A stables customised HUD is not available to all.

You asked me to define cheat data, I did. As for manual notes by your observation, fine, importing data mined notes, or others notes - not.

I hate to break it to you but this thread is about what s/w should be allowed and what not.

My view is that basic HUDs should be allowed but the dynamic and ever more detailed in game advice via HUD, Notecaddy, notecaddy add ons or other stuff like Skier_5's should not be allowed. The advantage gain is too great, it is too close to Botdom.

By limiting the capabilities of HUDs* the reasonable expectations of multi tabling regs can be protected but the advantage gained can be restricted and the drift towards Cybots (part human part bot) can be combatted.

As for the specific that I believe goes too far in NoteCaddy - any badge or indiator that suggests a specific action (in play) would cross the line for me - oh look that's what those badges do - they tellyou that an action - say restealing will be profitable against that player in that scenario.

As for pointing out that HUDs and Notecaddy are the vital tools that make data cheating effective...well it is just so. ,

The Nice people at HEM and PT make merging databases easy, hooking up HUDs to illegal data...all openly supported. No attempt to impose data integrity checks, no need to mess about, all fully suportable and configurable whilst we deny that we support data abuse we make it easy, here is the tool. It really is not asking much that HEM and PT open up the s/w to allow sites to check the data that is being used against other players.

PS the thread is about third party rules at Stars - that includes illegal data - oh look it's number 3 in the OP

Hi Steve, I hope you will read this all but I have bolded the single most important bit.

Golf is a good metaphor because it's one of the few other places the target demographic gambles peer-to-peer on a game of skill.

Imagine if you arranged to play golf and your opponent came armed with a laser distance finder to tell him the distance to the flag, anemometer to tell him the windspeed - and when you complained at the clubhouse you were dismissed with the view that such tools were no use without the skill to interpret them and you could go and buy them yourself.

You wouldn't play golf at that club any more - you would go elsewhere. That's happening now - live poker is booming in loads of places.

As regards chart software, this is like going to a chess tournament and seeing your opponent leafing through Batsford Chess Openings as he plays you.

My preference would be to ban HUDS altogether, but if not they (and any tool) should not be able to automatically interact with the client other than by reading the hand history (i.e. no screen scraping) - similar to how the free FPDB HUD works. No reading the game state mid hand.

This. Also ban seat scripting and sharkystrator. Draw a clear line that the plain-text hand history is the only legal way for 3rd party software to interact with your system - any click should be a human user.

Steve wrote
This has caused some debate about being too subjective. The following are basic level but also stack-size based:







The above are not what you are trying ban in response to skier's system. The solution IMHO is to make sure that people are using preflop "sheets" and not preflop "books". You do this by defining going beyond a basic level as containing 1800 characters of information or less for all the sheets the person has open (if diagramatic then of equivalent complexity). I picked 1800 char because that is "one standard page" e.g. for billing copywriting or translation where I live but the basic idea is the person has a cheat-sheet and not a cheat book and you have drawn a clear line.

Steve has already made it clear this is not supposed to be a vote. They are interested in hearing arguments put forward. Also, the above is not really a strong argument why 2p2 users are important enough for PS to collect data and come and justify itself to us.

This isn't related to the bot scandal which is already in breach of ToS. PS don't move that fast. This is related to this older thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...tware-1533249/

After the initial few pages it turns out to be chart display software - read the thread - at least till after the PS rep has gone on the 2p2 podcast and then participate in this discussion about ToS by putting forward intelligent arguments.

Resorting to name calling now are we? Cool. You win man. You did it.

DarkMattersMan - Sorry I have now seen you were also posting about HUDs not just talking about bots.

Yeah but you are obviously a bit slow.

The OP says NoteCaddy breaches the proposed ToS.

Like Richas I've never used it so could you either tell us if OP also mistaken or explain which feature of NoteCaddy breaches proposed ToS and why that feature should be allowed.

It would help the determine if the proposed ToS are reasonable or not because at the moment they look reasonable and NoteCaddy is out unless you can start describing it's functionality and defending it.

And I still dont use any software. Whats your point??

You are aware that it's just a stat illustrated by an image, aren't you? A HUD-stat (the one of your example is available in HM2) has the same effect. Do you expect a different action from someone seeing a small image or a stat staing that the guy folds 80%? This is not even close to an arguement for banning software like NoteCaddy.

The OP gives me the impression that Steve might not know what NC can do and what not. I will not write a book now about what NC can do, but feel free to ask what you are interested in or where you have doubts and i'll give you a honest answer.

Here a post which might help you to get an impression of what NC does:

Accused by the guy flogging it! All I have done is accept the marketing claims he makes for his softwae and add on badges! What I know is from the videos of it in use. I also know that Stars says it breeches the new rule.

FYI that is a bit more than nothing.

BS, the badge applied to a specific player comes with a nice little doc telling you what it means and what action is profitable, it is a flag that says do this in this situation - that is the very definition of in game advice - advice DERIVED FROM a stat.

Can you play 4 zoom tables and keep track of how often every player in the pool bets the river, such that you commit the stats to memory, or do you use software to automatically count and compute the numbers for you? Reading a number between 0 and 100 and making a decision based on that takes very little skill. Trying to remember the numbers/tendencies for hundreds of players using your brain does.
I know you're going to say "I don't have a big enough sample size for many of the stats to be useful, so I use population tendencies in my decision-making process"
In that case, why do you need a HUD in the first place? Can't you just play poker and do your data analysis away from the table?

The fact that some people want to use HUDs rather indicates that they think that the use of them is advantageous. HUDs are by definition software aids that are capable of an inhuman level of data-collection and number-crunching. HUDs arguably provide an unfair advantage. Ergo, they should be banned.
What proportion of the player pool on Unibet or Snap on 888 is using HUDs?

If Stars can arbitrarily ban Skier's software, they can arbitrarily ban the use of HEM/PT HUDs, and there are a range of measures that can be put in place to deter or prevent black market replacements. Stars could ban HUDs if they wanted to.

There is a difference if u have to interpret a 50% ftocbet urself or if u get an image saying "exploitable to cbets".
Even worse are combined stats/batches which show that a player is not exploitable to a 3bet but the combination of folding too much on flop after being 3bet make a batch appear.

IN THE END ITS A COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS DISCUSSION.

Almoast every pro will push his own agenda. Im contra notecaddy bc i dont use it but pro scripts bc i use one...
The guy who develops notecaddy add ons will see nothing bad with notecaddy while scripts are crossimg a line. Etc. Everybody is looking out for his own best interest...

As being said completely pointless

More to nothing than to being qualified to judge here...and it's not even close.

Steve seems not very well informed. According to this NC at it's current state is 100% compliant with the new rules.

Okay, this is getting a tad boring now as I'm coming to the conclusion you aren't really up for an honest discussion due to your continual straw manning etc

1) I pointed out a hud is available to all. You have now eventually decided to change the discussion to a 'stables customised hud' isn't available to all. So given your change does this mean you are fine with huds but just not 'stable customised' huds? And given many, maybe even most, people customise their hud I don't really see the difference anyway. But why bring up 'stable customised huds' now when you were only referring to huds earlier?

2) Your definition of cheat data is pretty meaningless as it is your own. I could similarly say cheat data is any data someone has on me. It's meaningless.

3) You've come up with a specifc reason that you disagree with Notecaddy when the fact is a simple fold to resteal stat that is available for any hud/ popup shows that info anyway.

4) As I've already said, everyone agrees that data-mining/ sharing is wrong. So to keep bringing it up as though it somehow supports your argument re huds is wrong.

5) I don't have a problem, and again I don't think anyone would, with a check being put in HEM/ PT to check for any form of data sharing etc

6) With regards to your 'PS' it has never been part of our discussion, although it is partially what the thread is about, but it is something you are trying to lump into the discussion with me in the belief it someohow strengthens your argument when the reality is it just makes it look like you are trying to deflect or move the goalposts.

If it is not enforceable, then why debate the rules?

So you are actually afraid that a REC might benefit from it. A stat is the same advice, it's just a different presentation of it. Everyone with a basic understanding of Poker will come to the same conclusion which action to apply. Be it a stat or an image. So the only person for that it would be a in-game-advice is the clueless REC. Are you afraid that a REC might learn something about Poker that way?

The last sentence doesn't follow from what you've said before. The way to tackle a problem with software which is one of the biggest reasons that online poker is so much better a game than live poker is to tackle the unfairness, not to tackle the advantage. Incorporate a HUD into the client. Failing that, people playing at stakes who can't afford $60 or whatever PT4 is will be fine with Jivaro.

Yep very dull dealing with personal attacks and others straw men.

Here is the problem that Stars are trying to address here. Third Party Software has got too powerful. It gives too big an advantage. The effect of adding tool after tool on the ecosystem is killing poker. This latest debate sparked by killing HUSNGs.

My view is that to allow the ecosystem to continue for all - including multi tabling regs, the solution is to restrict the capabiliies of HUDs and associated add ons. To make the HUD static so that you can set it for whatever generic data you want to see but NOT have dynamic player specific data or advice. You set your HUD with whatever STAT you want, you have your single text doc of notes for that player and that is it.

No specific stats or badges selected by software for that specific player, no badges or flashes that appear for a specific player, street or situation that gives in game advice.

That is a big restriction on current HUD capability, as would be making sure that the HUDs use is declred to the site and other players, as would the site's ability to verify the data being used to eliminate data cheating.

Now you may not like the proposal, just as you may not like outright HUD bans or annonymous tables or automated screenname changes to help protect players using no or less sophisticated software but to me it seems eminently reasonable, a rewind on HUD apability of a few years. A restriction on in game advice that is too detailed, too sophisticated and fundamentally too powerful to maintain a reasonably level playing field for all.

I get that people like their software tools but they are killing the game.

It would be nice if people could make up their mind re opposing this. Now EITHER restrictions mean that others would have an unfair advantage if they broke the rules OR the tools are not too powerful to make for an unfair playing environment. You can have one but not both.

LOL no - the problem is that the s/w is delivering up dozens of different badges for different players - it is pre selecting the data, bringing it up front and centre, automating the analysis that should be post game and turning it in to highly individualised in game advice.

If you are saying that it means that say a poker stable in Russia/Eastern Europe with a couple of weeks and the right software can bring some numpty up to good enough to be the human part of the of the Cybot, maybe, I wonder, what has that done to the micros? I also wonder if they share data or not? What do you think are we providing tools for cybot rings that are destroying the game or not?

If the use of performance-enhancing drugs by a minority of cheats in sport is unfair, should the majority of athletes be offered steroids, EPO and growth hormones?
Asking for the incorporation of a HUD in the client puts you on the slippery slope that leads to "If some people are using GTO bots, then everyone should have access to one".
Imo, Stars should be trying to hold back the rise of technology that will kill the game, not encouraging the use of it.

P.S. Stars won't ban HUDs of course. The widespread use of HUDs leads to more volume, lower winrates, and ultimately more rake. It's kind of ironic that HUDbot rakeslaves are apparently voting to keep their single-digit winrates.

because it is interesting, and because stars has expressly asked for opinions

I agree with everything you said here and your suggestions on a possible solution as long as it's within the pokersite's ability to somewhat police this stuff as well. I'm a HuD user of about five years now, and use my own modded version of the ProPokerHuDs Premium MTT HuD which I purchased for over $200. I'm a fairly strong player without a HuD and I believe an even stronger one with a HuD as I think I'm able to analyze HuD data better in game than your average HuD player. With all the said I've noticed an advancement in HuD software that goes way beyond what I feel is optimal for the future of online poker. I do feel we are close to the tipping point with all the software out there. I have no idea if this stuff can be policed or regulated by the Pokersites. Hoping though that there is a solution.

Btw, I think PT4 and ProPokerHuD's MTT premium HuD are both excellent products and I'm happy with my purchases of them. I am in no way trying to deflect the problem on them. As long as my opponents are using similar such software I'll continue to use the software that I feel is the best for my game as well.

This is an inappropriate analogy, as (I think) such drugs can cause long-term health problems, and sports are introduced to children from a young age, so permitting them would end up with younger and younger kids with pushy parents trying to gain an edge on the competition. HUDs do no harm to the individual using them; the only substantive argument against them is a level playing field.

Not really. HUDs don't automate one of the skilful elements of the game (table selection, making decisions in real time) - they provide information which helps with the making of decisions, but so do Stars' table filters which show who is playing at which tables. If anything, with statistical interpretation they add an element of skill to the game.

I'm not trying to say that banning HUDs might not be better for individuals' winrates - I think that's far too speculative to draw any solid conclusions (you can't draw adequate comparisons with Unibet and Bovada because both have crippling flaws which make them unattractive to regulars, and there's nothing to suggest that the lack of HUDs is the proximate reason for their softness). I'm arguing that on a principled basis, there is absolutely no reason to disallow HUDs except for the awful 'wah wah wah why isn't it like live poker' argument (which I'm sure you can see as much as I can is absolutely pathetic).

I should probably add one other thing that has been kinda overlooked in all of this when discussing huds/ notecaddy and their impact on recreational players.

When I am using them it is almost always against the reg players in my games, not the recreational players. Recreational players/ fish generally fall into fairly standard categories where these tools aren't needed to exploit them and on many occasions you won't have enough hands on them to get any meaningful stats beyond preflop/ flop. It's the regs you are battling on a regular basis that you are using them against in my experience.