if stars do ask NC to make some alterations will it be possible for NC to continue as it is now on all other sites whilst some features are restricted on stars?

Why do people repplied here saying "yes, ban them all 3th party softwares"?

Stars never asked if we think they should ban everything, it wont happen (no for now).

They asked for a way to stop tools like skier´s style.

Yes they may have. I'm saying it's important not to take this number out of context. The issues which anonymous tables/name changes fix may (or may not, I don't know, but my experience suggests they are far more prevalent than bots) take far more out.

At his point, after your last 10 or so posts, I think it's quite obvious you're trolling, so yeah.. whatever you say, no point in arguing.

Find it where ? Please enlighten us.

this is where it would start to get interesting. iirc max observer hands used to be a switch in the software that was trivial to flip. there is no way known in this universe you can protect against haxxors with hex editors.

I'm assuming that the stealthier and more sophisticated cheats are the ones that hide under the radar longer. There are probably a lot more cases of less sophisticated cheats that Stars is able to quickly spot, ban, and remove before any significant damage is done.

Either way there isn't much we can do about it, can we? Maybe just pressure Stars to hire and dedicate more resources to problem.

Those with a really deep understanding of the game don't need these in game supertools to make their plays, they are basing their decisions on other factors, including their off the table actual work. At the other end of the spectrum, the recs and fish really have no need for such tools and are actually hurt by them (not gonna repeat the roulette argument yet again, whoever has some basic common sense should've get it by now). So the vast majority of the supporters of these ever more advanced live leak finders are the mediocre breakeven semi-regs and rakeback dependent regs, for whom the prospect of playing without them brings up a very ugly image, which I am pretty sure you can figure out (hint - sliding slope).

+1

The arguement was that a lot of those players using NC would have to move down 3-5 stakes. The inversion of this arguement is that players are able to move up 3-5 stakes when they start to use NC. If you believe that this is possible you highly overestimate the impact. No add-on product claims to make such a difference and be sure they would claim it if it would be a somewhat realistic claim. Far away from trolling to say that MX210's post is nonsense.

VIP program ftw

FWIW, he said 2-5 levels, not 3-5 and indeed, I think 5 levels is an exaggeration (personally I think 1-3 is more appropriate), but what I highlighted out of his post is spot on. And yes, the inverse of that argument is true, you will move up in levels with such supertools, but no one said just NC and its supertools by itself will get you up, with no other effort on your part. Do you think Lance Armstrong stopped training altogether when he was using those.. "supertools"? We all know that's not the case, but the point is it gave him a big boost. That doesn't mean he was chilling it, eating hamburgers and drinking beer the day before climbing Mont Ventoux.

Well there must be more can be done when you see the great work that is being done by some on 2+2 to find these bots. If the tables were anonymous or there weren't any huds then it looks as though they would never have been found and they would go on taking millions more out of the games.

Because you obviously know how the best regs at high limits are working and how they are thinking and making their decisions. That's why you are a poker millionnaire already, right ? Unless of course you have no clue and you are just taking your feelings and thoughts as proofs as usual.

Someone do an experiment. Do a session with software and one without, reg HUD only, doing the same number of tables, time of day, level, etc. Longer the better obviously and compare red lines.

Im looking at all the software lovers who say they can do it themselves...

I think these tools have the most detrimental effect on the lower to micro stake games online.

Sure, we have;

(1) fundamentally strong and talented players equally talented at using software

(2) fundamentally strong and talented player; unskilled with using software

(3) fundamentally weak players but skilled with using software

(4) fundamentally weak players and unskilled with using software

(5) recreational players

Obviously these are quick generalizations and there are some levels in between but the entry level recreational player that often sits down to play low to micro stakes online is now being highly exploited and taken advantage of by "group 3".

If all players sat down without any software they would lose their money naturally to group 1 and group 2. This software has allowed group 3 however, who are otherwise weak fundamental poker players, to gain a reasonably significant edge over them now.

As the software improves and becomes considerably more user friendly and more easily to interpret the data we will be able to replace "fundamentally weak player" with "monkey" and it will have the same effect.

This "millionaire argument" that's been thrown around quite a few times here has got to be the most ******ed anyone could come up with. Right up there with the "Hitler argument". Some people lack the most basic common sense.

Well put, well said.

this needs more TV time. the controversy on (russian) PTR has never been settled. on one hand they are clearly evil by profiting from hand mining, on the other hand they are a valuable resource for busting cheaters.

anonymous tables + full disclose of hands fixes this and insta busts all of them sites. and ..before i forget ..huds can display graphs too.

Sorry for my last post as I interpreted your post wrong. After first reading it I had thought you meant to say that the 95% of cheats that PokerStars does claim to have caught might make up a significant more amount of money stolen from the player pool.

I understand what you were pointing to now. You're right, if not for the players in this recent case maybe it would have continued to go unnoticed and more money stolen.

Anonymous tables would take the ability for players to police their own games out of the player's hands. There probably has to be a bit more transparency on PokerStars part. They should also hire and dedicate more resources to the problem. In the end you just have to take it as a sacrifice for greater good of the games assuming that's your point of view.

Anonymous tables are by no means ideal, and in a perfect world it wouldn't have to come to that but obviously we don't live in that world so sacrifices have to be made one way or the another.

+++++

This is a good post, but it is flawed in two primary ways:

1) This is online poker. Software is part of the game. Therefore, someone's ability to use certain software (which don't automate decisions or provide active advice) is part of how 'fundamentally strong and talented' they are.
2) Below about 400NL, games don't run just because there's a player from group 3 or 4 at the table. A player who a game revolves around is going to get mercilessly destroyed whether software exists or not (consider this - at 50NL 6m, rake is 8-9bb/100. Therefore, for a normal table with 5 regs and one fish to run, with all the regs breaking even pre-rb, the fish needs to lose at 48-54bb/100).

You are right that it is a PR number but not quite how you say it is read (not by you). Their claim is that 95% of those they catch cheating they do so without help from other players. This sounds credible, most will be complete numpties, if you can't catch them very quickly then strewth. They hear 95% caught but that is not the real claim

They are not claiming that they catch 95% of all cheaters. They may like to sound like that to the general public but they make no such claim, turns out they are not idiots, they get that the number avoiding detection is a known unknown.

What they have confirmed is that 5% are detected by players, that is a huge number, that is a group that escapes the standard, normal Stars checks and is certain due to observational bias to relate to very heavy players, playing a lot of hands.

Catching 3 drunken Croats or mates in a dorm at Brixton college colluding on skype, or in the same room on a drunken Friday night is not as IMPORTANT as the 5% players detect - few players will notice, fewer report and on recent record only a subset of those will be heard. Sadly that 5% is a far higher share of the (known) cheating cash total.

Nobody knows how the best regs at high limits are working except them. That's why there is so few of them in the first place.
So going ahead when you are a rec and stating as a fact that they are doing this and this, is beyond ridiculous.

With no full disclosure in audits of the full source code, and bots running rampant, anyone who trusts their money online, I dunno what to tell ya.

That is exactly like saying to anyone arguing against the doping in cycling "this is the year 2015, therefore someone's ability to use certain effort enhancement drugs (which don't automatically make you win a race) and stay undetected is part of how 'fundamentally strong (and talented) they are". You're creating an artificially (and flawed, logically) base to build your argument on.

All I was saying is that strong players don't base their decision on these kind of supertools, since their understanding on the game is built "offline", while studying their game and their opp's game. I really don't think I'm stretching it here. In fact, most of the NC advocates say exactly that - "NC is not that powerful actually in making in-game decisions". So what side are you on, actually? Cause now you really baffle me