So I guess the same applies to live poker because you have physical tells?

Look, at some point you're just going to have to take my word for it.

+1
well said

Isn't possible change what this whole thread is about tho.....

Yes, but Tim and Husker seem to have taken it pretty badly, despite one being a rec, and the other saying it doesn't affect him, as he can change his hud, but seems to be tilting over it.

I'm a rec player these days. I can't even play on stars. But to me it just seems so obvious to ban all 3rd party stuff. For the benefit and integrity of the game. Isn't that just obvious?

I'm sure they have their reasons for not banning all of it, and I'm sure they have looked at anonymous or name changing options. Just because they have made these small changes now, doesn't mean there won't be more shortly. Online poker is changing. People should adapt or leave. I would like to see seat scripts banned, and people limited to 12 tables, but I'm not going to whine for pages about it, and call everyone losers if they don't agree.

I agree, I also haven't read all of what those guys said.

BS, while we collect 1K hands per hour at Zoom the number of hands we collect on each player is quite small. There is a world of difference between 1K at regular tables (where you sit with the same players for a long time) and Zoom where it changes each hand.

The value of HUDs for Turn & River is due to datamining being sloppily allowed. Blame for that is at PokerStars feet. They are distracting attention onto HUDs but Pokerstars is really to blame.

I react at multiple levels but, at age 57, I do not go on tilt for any reason:

* As a poker player for me nothing has changed so I couldn't care less. My HUD is essentially unaffected. I still have to deal with unethical dataminers but I already have techniques to confuse their data collection so they reach erroneous conclusions about my play as I'm sure most regs already do, too. In HUSNGs I'm a beginner so none of this affects my play as yet. I don't even use a HUD for HUSNGs.

* As an analyst who loves to tinker with these analytical tools I'm disappointed because Pokerstars is forcing them to be less usable and/or have two interfaces: one fully featured for other sites or for offline and another clunky, limited function interface just for Jokerstars. As long as I can still have highly technical tools to play with offline I'll be happy. If I can't directly use them on Jokerstars I don't care.

* As an idealist Pokerstars ignorant reaction so wants me to move everything to a different site. Looking forward, Pokerstars incompetence if continued into the future does not bode well for online poker. Their incompetence will keep blundering their way into destroying it. I'd rather withdraw my business early than late. As others have said, no-one can seriously have any confidence that Pokerstars can detect Bots or stop datamining because they clearly have no idea about how online poker is played, where edges come from and how it is manipulated for profit. Worse, they are so arrogant that they engage in no consulting with knowledgeable players. This thread has been a total non-interactive farce.

The main thing I'm trying to bring to the attention of readers of this thread is that Pokerstars document is useless. Don't be fooled by its length. It achieves nothing because everything it restricts is easy to bypass in terms of what it allows.

I would encourage all to find a different site to play on as Pokerstars management is clearly incompetent.

Look pal, your beloved HUDS/software aids are killing online poker.

At some point you are going to have to accept that fact.

Enforcement is clearly an issue. Here Stars are looking to work with software suppliers and developers, to get them to comply with their rules in order to get listed as legal software. There s considerable mileage in that - the main suppliers will want to comply and be approved. That is the vast majority of software actually being used.

Then there are those that already supply banned products. It's not a new issue but getting the majority on board and compliant works to some extent. What Stars says or does in terms of drawing lines makes no difference to these suppliers of banned services/software, they will carry on anyway and detection/enforcement is difficult.

Every site has the same issues, the rest are just less clear re their policy, in part because they don't even have the small stick of prohibition from the near monopoly site.

Today Stars only sanction on suppliers is whether they list the product as allowed or not. Their hand is relatively weak - Better enforcement means including the regulator and the law. That way suppliers and users of illegal/banned software would face additional sanctions.

That legal framework already exists in the UK - all that is needed is for the regulator to insist that suppliers of remote gambling softwae to consumers need to be licenced in the same way as software suppliers to remote gambling operators are required to be.

Then just buying illegal software/services from an illegal unlicenced supplier would carry a big fine and potential prison for those supplying the cheat software (including bots).

DIY tweaks or s/w only used by the player developer would not be covered by the law but anyone selling software or services (including data) would be.

Criminalising supply of unlicenced software makes enforcement a lot easier, it increases deterrents too - it also means legal suppliers would have to meet regulator set technical standards which could easily include not just declaring the software to operators so that we can have differentiation/choice on what is allowed by site or table.

For me, crucially, it could mean that operators would be enabled to check the data being used within s/w that is legit using own data but banned if using illegal data. It would be part of the remote technical standards that apply to licenced software.

Here Stars (Rational) is acting as a quasi regulator, setting standards that would in practice apply to the whle industry but they are doing it without th powers of a real regulator. They need to talk to the real regulator and get them to use their powers to back up the sites on enforcement.

I agree with this and think it would've been better if there had been seperate threads discussing them as it's clear wires are getting crossed on many of the issues. I'd say there is a world of difference between HUSNG and ring cash games and the impact that software can have on both.

Taken it badly? I'm just trying to add some logic to the discussion and also point out some things that have been posted that are clearly incorrect. I don't even play on Stars.

Not really. They have a pretty big stick - they can ban players. This stick is so big they can force developers like myself to implement checks for Stars client even though my software has nothing to do with Stars and I shouldn't care what their ToS or rules are the same way a web browser developers don't. Still I have to care and I have to implement the checks and comply with their rules to protect my users from being banned.
This is despite the fact that my software doesn't interact with Stars client in any way and is impossible to use as an online aid (other than storing some preflop ranges which you can do in about any program out there including notepad).

The problem is what is "Gambling software". I sure hope you don't think Postgres and a script executing SQL queries on it is "gambling software". Neither is a poker equity calculator.

Can you provide the definition of "gambling software"? A lot programs not allowed on Stars when playing has nothing to do with gambling.

How do you envision making selling of HHs illegal? They are very likely not copyrightable (which was debated in case of chess and other games before) and even if they are people can make their own notes and then sell it. What kind of law can "ban data"? Surely you don't want to ban people selling their memoirs of online play. I mean it sounds just too crazy.

They're absolutely not. Fish would get beaten just as fast without HUDs (scripts I'm not sure about but I play zoom so I don't use one), just by a different set of regs. Banning HUDs doesn't solve anything - it just removes one of the elements of online poker which makes it better than live poker IMO - and I say that as someone who would probably benefit from HUDs being banned due to having a solid theoretical understanding of the game.

Punter nailing it again.

This shows how someone who has good intentions but doesn't actually understand the software/boundaries/terms used (Richas/Pokerstars) can think they've got it sussed but in reality still be well short of the mark.


And +1 to those who say their faith in Pokerstars Security has taken a big dive as a result of these communications.

The slightly circular definition is in the Act already

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

For me that is software used whilst online, used when the client is in use, so not analysis s/w used aay from the table. The regulator today applis a definition of softwre supplied to the operator, not what the Act says.

HHs are copyrighted but more than that selling them for a site that prohibits their sale/use is assisting cheating - already an offence in the UK.


The legal framework is already in place - it is just not being enforced, suppliers to consumers are given a pass by the regulator and the same regulator does not prosecute cheats never mind those assisting that cheating by supplying bots, data or whatever.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/section/42

There are absolutely no ways to know someone is a nit without the rock icon. Thank you Amaya for protecting the recreational players with this new amazing freature. It's little things like this that puts you miles ahead of the competition.

Second time I have been accused of being wrong without anything I've said being shown to be but hey ho.

I don't think the Stars doc is definitive or all-inclusive. Nor do I think an attempt to limit software capabilities can be anything other than clunky and even potentially unfair to those developing it - that does not mean that no definition should be attempted or no limits set though.

This is Stars as a Quasi regulator laying down rules for their sites, their general nature does not demonstrate ignorance as some here claim, it shows they are trying to create general rules for the complex world we have with many products.

Some of those limits - like not changing stats shown by street, are arbitrary and there to limit the power/flexibility of the software rather than being based on some moral principle. Others are more principle based - not using illegal data, not changing to reflect in hand play to date but they are just as arbitrary.

Queerying ambiguities or arbitrariness in the doc does not mean you can leap to them being ignorant - the arbitrary bits could be, indeed are, deliberate. The ambiguities probably less so as they will be asked to clarify on a case by case basis but some aspect of their rules "basic nature" are deliberately ambiguous to allow them to make rulings case by case.

There will never be a doc that covers ("susses")all software an software issues so saying this does not is not a compelling criticism of it (or me, who had nowt to do with it). It's a bit like criticising the Wright brothers because their plane does not do transatlantic flights with a flat bed seat - their plane does not seek to do that, just as this does not seek to be a new definitive bible setting in stone for all time every software option and term. The doc is guidance for players and developers not definitive at all.

As for amending opinion of Stars security teams, it aint an X Factor vote. We don't see most of what they do, so any firm opinion prior to this or post this is mostly guesswork.

For me, some bits have lowered my opinion. Thefailures on SpinWiz are particularly worrying but the general position of wanting to limit the ongoing development and power of software..they have the direction of travel right - there needs to be more done to limit s/w and to enforce the TOS with regard to s/w/ So on balance it probably has lowered my opinion slightly but it has also shown that they are trying to do better, and are streets ahead of the rest.

So a lot of software banned by Stars isn't gambling software. Postgres databse isn't "to use with remote gambling" same with poker equity calculator. Those can be used to assist gambling but it isn't their purpose. The definition isn't clear but it suggests that "gambling software" is something which makes gambling possible like a Poker Stars client or an online casino not things we are talking about here.

I doubt it. Copyrighting chess games was attempted and failed. Even if they are copyrighted I can just change the format to translate them to say plain English and then and sell them. Information in them is available for the players involved and unless you want to ban writing down your own daily experiences you won't get far with regulation like that.

Cheating in game can only take place while in game. What I do when not being in game can't possibly be cheating in that game. HHs have many uses outside the game and it's not assisting cheating to sell them. A lot of players use them to analyse the game outside the table. Another thing is that people who never agreed to Stars' ToS could care less what Stars think. They can buy w/e data they want unless it's somehow protected by copyright/personal information laws etc.
By your logic if PokerStars proclaims distributing Postgres SQL is cheating then that will be a criminal offence as well. Running Postgres while in game could be cheating (if they make it against the rules) but this is only while in game.

"Cheating data" again. Damn, you really think that Poker Stars should be able to policy behavior of the players when the client is not even on and they go on with their normal life.

It is interesting to compare how some players view buying hand histories compared to how chess players view notation of chess games. What some players ask for is similar to asking grand masters of chess to only study games they themselves have played.

It doesn't really matter to me because I have never bought hand histories and I hardly study my own But I still find it intriguing.

I agree with this (re: HHs being copyrighted) - at least under UK law. Seems really doubtful that they could qualify as an original LDMA work, they're definitely not a database/computer program/film/broadcast/typographical arrangement and past that it's at least strongly arguable that under UK law they can be copyrighted.

Disagree with this - if they're copyrighted the translation would be a breach of copyright unless permitted.

^^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wo19Y4tw0l8

Copyright laws don't make sense with everything.

Try reading it again - it says "in connection with" so s/w providing on screen info to aid poker decision making is under a sensible reading included.

The database type or tool/language used to provide in game info/advice is not gambling software, just as the PC operating system the client needs is not either but if you have a database that is interrogated to provide in game advice for gambling it is.


Again, read it -

Using cheat data is against the TOS, it is against the rules, using banned data is cheating - it is breaking the rules of the game. FYI it is not important to sho that the cheating delivereda financial gain, it does not matter. Using illegal software or data badly and losing is still cheating and still an offence.

Whether the person supplying the data agaist the TOS or using it against the TOS has cheated.Now IF the data was only used for study and not in play or to inform decision making then you coud probably defend the case but as they don't prosecute cheats rather than diligent people who study hands off line and don't use the data in game at all its a bit moot.

Oh goodie, Reductio Ad Absurdem, never seen that before. In short no, you see that is not the proposal, that is you making stuff up.

Having said that IF Stars says "BotsXYZ" is prohibited then selling that Bot for that network should be illegal. Whether that bot uses code in a specific language or makes decisions via references to a database or acting upon SQL based code is irrelevant.