is NOT violating any rules of the possible new prohibited software policy. Having notecaddy on the list of the programs could be restricted looks like a misunderstanding of someone of Pokerstars team that doesn't use or doesn't understands notecaddy, or maybe a personal misunderstanding of Pokerstars Steve.

-Leak Buster is a tool analysing your hole HM database and finds potential leaks. The software offers no advise we can use during your game and there is no player in the world have ever used leak buster during playing because there is nothing there to see while playing. Having this on the list looks also funny and like a huge misunderstanding of what the functionallity of the program is

-Prohibiting odds calculator tools during play has no meaning , not only (as I wrote above) no serious player exists using them during the game and their functionallity is for self study away from the tables, but also because somebody can have TWO computers . Even if it not usefull at all to run those programs during the game and only a begginer could do this trying to understand the very basics, even if you prohibit the usage ...is very easy for a begginer player who doesn't know the odds against his opponent range while he is holding AK to run Pokerstars in one computer Pokerstove to the second computer. Also it is very easy for a begginer to PRINT pokerstove results to a single page of paper and read it while playing. The same holds to the other caclulators ... Prohibiting these tools during play will not affect the game traffic (like if you restrict notecaddy) but it doesn't make any sence.

One more advise from me is that you should have some of your team members trained on use of this software you reffered to and learn what it is, what it does and how to use it. You could contact members of HM team and ask for some training sessions. It could help you to understand better how those tools and in general how modern poker software work and finally HOW the product you offer (MODERN ONLINE POKER ) IS PREALLY PLAYED. MODERN ONLINE POKER MEANS FULL POTENTIAL OF NOTECADDY. If you restrict anything on Notecaddy , we will not change the way we play online poker. We will change POKER ROOM.

If someone thinks that could restrict Notecaddy, it is just a misunderstanding or he is thinking that it is possible option to send online Poker back to the year 2000. If some of your team members don't know it yer ... then send a questionaire to your Supernova or SNE elite players and ask them what they think about Notecaddy.

If you need a trainer of how modern poker is played, Alan Jackson for example is very good for this , you could ask him if he has time to train some of your team members, and of course it is vert easy to find more experts on the topic. ( Check http://www.ajacksonpoker.com/)

And I repeat that if you want players feedback, stop asking forum TROLLS what they are thinking about and just create and send a questionaire to your players having a VIP status that shows that are using some of those programs , understand what those programs do and be able (having the knowledge) to express a usefull opinion.

Thanks

Read OP.

Also can I ask if you came here after reading an email from Notecaddy conflating potential restriction of their product with potential restriction of HEM?

Make all tables anonymous, and build a basic HUD into client, that opens automatically when you take seat, or only spread anonymous zoom.

I believe holdem indicator (and likely others) give information about the current hand (draw/out odds, etc) but since it only gives percentages and not actual advice (like call/fold/raise) they allow it. I could be wrong as I haven't reviewed this software in some time.

The closest HM2 comes to information about the current hand is live pot odds and street by street HUD (different config per street but information is static from previous hands in the database, not current hand). *I forgot about NC's Timing Tells that uses HM2's Live Tracking but this again is not advice, just data you have to interpret.

When I played on Stars, I used a complex HUD, replete with about 20 self-designed pop-ups. I've done database-analysis and leak-finding for hundreds of players. I have Notecaddy, and I spent around 50 hours creating my own stat definitions and badges. I used lobby-scanning software to find the softest tables. I use Equilab and other calculation tools every day. I was what you might call a "power-user" of Snowie for a year. As someone fascinated by poker and by AI/robotics, I follow software developments reasonably closely.
I'm in favour of a complete ban of all poker software aids.

One reason I support a complete ban is that it's impossible to draw a line in the sand that doesn't favour one vested interest over another. It does not make logical sense to say "CoffeeHUD is fine, but SkierHUD is not" or "HEM is acceptable, but Notecaddy is not", or "They should ban Need4Seat, but allow Sharkystrator". All of these tools are are designed to do the same thing: to provide a computer-aided edge on the field.

Workable rules are those that are clear and simple. As I see it, there are two ways to create a fair and level playing field based on clear rules that don't penalize anyone for straying into a grey area:

1. No software aids are permitted.
or
2. Everything (up to and including GTO approxabots) is permitted.

I support option one. I fear that the players that want to cling to their HUDs and scripts are voting for their own obsolescence. They remind me of the shop assistant I met in Tesco four years ago that excitedly told me "We're getting the new self-scanning checkouts installed next week." She's now unemployed, obviously.

I don't use NC as I prefer to take my own notes during or after a session. I was talking about HEM. Same applies to PT. I have my own setup for HEM from where I can get the information I consider relevant for profiling a player. Without that information I think ZOOM games would change drastically although I already know some of the tendencies of most regulars at the level I am playing. To me it does not seem that accumulating and using stats gives me an unfair advantage at zoom tables as HEM and PT are not that expensive and are available for anyone.

When I said I would look for another room to play, I was referring only to ZOOM type of tables. Any other type of game, cash or tournament is fine for me without hud as I can profile player tendencies after some hands. But this is impossible at ZOOM. Do you agree ?

Well said sir. Blanket ban the lot of them. Then see how the whole pecking order will change dramatically. Level playing field. EVERYONE will have to play poker using their own thoughts and memory/skill.
What will happen??? More recs, enthusiasts and casuals may just start reaching final tables every once in a while and double up their stack in zoom which will create more sign ups more longevity and a new lease of life in poker.
Ban ALL software. I can and do multitable upto 10 mtts a night and Im profitable over the last 6 years. I dont use HUDS. I manually note players and I tag them with colours.

Pokerstars has the power to save online poker from extinction if they put a stop to all of these cheating aids. **** their regulars. They may lose some initial rake from hud grinders but in the long run it will prosper.

Dear PokerStars Team ,

it seems quite stupid from my perspective what you wrote as permitted and not permitted software. It does not make sense to me the fallowing - you allow things such as HuDs , odds calculator , profiling opponents and so on , but now as software progresses you forbid some of it because "it gives the player TOO MUCH information". I know you are pokerstars but - who are you and how do you decide what too much info is ?

This problem is very very easy to solve because it is binary - either allow all the software as it progresses ( excluding bots ) , or forbid all of it.

it is absolutely not binary.

agree though. how dare they decide what to allow and not allow on their own site.

This **** is so silly. People calling for skiers program banned and then trying to weasel in whatever they use. Also anyone honest is going to get freerolled. Could easily use a "program" or static starting hand charts on a side computer.

skiers software + flop regression model softwares should be allowed, clearly.

Stars should just make a hud, (with in there rules) make if free, and give it to all players.

Props to the way Skier has handled this whole situation as well, whole lot of class shown from him.

Oh the black and white, binary choice, world is so simple.

There is no real distinction between a bot and software telling a human what to do. The Cybot in the anything goes "option" is still a bot.

The other option of banning all s/w has huge implications for the legitimate interests of a site raking regs, a site that needs liquidity and for regs that have a life built upon being able to multitable for many hours. The absolutist "ban all" position is just not possible, it destroys the current industry. Stars cannot do it and regs cannot accept it - plus liquidity dies to the detriment of recs.

Your binary choice is between two imposible options!

The world is grey. We have banned s/w already, what we need is clearer guidelines, limitations on the power of software and new enforcement mechanisms (APIs, site approval of s/w, declerattion of s/w used to other players). Now Stars as a quasi sports regulator can try to do it alone as now, or they can work with real regulators to help use the law to enforce the grey.

IF we have approved s/w that declares itself to the client, that meets social responsibility rules (fair and open) then it is sustainable, indeed it can help wipe out dta cheating as multi tablers without an approved HUD that allows data checks would stand out like a proverbial sore thumb.

Software supply can be regulated - it is already regulated if the software is sold to the site, they need a licence. Stars can move to an environment where approved s/w needs to declare itself to the client and all other software is banned. Later we can move to regulating that software and the suppliers of it and criminalising those that supply non approved software. The legal framework already exists, what is lacking for the gey world of regulated third party software is engagement by sites like Stars and the inaction of UKGC to date on Section 41 of the 2005 Gambling Act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/41

We have the legal framework, we just don't have a regulator that has acted on third party software or a poker operator that has started to work with the regulator on this issue.

As a veteran grinder, i think it would be fantastic if an enforceable ban on all third-party software was possible. It would present a far fairer playing field but I'm just not sure how realistic that scenario is.

For such a vision to exist, I would imagine players, or at least "non-fun" players (however they are defined, but probably based on volume/stakes), would have to be prepared to give up a little more PC privacy. However I expect more PC savvy players than myself would say there would always be a way around this for the more determined would-be abusers.

I am a pro player and I have not really played on pokerstars ever. If you took these steps, and possibly even went further with the bans on software, I would highly consider playing there. This is a very positive step you'd be taking in my opinion and I really hope you go ahead with these proposed changes.

I know you know your stuff, and you talk a lot of sense, and I understand your reasoning here, however... I would argue -as someone who has played more hands 24-tabling than virtually anyone, for longer than virtually anyone- that as long as a time-bank was adopted by the client, it would still be easy to multi-table, and that the liquidity would still exist close to its current form. (When 24-tabling on my laptop I don't run a HUD (due to CPU issues) and can play with no 3rd party at all other than StarsHelper for its time-bank with no problems at all.)

I agree that banning all 3rd party software is easier said than done. I think there are simpler ways to reduce the effects of 3rd party software.

1. Completely transition the Pokerstars lobby to the quickseat version of the website. You pick a game, you pick a stake, you click play and you are seated at a game.

No seat scripts and it reduces casual players fear they are being hunted down drained of cash.

You limited the amount of times someone can enter a new game to prevent abuse (people rejoining game after game after game until they find a very favourable table), e.g. if you have recently left a table you can only rejoin a new table a maximum of 5 times in a 30 minute period.

This still allows people to table select games to an extent but not go crazy and could help stop some of the table camping at high stakes waiting for fish or force the nosebleeds and mid-highstakes into the same games making a healthier high stakes environment.


2. Make it more difficult for people to be bots and not real people. It appears to me bots are constantly being found and banned. How do these botmakers able to have endless accounts?

Is it possible for Pokerstars to require a legitimate passport no. that can be checked and verified? Do they do this already?

If so then the bot masters must have access to a large amount of people who are willing to give up their passport no. and identity for a little cash.

I couldn't imagine this happening much in the UK and Central Europe so is it far more prevelant in Eastern Europe?

It would certainly be bad for legitimate Eastern European players to be victims of these botters, but is player segregation a realistic solution if an unbalanced amount of botters are from there.

Maybe a choice to play with only people from the UK and only from Western Europe. Maybe a choice to play with only people who have gone through a stringent verification process?

Also consider that these determined "would-be abusers" would probably make up a relatively small percent of the overall player pool. Especially if Star's was able to implement harsher penalties for such an offense. Star's also needs to probably hire more data analyst to help them more easily find anomalies based in their data that can help them more accurately catch the "would-be abusers".

Point being that if some restrictions or outright bans were placed on 3rd party software I think it's possible that the negatives brought on by the "would-be abusers might be dwarfed by the positive effects on the overall ecosystem in comparison.

The abilities of some never cease to amaze me. Maybe you are right, a new elite non HUD grinder might emerge if there were a ban but I suspect that most cold not do that, at least not profitably.

In any case that risk is not one Stars could take, they can't overnight ban HUDs and TBF a basic HUD does not deliver the leap in capability to exploit that the rest of the s/w delivers. I'll take my chances vs a guy with one HUD view for all players, me vs 240+ specific specialised exploit s/w badges....dead meat, like all recs.

Just trimming HUD/Notecaddy/other capabilities is a business risk for them. (Not a big one, the liquidity will win out) but an absolutist s/w or HUD ban is a complete non starter, and TBF would be an overreaction that punished many regs with no time to adapt - unlike the clipped s/w cpability world, with data checks that I advocate where regs could adapt quite easily.