I dont get how people are still even responding to gmiko

gmiko, so you came here to troll?

gmikos not a troll.

.

At first I just thought you're like a panda bear cub, clinging on to your mama (NC badges) for dear life because you got so attached to it, but still had some sense and logic in you. Now I realize I was way off.

Comparing the logic the ISO badge uses in order to activate itself with the turn cbet HEM stat is actual proof you have actually no idea what you're saying, you're just throwing terms, bad analogies, illogical arguments and insults.

A HEM turn cbet of 50% says JUST THAT: you cbet 50% on the turn after you raise pf and cbet flop, it says absolutely nothing about how often you raise pf and cbet. That's why you, the player, have to put it into context, since a turn cbet of 50% could yield totally different ranges for different villains, based on prior actions (pfr & flop cbet %). Whereas an ISO badge popping up means I simply have to raise the limper and cbet flop, THAT'S IT. I have no idea how much he limps & folds pf and how much he limps&calls and then folds to a cbet. But I don't need that, do I? Since I have my mighty badge to spare me the trouble of putting stats into context. I don't have to envision ranges, I don't have to interpret s.hit, I just have to raise pf and cbet flop, ta-da! I think BalugaWhale needs to add a new chapter to his Easy Poker book.

I suggest you make peace with the fact that you're gonna lose your dear panda mama (again, NC badges). And prepare to go back to regular hud poker. I hope you still remember how to put numbers into context and look for leaks in villains yourself, instead of having them handed to you on a golden plate.

because hud's are not a holy grail that makes u a better player. it's something like a tableninja that enchances multitabling experience in other way

Himself use and understand that a person who does not know English is almost impossible to use it fully.
The creator of positioning it as programa with infinite possibilities.
If you play against the man who bought it or set up the settings on the course to be in the red.
Man is not a poker skill, and thanks to detailed analysis NoteCaddy, you beat.
With NoteKaddi is not poker, where you clatter says program.

and badges that pop up and shout Take the money from him.

There is more than one way to define the most significant threat, but in terms of the ability to destroy a portion of the poker ecosystem and take money from a wide spectrum of players, it would be an army of colluding PLO bots. It would see a significant portion of the dead cards in the deck, it would have clone-able and reproducible soldiers, and have a plausible deniability component to make sure that they do not deviate too much from justifiable behavior. It might even need to be throttled back to avoid winning too much. Bust one, and what would happen?

I would rank that as a bigger threat than a colluding cartel of humans, which is eventually subject to disputes over the division of proceeds, and dissension and defection from within the ranks, as has been previously documented.

Google translate is strong in this one

+1 because he is against NoteKaddi

sure thats a 'threat', and yes your VM/OS solution does apply to that.

but thats always been a threat. this topic was started due to skier's software, which is a completely different threat and which is very unique in its own way.

the fact that you are trying to divert from that is curious to me

He's not trying to divert from anything. Ultimately, this is a space in which every post is going to be read by pokerstars. Skiers software is a close step to player automation, it's not, but it's about as close as you can get without breaking any rules. This thread is for a discussion about where pokerstars draws the line, in dealing with huds, notecaddy, skiers software, and various other softwares. Right now they're saying they intend to draw the line between notecaddy, and skiers software, but this thread serves as a basis of discussion on where they will draw that line, and they've asked for our opinions on the matter. Almost everything argued in here is within the scope of that debate.

Well they chose one HUD developer over another to have a HUD available for the launch of Zoom. Now all we can do is speculate about the commercial deal involved in that but Stars provided technical support fr them, the HUD developers were an integral part of the development team.

Now that may be a freebie, just cooperation, it might be Stars paid them to develop the HUD or it might be the HUD supplier kicked back money from their sales...in a symbiotic relationship it is hard to tell who paid who but HUD bevelopers have said in this forum that some sites pay them to support their site and it is beyond doubt that Stars work with HUD suppliers to keep the s/w working well.

I'm a winning small stakes reg that plays a lot of volume using HM2, NC + Table Optimizer (and other tools over the years). I've played online for over 10 years. I'm aware the following is all anecdotal and rambling but I saw this thread and felt I had to throw my hat into the mix.

Using all these tools is a tricky subject, initially when the first huds came into use they weren't a big deal. It was fairly normal around 2005-2008 to encounter a winning "reg" (through meeting them live or on a local poker forum) that didn't use a hud (or if they did use one it was one line that they glanced at now and then to check for fish/reg VPIP/PFR - if not I'd gleefully teach them how to buy one and set it up to check for fish/reg VPIP/PFR). I've loved poker software through the whole evolution, without really putting much thought into it until recently.

My attitude now is that something has to change (please hold the pitchforks). Back in the initial poker boom when PokerAceHUD was the height of poker software there were plenty of guys I knew that tried to get into poker and failed. I knew quite a few guys (professional type jobs, not idiots [yes, yes I said idiots]) that tried to get into poker and failed. At a basic level most people are awful at poker, even long term - knowing opponents basic player types won't stop them making awful mistakes or misinterpreting those player types tendencies. Poker isn't something that's easy to just get better at after a lot of experience because so much of poker is counterintuitive. So many of the tools available nowadays counteract that. You can take a guy with minimal intelligence and turn him into a winner with the perfect setup.

Notecaddy is something that I've found incredibly powerful and I've never used an add-on/coaching package (something I was looking into lately). From reading through the badges in those packages it really seems to cross a line to me. NoteCaddy Edge (not singling it out for criticism, it's the one I plan to buy if Stars don't ban it) has negative badges which give you a spectrum of advice. There are regular and "negative" badges indicating which side of imbalance a player falls on. They cover so many of the basic spots that it's hard to see how someone could argue against this taking the skill out of poker, at least in the spots covered by the badges. Knowing that someone overfolds vs a flop c/r in a single raised pot (or the opposite), or 3bets preflop then folds vs a raise, or will bet when checked to with a high frequency in single raised pots/3bet pots, or will check when weak (or strong) in 3bet pots - these are all things you could teach anyone to take advantage of (especially when coupled with software like TN/TO that will do preset betsizes for you - you could teach someone of very low intelligence to become profitable in those spots by following if/or instructions). It's a lot easier to learn "if this badge is green do this, if it's blue do that" than to learn the intricacies of any one situation intuitively over time.

I think Stars have to start taking a hard line on software aids. I've always loved poker software but we've really reached a breaking point here. I don't really have a strong viewpoint on where to draw the line, just draw it somewhere. At least start by banning anything that explicitly says "if x, based on player y's tendencies do z and profit". That covers a whole range of notecaddy addons and related products. Ban seating scripts. The only reason Stars have come up with for not banning seating scripts is that it'll take manual manpower to enforce that they're not willing to expend. That's not an acceptable solution in my opinion, and most likely in anyones opinion that isn't paying for a script. It's the same excuse they have for not enforcing their own rules on grimming/buttoning. It's understandable that Stars don't want to increase their game security team by a multiple to cope with increasing demand but it's simply not realistic. That's the way the game is going, adapt or accept it.

tl:dr: get a longer attention span you silly generation. In my day... grumble grumble grumble

greg,
Holy guacamole. This is the sequence of events:
I wrote, "I do not believe that voice actuated advice tables are the most significant threat."
You asked me, "in your opinion, what is the most significant threat? bots?"
I thought about it for awhile, and I answered "an army of colluding PLO bots".
I am not trying to divert from anything.
Maybe you should have asked "in your opinion, what is the most significant threat in skier's software?"

and please limit your answer to anything... in this general area, right in here. Anything, below the stereo, and on this side of the Bicentennial glasses. Anything between the ashtray, and the thimbles. Anything in this three inches. Right in here, this area, that includes the Chiclets, but not the erasers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUQkbXWwJhQ

There are several. Think formula one enginges. However if ferrari started to build wings into them people would complain.

Sames goes for bikes in cycling. Put in an extra wheel for balance, anddd you go to far

Soccer boots actually have different traits too, make them from steel and ur cheating

Ice staking suits, aerodynaic sure, put in a parachute u can uncover whenever theres wind and u go to far.

There are many instances in sport, in fact almost every sport where there is an imbalance between players and there is always a line you cant go over. This is arbitruary everywhere, so to tell pokerstars its an ban all or ban nothing situation is ridiculous.

aargh you can't have very unique!

Meanwhile a better phrase is that Skier had different software, that he did not share with the cartel, that has it's own exclusive software and shared data. He got shafted, in part by Stars disclosing confidential information on the s/w he let them see to approve.

but there is no debate about bots.

there IS debate about NoteCaddy and skier's software

everyone agrees bots are bad. sure having a completely isolated and locked down VM would work. ok. so what? i'm sure Stars knows that already. its just dependent upon whether 1. they want to go to such measures and 2. if players will accept such measures. my guess is no.

you are just talking about how to better enforce the rules against bots. thats fine, but its not very interesting to talk about. the topic is about the rules changes. not about enforcement of existing rules

nice post imp

Pretty much nails it, aside from the vinyl argument.

Prohibit live advice, allow all information gained through hero's HH. Edge lies in interpretation & execution.

Side point: Let there be charts! As with HUD stats, they're open to and require interpretation. Situations where a chart identically matches a poker decision are virtually unheard of. Besides, they dictate the unexploitable, not what is optimal. imho relying on these stunt a player's growth.

Allowing "most" in-game poker odds calculators, and charts is bs. Shouldn't allow any of it. A simple hud like what's available for bovada is all that should be allowed.

Was trying to imagine what changing Note Caddy might mean in terms of win-rates ...

Current Situation - Approx. Winrates for Zoom

Average Regular Winrate: 2bb/100
Average Recreational Winrate: -5bb/100
PokerStars Rake: 6bb/100

(maybe more like 1bb/100, -10bb/100, and 8bb/100?)

If Certain Software is Banned (eg. Parts of NoteCaddy) - Possible Scenarios, with Possible Approximate Winrates for Zoom

1. Possible Scenario 1 - No Change

   Average Regular Winrate: 2bb/100
   Average Recreational Winrate: -5bb/100
   PokerStars Rake: 6bb/100

2. Possible Scenario 2 - Small Change

   Average Regular Winrate: 1bb/100
   Average Recreational Winrate: -4.5bb/100 (zero sum game, twice as many losing players)
   PokerStars Rake: 6bb/100

3. Possible Scenario 3 - Big Change ... possibly no more winning players?

   Average Regular Winrate: 0bb/100
   Average Recreational Winrate: -4bb/100
   PokerStars Rake: 6bb/100

4. Possible Scenario 4 - Really Big Change

   Average Regular Winrate: -10bb/100
   Average Recreational Winrate: 1bb/100
   PokerStars Rake: 6bb/100

Maybe someone tinkering around with numbers could find a way that more people wind up winning if there's a big change to the system ... but it seems like maybe banning software might at this point be too little too late? Unless it's coupled with rake cuts maybe?

I doubt stars would go through the trouble of starting this thread if they didn't already have preset plans to ban notecaddy and all the other cheating software.

It's gone gents, looks like you guy's are gonna have to do it the old fashioned way, if you guy's are able to do it at all without the sw.

Too simplistic, and scenario 4 makes no sense of course.

There will be a bunch of winning regs that don't optimally use HUDs (and the like) and can comfortably multi-table without any third-party software whose win rates will increase, as mediocre, less-skilled, regs who rely heavily on software help will see a decrease.

I would guess that recreational players would see little change (small increase) and that the most obvious changes will be the shift of profit from the lesser skilled regs to the ones with more natural flair. Again, just a guess, but I doubt Stars would see too much difference in their profit, but it would increase the longevity of the game.

A good write-up. My fear, that I believe is inevitable, is that eventually AI software will become too good, and virtually impossible to detect, such as with the scenario of an efficient piece of software controlled by voice-activated commands given to a separate machine. (Perhaps in the future if everyone was forced to play 24 tables with no timebank then that would sidestep its usefulness! )

Very good write up.