This is wrong. If Stars allows US back in without change it's just more of the same. Look at WPN; they model their rewards system after Stars and the games are terrible. Bovada has a sustainable model with 4 table cap, anonymous tables, and very limited sw options. 95% of my action is on Bovada because of this.

P.s. the US players are never coming back and at this point I'm glad, i won't have to play against an army of euro cy- bots.

P.p.s. All you guys saying sw isn't the problem are half right. It's sw + rewards system + no limits on tables. They all work together to destroy the ecosystem.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using 2+2 Forums

According to what I hve read you offered it to people for % of their winnings. Which are since they are using it better than before. In addition I read that it adjusts its preflop charts based on the stats that are collected. Like in HU HT villain folds 80% in BB, then the chart would widen its range on its own what 'we' can minraise in the SB.

Its not like a static chart I can create on my own, which I would manually would have to change after each day I played, AFTER checking how the stats of all my villains changed after one game day. If that should be correct, its totally unbelievable in my opinion. (also an insane piece of work in terms of coding btw. as a compliment)

PS. a youtube video who it works would clear that a little up too, since no one can buy your software anywhere atm right? like table ninja etc.

SKIP SKIP SKIP

Try Autheticity Verifiction here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_verification

or a list of apps for this here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...ation_software

APOLOGIES

raidalot is my MVP in this threat =) great choice of words.

It is exactly like the static chart you create on your own. The chart you bring up at the beginning of the session is the same chart you bring up at the end of the session. If you had a folder full of charts - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc then the software would work by you saying chart 1, chart 2 etc and it would bring up the relevant chart. That's it.

Skier's suggestions......

1) Have site wide anonymous names. A player with the name of 'player12345' is the same player across all tables. This allows for much easier multi tabling and preserves across table dynamics

Ya, I mentioned this earlier. Site wide anonymous daily profiles might work. Similar to how when we sit down to play a board game we choose a player piece. Allow users to choose their personal avatar/screen name each session and have it displayed across all tables. A bit more personal than looking at "Seat 4" and I think important in certain formats such as multi-table tournaments where we are constantly be moved to new tables, sometimes with players we will have previously played with on other tables. Let us maintain our reads on those players by preserving the anonymous name throughout.

3) You can do stuff like limit changes to weekly name changes which still allow weekly leaderboards/etc

Just have your log in id reflected on the leaderboards, etc. I don't see why this information has to be hidden.

4) You can make some formats anonymous while others are not. Cash games and sit and goes can be anonymous but scheduled tournaments are not.

Why not all formats? Why let super HuDs still be so effective in scheduled tourneys. Just keep with the anonymous by session, day, month, or whatever format.

Hmmmm......ya. Ok. Write a book on that and make millions.

Also, this study doesn't necessarily conclude that the players that won over the course of all those hands are indeed going to be lifetime winning players. It just showed the players that lost, lost more money and quicker on average. There are probably plenty of otherwise losing recreational players that won in that sample that would have otherwise been slowly grinded away more often "HuD" only games. That's just the variance of larger pots. Kind of interesting the so many pro-software activists keep referring to that article when in the end the author's own conclusions are mostly supportive of "anonymous" tables quoting;

"So in 2015, why not give Anonymous Tables a try? There’s no camping allowed."

He also gives an epilogue about "cheating at Anonymous tables" which seems to support "anonymous Vs HuD"

Anyway, regardless that study is based in a segregated player pool. That study would be more interesting if you could somehow force both player pools to play each format for XXX amount of hands and then compare the results.

I think people here should give Unibet at least a try. Although I'm dumb as f*** to hint strong players to my prefered site, I think at the same time they can promote non-software oriented gameplay and attract more players for it which is beneficial long term.

cheers

this is going to get some parsecs off topic so feel free to PM me. i will do my best to walk you through the thought process.

Unibet put fairness at the front of their pitch. They don't have the benefit of PS liquidity but I suspect it's an attractive proposition for recs ... http://igaming.org/poker/news/unibet...february-19th/

Ex-PS guy talks about it here ... http://www.reddit.com/r/poker/commen...industry_most/

and in OP here ... http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...hread-1452899/

I like the daily name change idea.

IMO it would be good for collusion and bot detection to have full, NOT anonymous, hand histories on a 24 hour delay.

This is like the most complicated solution to a problem in poker history. Instead of banning NC Badges and 2-3 other programs lets change the entire game.

You will very much be in the minority if you don't believe segregation is the biggest factor in the falling numbers we have seen in recent years. You can't take massive numbers of players out of the system and then claim that's not had the biggest impact on the games.

wrong metric. did the number of players increase or decrease per country still playing?

It's hard to prove a direct link, because the "amount" and effect of software is impossible to measure, particularly when some of it is unknown/unauthorised. That said, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence:

Exhibit A: Pokerstars has more data on the software used by its customers than any other company in the industry, and it is hyper-aware of churn rates.
Exhibit B: Pokerstars Steve started this thread. I suspect he wouldn't be doing so if the rise of software wasn't a concern.
Exhibit C: The widely reported long-term decline in traffic on most "established" sites. (There appears to be a correlation - if not direct causation - between the rise of software and the decrease in player numbers).
Exhibit D: Traffic on Unibet (a site with no mainstream HUDs, datamining or table-selection) is growing rapidly.
Exhibit E: Traffic on 888's Snap tables (again, with no mainstream HUD support) is either stable or growing year on year. (Full figures aren't publicly available, but anecdotally Snap seems to be attracting more users than a year ago. The opposite is true on iPoker, where Speed Poker - where HUDs work - is reportedly dying).
Exhibit F: Traffic on Bovada (which lacks full HUD support, and has anonymous play) is reportedly growing.
Exhibit G: The MPN study that has been linked to several times ITT.
Exhibit H: The ending of affiliate deals for sites that promote "rakeback grinding" (e.g. William Hill severing ties with several sites that promote HUDbotting, and getting rid of offsite rakeback).
Exhibit I: Ever-diminishing winrates on sites like Stars that allow stat-mining.
Exhibit J: "Pre-boom" winrates are possible on sites that don't allow HUDs.
Exhibit K: The ever-increasing number of NVG threads that contain the words "ban HUDs".
Exhibit L: Common ****ing sense.

Well said. And I as a player who has played full time throughout 2009 to 2015 have seen a shocking decline in gtd prizepools in mtts across Ipoker, Ongame, Party, Micro.
And funnily enough I played the speed poker on Ipoker two nights ago for fun at 100 and there were 86 players, most of which were multitabling.

But yeah, the gtd prizepools of mtts on Ipoker are now less then a quarter of what they were in 2009 to what they are now. Cash games back then were running left right and center. SitnGos ran allday everyday too.
They even used to have the ECOOP which was amazing. All gone. Its like a ghost town.
Ongame is gone?? Or merged with micro. They also used to run big gtd festivals.
Party the same.
Stars is the only site left with decent prizepools. But even they, after the removal of US players have seen slowly decreasing gtd prizes in mtts since black friday.

Exhibits A and B only have to do with new software which has become available recently, not software in general.
Exhibit C - as you rightly note, correlation, not causation. Alternative causes: regulation, end of the poker boom, players getting better so regs are less likely to continue and fish going bust quicker.
Exhibit D - these are not the only central features of Unibet (for instance, it could be solely due to the achievements system or lack of table selection), and any new, well-run poker site is somewhat likely to grow if advertised using the power of a company like Unibet.
Exhibit E is largely a function of game softness, not HUD availability. Ask a random fish what the difference between the two games were and I doubt they'd be able to tell you that one allowed HUDs and the other didn't. 888's low RB is a very large cause of this.
Exhibit F - largely due to it being the only reasonable option for non-regulated poker in the US, as well as being the softest site on the internet.
Exhibit G - weak evidence; refers to anonymous, rather than HUDless games which is an important distinction. Also, it largely refers to games being softer, rather than sustainable. If Stars, the market leader, were to go fully HUDless, HUDless games would instantly become significantly tougher.
Exhibit H - high rakeback is very bad for any site, but this has absolutely nothing to do with HUD use, and the term 'HUDbotting' is ridiculous since HUDless play is likely to be far more automatic than play with a HUD.
Exhibit I - again, this is a cause of the arms race in skill, not in software (though some of the stronger software does, I will concede, play a part, I find it very difficult to imagine that this will be affected by the market leader merely ceasing to allow a HUD).
Exhibit J - first, not quite (not aware of any sites where 15bb/100 is possible at 200NL). Second, this is largely because those sites are unattractive to regs for a multitude of reasons - possibly lack of HUDs being a minor consideration, but often the relevant considerations are more strongly software problems, lack of rakeback, lack of liquidity, lack of trustworthiness, and lack of awareness.
Exhibits K and L are completely worthless as evidence and you know better, but I suspect you were being facetious.

you guys really like to hear yourself talk

the only thing worth discussing here (since banning software that mimics automation is so f obvious) is how PS (and others) have a nut zero chance of staying ahead of the whack-a-mole game that will be enforcing such rules

all games player for $ over the internet will soon be over

the different between playing vs a bot and playing vs someone using software similar to that of which a bot would use to learn/play the game is extremely slim (relatively obv)

bots have yet to NEED to spend time/effort on appearing as human-like as possible

now that they do it will not be difficult for them (bot makers) to make the necessary adjustments to constantly stay one (or more likely, many) steps ahead of the authorities (Stars supersleuth software detection unit)

Are you guys continue talking about banning HUDs, make the table anonymous and so on, with the BOT scandal? After they have taken out about 5M out of poker economy?lol nonsense, if you ban the HUDs and tracker in general, BOTs and cheaters will thrive.

This is a fair point though it applies to both sides. It reminds me of this thread from November last year.

In this thread we are not going to get beyond anecdotes, speculation and deduction as to what rec players want (my own view is there is a big difference between one group of recs who like chess, bridge and poker and another group who like sports betting, slots and poker - although the solution of "fair" games is probably necessary for both).

For that reason I strongly recommend PS test out some of the speculation with focus groups of potential rec players. Do the "twitch test" I mentioned earlier, ask them what feels fair to them.

Ideally there should be 3 focus groups: former poker players, players of other "mind sports" and people who gamble on other things.

Whatever they tell you - use it intelligently to set the rules. Ignoring it and building the rules on the basis that the recs won't find out anyway what is being used so let's not annoy the regs, is not an acceptable approach for an industry in general and specific company that aspire to greater social acceptance and the widest possible level of regulatory approval. In the Twitch era, it's also not going to work - we can see the regs' desktops now and we even know which of them watch chloroform videos. The next generation of players will be looking to learn about poker on twitch, just as previous generations learnt from Super System, rec.gambling.poker, twoplustwo and youtube. You can't hide this anymore.

Those note caddy huds are probably being used with data mined hand histories since u otherwise don't have enough data for reliable stats.

Yeah anon tables in the midst of the bit scandal is a disaster.

Good decission stars!!! I support you 100% in this!!!

I was trying to balance my range.

why is there a debate about hud and notecaddy killing the game(or not), or how to keep recreational player happy and how , or how to "save online poker" etc? i think it was not op's concern in this thread but some people jump on the occasion to try to serve their own interset.

can somedody explain to me why the rules listed in OP's statement would allow filter via street but not by action facing or hole card please? (and also the difference between the two in case i didnt get it)