^^ It's impossible to beat pies. He used ThreadWiz to register twice to the same thread.

Sorry - are you seriously saying that recs split apart from each other to face two regs who may or may not be colluding should be grateful because there is the off chance that the colluders will be incompetent or that the regs will play "harder" against each other if not colluding. Happy as a pig in **** they should be eh?

Software that stops recs playing each other and sets up collusion is good for them? Really?

You are right though this thread has died a death - in large part because you are not prepared to shift such nonsense to the theory thread where your theory that recs never playing recs is good for recs might at least amuse some.

PS the soft collusion contines at 2 player if the shared bankroll accidentally results in the HU reg vs the rec has the big chip advantage. Colluders squeezing the recs raise with a reraise and push leading to the two colluders all in with one getting the big stack, including the squeezed recs raise is not a bad outcome for the colluders. The HU section is still a product of the collusion - Big vs Small.

It's foreshadowing online poker.

The thread in NVG about "GTO" software aids at nosebleed stakes is going to make any discussion of collusion in $1 SpinGos look like a footnote. When Jason Mo and Jungleman are saying "The software exists" (and is being used by X, Y and Z), its problem.

... talking about Unibet, casual players and poker traffic...

http://www.pokerlistings.com/unibet-...-players-90684

So... yeah. Regs, #dealwithit

You should really stop, because you obviously don't understand how these games or collusion works.

So, explain it to him in clear language instead of just saying, "you're wrong but I can't explain why" cos when you do YOU look like you're hiding something! Move along folks nothing to see here. Stop all discussion as we don't want any spotlight on our dirty little collusion...

if you found a (perfectly legal, but secret) method where you could buy in to a HUSNG twice, paying 2x rake and 2x to prize pool, in order to have 1000 starting chips vs your opponent's 500 - would you use it?

a) YES of course! I'd be a millionaire within days!
b) Why? It makes no difference.
c) NO! I'd be broke within days!

Assuming edge doesn't change, I think the answer is c but only because rake is doubled. Could be wrong though.

It looks to me like plenty of people have already attempted to explain without much luck. Besides, it's not anyone else's responsibility to educate people that argue without knowing what they're talking about. There are plenty of free resources available for anyone that would like to take the time to learn the basics of tournaments structures, collusion, poker, etc.

Some of you would be taken a lot more seriously if you just stuck to what you know, a lot of which makes a pretty strong case for your side of the argument. Personally, I'm also on board with sites phasing out table selection (although I'd like to see it done via UI adaptation instead of software bans), and I think quite a large percentage of other people are too. What I'm not on board with is trying to demonize anyone that's operating within the current rules just because you don't like the current rules. It's completely ridiculous and does more harm than good to your cause and your credibility.

Also fwiw, I can't, don't, and probably wouldn't even if I could, play on Stars these days. Even if the software you're talking about enabled collusion, it wouldn't be my dirty little collusion machine or whatever. Just like most of you, I find it to be an interesting topic and would like to see online poker adapt before it becomes completely doomed.

Is the following scenario plausible? How is it prevented today? (My concern is that scenarios such as this I think should be fully under the control of Pokerstars. I don't think a third party should be relied upon to enforce the integrity of the game).

Ignore SpinWiz, assume completely random seating.

Let's say our horse is a member of a staking stable of say 20 players.

Let's say if any 2 horses are seated together they play legit anytime the spin prize is less than 10x.

Let's say that if prize is 10x plus (616 times in 100,000 = ~0.6% of the time for average 22x prize) they then collude using all available means without being blatantly obvious and split the prize winnings.

Now does that colluding edge overcome the rake and the third player frequently enough to be profitable?

Now do 2 players randomly selected from stable of 20 make it much more difficult for Pokerstars to detect collusion?

Now bring in Spinwiz, do ALL staking groups ensure they are never sat together? Do all coaching groups ensure they are never sat together?

I am not emotionally pointing the finger and shouting, "Collusion!"

I think there are reasonable grounds to suggest that Pokerstars is failing to ensure the integrity of a game that offers considerable incentive for collusion in the larger prize multiples of a winner take all 3 handed spin & go.

"What is dead may never die."

Juk

Collusion is against the rules, and PokerStars will detect colluders and ban the accounts of those involved. Refunds will be issued to affected parties. If you suspect people of colluding, report them with evidence.

Its no different in Spins than it is in $100nl Zoom games, or 9-max Reg speed SNGs. PokerStars don't just ignore security issues because "it's a Spin!", I expect.

Spinwiz actively helps members of the same stable not sit in the same games. Which happens, btw, when players register manually - Spinwiz is not required to sit with a friend if that is your plan. Backers absolutely do not want their players playing each other.

Well the theory thread

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...works-1541810/

clearly shows soft collusion in the format is relatively trivial to show a significant ev gain. If people want to argue that 2vs1 soft collusion is not effective then do it there, where the geekiest can help.

Well with respect Spins are very different because they have a jackpot-style humongous prize that is winner take all and only 3 players. The big prize and the relative ease of 2 players versus one provides a much bigger incentive to cheat that is not present in other games.


Pokerstars should need to examine the bigger spin games much harder than other games because their defined big-prize structure makes the temptation to cheat much more likely.

I am uncomfortable having that managed by a third party on a voluntary basis. I think it would be better if Pokerstars maintained internal responsibility by enforcing game integrity within the client somehow.

this, everything else is unacceptable.
Hell, even online multiplayer games are more secure than online poker these days, they have tools like VAC running while Pokerstars is basically providing a cheating framework.

For sake of game integrity all tools have to come from pokerstars directly, or form within a ps provided ecosystem (App Store).

My 3 year old daughters learning computer has an app-store.

Im a long time cash game player on stars.
I dont have a problem with NC`s product at all. However I`m for sure against NC`s badges. Main reason is this - if u were to have stats put out urself on the tables (stats/popups whatever), and then in-game found YOURSELF that combination of this and that stat/tendencie makes for a good exploitative play in this instance its ok, its your own spotted decision that you as a human being noted/used.
But when a computer dictates you how you should play poker its getting over the line for me (its a light approximation of botting in my personal view, agree or not agree).
U just sit there, and follow computer based & spotted instructions to win money. In my view (and ive been around for a while now), its quite awful for integrity of the game.
I dont have much problems with sparkling graphs and all the other nonsense NC allows at all so dont harras the product too badly, but badges do have to go away for sure. Something tells me bots and ppl who make bots could be benefiting from these badges quite a bit, and we all know how huge of an issue botting is for online poker.
I`m ready for open discussion about this matter, but honestly unless u are NC`s package creator i dont see how u can agree its good for games. Im around quite a decent player pool and i`ve heard nobody agree its a good thing.
Honestly stuff like this, Spin&GO, and obv continuous segregation in a year or two will make the highest played limit nl25-nl50, pl25-50 and there wont even be too many tables of these games. We will see 30k players at peak times. Its just what gonna happen unfortunately the direction online poker is going right now. Isai knew when to abandon the ship. Stop the bleeding asap please, tyvm.
If ur reading Amaya representatives, listen and tell ur bosses (and i know it will sound harsh but i cant helpmyself im sorry), i know u only care about ur own interest and shorterm profits, but there wont be such thing as online poker (YOU CAN READ NO MONEY FOR YOU TO EARN FROM THIS CASHCOW which it seems to you right now) if the trend continues. We will all have low-edge tournies to donk around with 20k players on sundays. We already have 100-120k when few years ago it was 350-400k on sundays, u`d be dumb to assume it won`t get worse, and won`t drop to 15-25k in couple years to follow at which point as scotty once said `its all over baby`.

I am a cash player and tried my luck in spin and go. First it was fun. But later at a 30 limit every tournament I was faced a hungarian player and it started to irritate me. They just avoid each other, waiting in line one after another with this spinwiz software, so you will always have one at your table. I don't want to play only versus them, also I want them to face each other too, why do they can choose whom to avoid and I don't? So for pokerstars it's fair to make table selecting interface or ban queue option in spinwiz.
Till then, goodbye spin and go, hello zoom. And hungarians, you are annoying.

Good on you for boycotting Spins! Tell your friends. and make sure you email Pokerstars to complain, too. If enough people refuse to play Spins Pokerstars will be forced to make seating equal for all and ban third party seating manipulation.

Haha

Good luck with that being the reason for PokerStars to change the registration system for Spins.

so without spinwiz u would end up with 2 hungarian people (or lets better say "regs") most of the time, is this better for you?

Well i was considering giving online poker a miss, due to the fact that i am only a recreational player, and as i am older than 29 years old i have no idea how to use HUD's tracking software and all the tools that young guys not longer than 10 years out of school use, it's computer age and it is their time.IMO it is an unfair advantage,and now with Patrick Antonius having his say about the subject,and imposing a self exile from online, i have decided to stop playing on Stars and Full Tilt due to too many regs as well as the software issue.We all know what a great player Patrick is, and if he has had a gutsful of it then what the hell,i may as well follow suit cos i dont have time to put in all the work required to learn this stuff. I just want a game where like minded donks can have some fun for a reasonable price. I have never really enjoyed playing as much as i did when playing on PKR,genuinely had FUN. One time all 9 players at our table were either dancing or swaying about at the same time, and it prompted an observer who came across our table to laugh at us all and commenting that it looked like we were all having a party, and all for the princely sum of $2. They were no concerns of Spinwiz and that sort of shyte,and seeing as you cant really multi-table grind there (you can have a few tables but not the 10 plus that's common at Stars,Tilt etc) it's fair to assume that there are no 'stables' of players congregating and colluding possibilities are limited, it is great 3D software, much better experience than boring old Stars stuff anyways, and i would assume that the cheating type people or teams would avoid PKR seeing it is low rent stakes compared to Stars therefore not being so appealing to botters etc. When someone of Antonius' caliber comments like he has then i for one will take his tip.

Gosh... It's GREAT to know that we have people seeking this again.

HUD is just the tip of the iceberg of a greater problem in my opinion. It's not the problem. I don't see problems in using a HUD. I just use the database and replayers to study my play and colour the players at the software (PS, FT, 888, whatever).

As someone commented here, other games like CS:GO (as I'm a rec player there), have anti-cheating software and a community called "Overwatch" of players that spot and see if "The Suspects" are bots or not.

Banks have great fraud algorithms and statisticians to detect suspicious moves.

I often see USERS detecting cheaters at the poker room (and I play in PS since 2010!). Only two times I received an e-mail from Pokerstars telling that they spotted cheaters and the funds would be cashed back to the players who played against them.

CS:GO that it's one of the most played games in the world have MONTHLY MASSIVE BANS at the game.

== my suggestions (if I didn't write this before...) ==

- change the ToS of PS, that yes, they could scan your computer to see if you are using other apps that are not allowed.
- all apps that is an automation of play or anything related to the game (table selection, automatic folds, whatever) should be banned
- all apps that can make something that you can't do at the Pokerstars' interface software should be banned. (SpinWiz is an example)
- if you are sitting out or observing hands, PS should not record the hand history.
- for poker trackers they could have an API to check if the hand history checks with the Pokerstars server. If the user have more hands than the checking it means that he bought hand histories, so the user would have a penalty (ban?)

You seem to not have noticed that every time you play on Stars a process called XC.exe is running, right? And i guess you are also not aware what XC.exe does.

Can you please enlighten us on what XC.exe does?

http://www.file.net/process/xc.exe.html

XC.exe does exactly what i quoted from caquitows.