Maybe or maybe not but I think the point is that all players deserve a fair treatment which means equal opportunity to be sat with random player in the pool. This implies blind entry with no third party seating software that augments Pokerstars functionality.

I agree basic rego script should be legal but not advanced seating script.

People can't sit you anyway in Zoom cash vs non-Zoom cash.

The problem in SNGs/Spin&Gos is the lack of a Zoom-like alternative. Spin&Go's deceptively look like a Zoom-like blind entry alternative but have been corrupted by Pokerstars failing to understand SpinWiz-type tools go beyond a basic automatic registration function and provide a collusive benefit to licensees.

The SpinWiz FAQ is so hard to understand when it talks about how seating works. Is that deliberately obfuscating to avoid a Pokerstars ban?

Whether secret or not they should be fair to all players or banned.

Yes ban all seating scripts (if it's enforceable).

Definitely ban/remove any form of data mining- which is the biggest cause of collusion. Other than that- banning something such as spinwiz will do nothing to remove whatever collusion/botting that goes on, and I would argue that it actually increases such activities.

If you don't like the fact that regs like to play fish, then there is nothing you can do. It's pretty lol of you to think that fish have a chance of seating with another fish without such software. I'm not in favour nor against sharky or spinwiz, but I will use them as I see fit. Fish have the same rights to doing the same.

Without sharkystrator there is zero chance a rec can ever sit with another rec at higher stakes, and the only thing that might happen is a bumhunter can now sit with a rec.

Sorry I've got news for you- poker is predatory in nature.

The spinwiz faq is hard to understand I guess mainly because it's being constantly changed due to customer feedback. Unlike sharkystrator, spinwiz is a bit more user friendly.

I still don't see real arguments for these programs being banned, but understand your concerns. Such programs are waaaaay down the list for me in terms of controversy compared with data-mining, table-scanner seating scripts (this is different to a "blind" seating helper like sharky or spinwiz), or staking/coaching+sharing reads/hhs.

These tools are fair. Everyone has the same rights to sit other players and everyone has the same ability to prove themselves.
To a HUSNG and spin player, these tools are as well known and affordable as note caddy (which I had never heard of before this thread).

Do you share Pokerstars view that Note Caddy should be banned?

HUSNGs are not cash. "All players having equal opportunities to sit with all other players" is not true, and has never been true.

If you are the best at your stake you get to sit first and play any newcomers. Regs will avoid you if you are indeed good, and it's their choice. These seating scripts aren't the same as in 6max cash, where a fish is being targeted. I don't see how this is not obvious to some ppl ITT.

Imagine 2 ppl don't want to sit with each other but find sitting husng lobbies tedious. They both want to say 24 table husngs at the same stakes by just blindly regging lobbies, and end up playing each other a lot which they BOTH do not want to do.

Should a software that logs both their registration time as a queue to avoid them seating with each other be banned? Should you talk about such software in the same way as you talk about seating scripts that search for GOD seats next to fish, who are found through dataminined hands that display their stats?

We have to agree to disagree. I do not think these tools are fair.

If they are so fair you support sending an email to all PokerStars players promoting the tools? Do you support PokerStars having pop-ups for news users promoting the third party software available for their chosen game type?

I think transparency to all players is an important component of fairness. The secrecy is part of the problem.

Umm, Pokerstars Steve has never suggested NC be banned. He has suggested some aspects may need to be changed. Big difference.

I believe I will be more profitable if NC is banned. I believe I will be more profitable again if all HUDs are banned. I'm pretty relaxed about whatever outcome. Banned or not online I'll still use NC offline to analyse my own game for GTO-leaks. HUDs/NC are mainly assistance for mass grinders (24 tables) at non-Zoom tables. 4-tabling Zoom you don't really need it especially if you work hard to take advantage of all the Zoom information on other players available in hands you folded. I'm sure others will disagree but whatever.

If NC is banned as advanced and only basic HUDs are allowed then seating scripts beyond basic seating automation of pokerstars registration for the individual should also be banned. No automation software should be allowed in Spin&Go's as Pokerstars has already automated registration.

I do not agree that NC should be banned unless HM2/PT4 are also banned as NC functionality can be replicated in custom stats in PT4. NC timing tells could be banned as a step too far but badges need much more interpretation to use profitably than non-NC-users have attempted to suggest. Marketing materials are not the same as actual play. They help ofc but they don't make automatic profitable decisions for you.

Having any charts (whether paper or soft) in short stack HUSNG is a MUCH bigger help than NC IMO. When I play HUSNGs I actually do have a real world paper binder with tens of pre-flop charts handy at the table more for confidence than that I actually reference. I prefer to shove for fun but I feel I have to have charts to compete if I draw a reggy opponent (in game usually called "the b*stard"! )

Well it sure ain't the "best" way to explain it, it took me a little while, pen and paper, a bastardised logic tree analysis and then reworking it backwards before it clicked.

To get it you need to draw a flow chart of actions/effects starting with A, B and C then add in user X (the mark) - unmentioned in the FAQ, then map the flowchart backwards as the mark. Even then the FAQ leaves out the ****list to avoid strong players not using the software.

The priority is a little unclear, it seems to deliberately prioritise plucking your mates from the queue over adding 2x and then repeat matching with your partner for as many games as you have to launch with this time with you at the front of the queue. Sometimes though you may fail to match with your mate as someone is deliberately targetting YOU as a mark.

It operates in multiple modes:

1) Seat Max* Recs: Used without sitlist to get maximum non Wiz users.

*You will however not get 2 non Wiz users IF a WIZ user is targetting you. Then you will get just 1 non wiz user and a player targetting you gets prioritised

2) Collude: As a collusion tool to seat two mutually approving users vs one non user (sitlist). The s/w will prioritise the pairing accross multiple games starting in the same launch period (when one of you is at the front of the queue) so that your pairing with your mate is prioritised over getting a second non Wiz user.

3) Wiz Sniper: As a way to target weaker Wiz users by covertly tagging them for you to sit vs them using the "online list" - so in their feed you get prioritised to sit them, but sure there will be a non spin user for you too - you will not get three Wiz users.

Again the priority is not 100% clear but the inference from the vid and ABC example is that in this Wiz "sniper" mode the one targetting a wiz player actually gets prioritised over a second non Wiz user and gets equal chance of getting seated with the targetted victim (also paying for this software)if they are using it in collude mode as their partner in collusion.

Meanwhile the targetting wiz user can also collude by having his colluding mate turn off his spin wiz and register manually, entering the system covertly as the supposed non Wiz using mark - this sounds a bit complex but it is just the two colluding to target a wiz user by communicating to register at the same time as each other, one using the Wiz software the other not.

4) ****list: As a filter to stop you sitting with anyone you want to avoid - using the friend list to avoid any non Wiz user you don't want to play or any Wiz user targetting you.

The modes don't work well together with the excetion of 4) the ****list that works well together with each. You need to work out which method you are using at that time, but that's ok, you can switch mode easily.

So it is a powerful tool for two key groups -
First: data miners sorting all players into ones to decline and ones to target, not relying upon those that pay for the software vs those that don't.
Second: those using it to collude.

The alleged target market group of general regs hoping for more recs....well not so much, not unless they are quite proactive in managing their ****list (sorry friend list) to protect themselves from the two main benefiting groups above.

Conclusion: I think they have several reasons for obfuscating, including the way that using this software actually opens those paying for it up to being targetted.

In cash we have both Zoom and non-Zoom tables. I happen to like Zoom. In HUSNGs you have your lobby. Fine but I don't want to play that way. I want a Zoom-like HUSNG. Same as HUSNG once seated but blind registration like Spin&Go's are supposed to be (without SpinWiz colluding away from the blind entry queue).

You can continue to have it your way but I and many others once informed won't play in these unfair conditions.

PokerStars could destroy SpinWiz pretty simply in my opinion:

Change PS SpinNGo registration logic so that when you click register you go into an internal queue (ie don't start you in a SpinnGo straight away). Let the queue build until there is a pool of let's say 12 players at a givens stake then totally randomnise who goes into what started Spin&Go. Boom! All SpinWiz' shenanigans are for nought. For $60's where the number of players are less you could simply start Spin&Go's in non-arrival order by having a randomnised delay between click register and start Spin&Go so as to prevent auto-registration tools from manipulating queue entry order.

I have one absolutely serious question I'd like you to explain. NOTE - I don't care at all if spinwiz gets banned or not personally.

How do you manage to "collude" sitting together with your buddy in a game with 5% rake and more than 70% 2x prize pool in a winner take all format? How is it better for you to sit in that game with your friend (whatever person you are colluding with) than with 2 recreationals. Please explain this to me. I am really curious on that and the maths/moves that will make it so good.

When players register for a Spin&Go or a HUSNG I would like to see a Zoom-like lobby alternative to the existing lobbys:

* Click register and you join the list of other players playing Spin&Go/HUSNG at that stake for the number of entries/games you want at once.

* As in Zoom Pokerstars randomnly selects from the pool who goes into which Spin&Go/HUSNG

* As in Zoom Pokerstars has the player pool visible to non-entrants so you can choose to play if you think the pool is profitable or not just as in Zoom.

* When a player busts a game they auto-start in a new game with the same characteristics.

* in-game, a dialog box equivalent to Zoom's "sitout next BB" allows the player to select something like "sitout HUSNG/Spin&Go pool when Zero chips". This would leave the player in the pool of players and when all games are finished they could "stand up" to leave the pool.

That is my idea of fair. You guys can still have today's collusive form of play but I would like to have the choice to play in a Zoom-like HUSNG/Spin&Go fair game, too.

OK but that's a problem with the lobby structure and not the software- just say so. If you don't have sharky/spinwiz you still won't be able to sit any recs. Unfortunately as some ppl have mentioned (I have as well) the cartel structure makes it unfair on occasional players who would otherwise not be seated by other regs without it (e.g. me). But the system will be unfair one way or another, and it's just a way of driving out bumhunters which you can agree or disagree with.

The lobby structure is not my way and I'm fine with a reasonable "zoom" alternative.

This is indeed a reasonable suggestion. Zoom could be the way of the future for all poker.

A shared roll means that you can reduce the jackpot varience, you will still get your share of them with volume so the larger the stable the better for reducing that varience. Collusion and a stable is a way to reduce the jackpot "problem" for regs in these games. It is still a bit of a pain but liveable with volume.

Vs two recs may still be more profitable, when the flow of recs is coming fast so you can keep the volume up. Indeed the software let's you turn off the sitlist and so change mode at peak times. When times are slower, the recs fewer then the collusion mode is more profitable via volume. In addition at higher levels of the game in such a fast paced high varience relatively low skill game what you are hoping for is that together you can beat someone who is actually not that big a dog against you alone. So long as your team scoops the prize regularly enough the rake is more than covered. You are switching a known ally for an extra unknown, who is not much of a dog to you (alone)

I could graph it out and calculate the required win rate for the collusion to pay but TBH I can't be bothered, we have someone who has built and is selling software creating this functionality, it seems there is a market for it - it is about addressing the high rake, high varience disadvantages of Spins, it seems to be pretty powerful in doing that.

Liking the fact that you say maths instead of math.

And collusion in spins is different to collusion in regular sngs.. how?

Or they could just ban it and seize the accounts of anyone who continues to use it. You know, like a responsible adult (or gaming site) would.

I admit that i have worded it poorly, but thats not the point. My point is: you don't have to use logic to remember past hands, you need memory. It's true that remembering how your opponent have played in the past is part of the game, but i think that online you play vs too many opponents to be able to remember it correctly. Moreover, you don't see how your opponent look like( all you have is his screenname) wich makes it harder to remember how he played in the past. For all these reasons, i think that having something that reports you how your opponents have played while playing is fair.

how accurate or powerful huds are has nothing to do with how fair they are and you can't compare hud vs charts/your programm/bots based on that. what a programm do(the nature of a programm) is what we should compare to decide if they are fair or not, not how powerful they are. I know you understand that cause when people criricized your programm you said something like "why 1 chart is ok and 100 are not?"
So yes today's hud report past hands very well and yes there's calculations made to turn text files into hud stats or n/c, doesnt mean thats wrong.

no, it's like having a calculator to solve an equation at the exam cause you not supposed to calculate 258*164 mentally

-Can you explain to me how hud stats and color coding tell you what to do? What do you mean by "interpreting past history"?
-I dont see why clever coding is unfair a clever colour coding for you might not be a clever coding for me cause we might interpret it differently.

I agree that it's wrong since it's not reporting past hands anymore

i don't see how, can you explain it to me more in details?

if you a newcomer it's up to you to inform yourself about the game you are getting into. people will have an edge on you if you dont have the best material but a fair one. If i go road cycling with an old bike, others will have a advantage over me, but a fair one. So i don't see how can that be a logical argument to not allow hud.

.

This thread has perhaps 40 good posts and the rest is dellusional , trash talk
and people moaning and cryng like babies and blaming stars or the software for theyr losses

Some of the accusations are complete nonsense

If stars ban some auto registration tools they lose money cause some players will get bothered manually registering and play less

If they ban HUDs they stop playng because then u have russian rollette not poker

So there are no miracle solutions , the only solution is not to put in the same thread programs wich are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT some are fine some maybe not and most i dont even know

+

Some subjects that actuallr ARE BAD for poker are not mentioned and most people here dont seem to be aware

BOTS

U talk about innofensive programs wich WONT i repeat WONT MAKE U WIN JACK S+++
because to win u must have KNOWLEDGE not pressing a button
and forget about the real problems

So did PS ever come back with the final decision?

I agree.
In my view, the hardest working, smartest people who play within the rules should be the most successful.
So with all the collusion, huds, seat scripting and chart talk, you actually need to be a hard working, strong poker player to make any of these tools effective. And colluson is already against the rules and pretty easy to detect.

All the while there are people explicitly breaking the rules already in existence through illegally mined data or targetting players through specifically designed web sites that contains illlegally mined data or worst of all, using bots.

If Pokerstars can come back with a practical and effective plan that enforces the rules already in place, I think the whole community will be a lot happier.

The three player format is peculiarly vulnerable to it, the winner takes all format with 2 colluders, ...hmm not good.

feel free to skip the rest tl;dr types.

As I am not a fan of the fast paced short stack short handed SNG which these are an extreme example of I haven't dug out my old Mathematics of Poker copy, reread and applied it to this format yet but I'm pretty sure when I do there will be some interesting ICM type number crunching given the different bubbles for the colluders vs the mark which I suspect Bill at least could show make for a significant disadvantage to the one colluded against - even if it is just ICM calculations altering decisions not sharing hole cards too.

Position is not pretty either 2 vs 1, the ideal for colluders is either side of the mark and three handed delivers that a satisfying 100% of the time and if the mark does sneak ahead somehow chip dumping or rather any all in without the mark starts to look +ev for the colluders given the blind pace on two smaller stacks.

Now I'm sure that is a naive view, I haven't crunched the numbers or set about designing a set of cliff notes for a stable but I would also say that having the mark believe his opponents to be randomly chosen by the site, not manipulated and prioritised by a third party software tool, on a server in deepest darkest webland* helps too.

But esentially you are right, spin and go collusion is a subset of all SNG collusion.

Here BTW is a quote from PokerStars back in January when they approved SpinWiz

There is a popular chant when a referee or in this case a quasi regultor ***** up

Interestingly this software was approved and launched post Stars working under a UKGC licence, their social responsibility commitments under that basically boil down to ensuring that as far as possible games re kept fair and open and that crime (cheating) is kept out of gambling. These are not little bits of the licence requirement, they are what the licencing is for... the whole point (well that and to raise £300m+ a year extra in tax).

The approval process does not seem to include any fainess check and openness check, no review of it being a tool to facillitate cheating at all, it seems that it got approved based on an email from its development team to support rather than any proper review at all!!!


*well ok, probably on a server in Dublin using an absurdly lopsided Estonian end user licence but you get my drift and they have signed up to protect their privacy, have no about us section on their website, no ethical statement on the ebsite no privacy policy for users.........