https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi5F1-69QOw

Really impressed with these advancements, but how exactly will GTO Wizard, or any poker site for that matter, be able to prevent people from using an online solver that fast as RTA?

lol you still havent realised that gto wizard is purpose-designed RTA?

there's time stamps that get logged for each solve, not to mention a cooldown timer in between solves. I'm sure someone could figure out a way to circumvent that though. Tech only advances exponentially.

One of the ideas in the comments is that sites like Pokerstars could integrate with GTO Wizard such that it uses the solves to determine how well a player's actions mirror the solutions.

Of course, that idea is greatly flawed: if someone just so happens to learn certain scenarios too well, they'll get penalized for it. Furthermore, there will be some very obvious decisions that also match the solve, resulting in false positives ("He just folded 86 hearts on a black monotone AKQJ board... how did he know to do this??")

Out of curiosity, how do these tools currently prevent from being used in real time? I know there was some kerfuffle about one of them removing a 30-second delay. So clearly that wait time was/is one of those measures.

@ejames209 Exactly

@Wilbury Twist Actually I think that would be a great, and maybe the only good enough solution. I don´t agree with your second paragraph. Stars integrating with the entire GTOw tool would mean being able to judge ALL of your HHs instantly, and no 100% human player would be able to memorize ALL scenarios ever. We can go even better: Suppose I know all scenaros that are range bets on the flop, and play them perfectly. Pokerstars banning me for that because I played the solution perfectly on the easiest postflop spot ever wouldn´t make any sense.

I don´t remember the exactly details, but didn´t Stars go to great lengths to close PokerTableRatings back in the day? It puzzles me that nowadays we have things like H2N Range Research, PTR-like sites, GTO Wizard etc, and they don´t seem to care anymore.

Hopefully they are in fact either integrating with these tools, or are doing their work on the background. It´s the people playing highstakes on the smaller more obscure sites that will probably get screwed.

I think it's about time to fully accept the fact that online poker will die soon. Definitely the last years.

The quantity of RTA users can increase to the point where things become unbearable.

The only place that will remain playable is microstakes, since using RTA won't be worth/profitable there. Prepare yourselves to spend hundreds of hours at casino tables.

People have been saying online poker will die for the last 15 years.

Texas holdem online cash is definitely the next poker game to go.

Not sure when but definitely the next one.

Other poker cash games will be fine if not better though

Tournaments will be okay for a while because there's so many variables but I think cash games are in trouble. Majority of recs already head to tournaments and sites are trying to force big whales into smaller cash games so their deposits last longer. Recs can do okay in MTTs, they get demolished in cash and the speed that happens will only increase.

The issue with detecting RTA is it's likely the vast majority would only use it in big spots and 99% of gameplay will be normal, that is hard to detect. A potential way to keep cash games safer is to force the entire player base into a zoom format game and drastically reduce the time bank, this would also reduce the predatory behaviour of reg tables but it might put too many players off.

Stars already have their own built in RTA detection.

And they were right 15 years ago.

I haven’t used AI yet but have GTOW. I think GTOW “regular” (library of pre solved solutions) is easier to use for RTA. They have all the sizes you could want, so you just need to click through a tree while a hand is being played. I suspect at least one opponent in my games of this.

The point of AI is to be able to edit stack sizes, ranges, etc and get a custom solution, this is essentially user friendly piosolver and lends itself more to off the table work as it’s hard to do all that, understand a solution and execute it during an online hand. Obviously not impossible, especially if you’re only editing one parameter eg stack size, but harder/tough to do every hand than the pre solves. And the pre solves have all stack sizes, 100,150, 200, maybe even 125 and 175

Basically this, it’s hard to see any other conclusion long term. Way easier too for sites to just reduce their timebank than spend a bunch of time/money on an extraordinarily messy enforcement process.

Soon you will be able to check this:



At least I hope it applies to the pre solved solutions as well?

Wow, that's kind of brilliant from a marketing standpoint. But you know the old saying, the only way to stop a bad guy using RTA...

Lol, if you used this in game you'd time out of every hand.

Idk how this would work, seems super gimmicky and for marketing purposes. First of all sites HHs need to be in “pokerstars format” , some aren’t.
No idea how it would apply to pre solves, there are tons of users browsing solutions all day, most/many solves are gonna have been accessed at some point in the system, are they matching the time stamps of when the hand was played and when the relevant solve was accessed (recently)?
The whole idea of a solve library is you can browse all day, you can change the turn card, change it again, etc, and there’s no internal record kept of anything, you’re not “ solving “ where after you’re done, the hand shows up in a list of “your solved hands” you’re just accessing a solve like how are they going to match a hand that was played to a “recent solve access” when solves are constantly being accessed by many users, it just makes no sense
GTOW keeps a record of every user and every solve access? Yeah right

What if the hand contains a river but the RTA user didn’t click the river? No match? What if a solve with different (standardized) stack sizes with the same board and action was accessed, but the actual hand was played with different stacks? Is that a “match”?
My point is what constitutes a “match” and how do you avoid false positives so to speak?

Sorry got kind of on a rant there, I’m interested to see these new features play out and others opinions/experiences

This concept was pioneered by Deepsolver. You type in a flop, and it shows you if anyone has recently solved that flop, with exact timestamps.

https://deepsolver.com/fair-play-check



It's a simple and effective deterrent. You'd have to be crazy to cheat knowing that anyone can look this up.

GTO Wizard has a massive user base, so conditions would need to be tightened to avoid false positives, e.g. having the user specify a 5-minute timeframe.

There will still be false positives for sure. But I'd rather this tool exist than not exist. It's on the operators to determine how many matches occur before they take action.

It's definitely a step in the right direction, but I have some thoughts:

* What if the cheater uses a somewhat different flop to try to throw off the system -- e.g solve for AsKd3h or AsQd3h when the real flop was AhKc4d.

* What if I try to get an innocent opponent (or high stakes pro) banned by looking up dozens of spots they play, while they play them, and then report them?

Why? GTO Wizard can already read hand histories from over 17 different site formats. And there's no reason to assume the fair play checker would need a hand history.

There's no effective way to police the use of preflop charts. Free GTO preflop charts are abundant. There's nothing stopping people from printing these charts and taping it to their desk. Perhaps unique spots like MTT with asymmetric stacks could be monitored, but for something as generic as 100bb cash there's just no way.

See post above.

It's really not that hard to log a URL and a user ID. Idk why you're making this out to be some herculean task.

If you change the turn card, for example, that logs a new solution. You can even see it show up in your list of recently solved spots.

Well for one thing, the spot ID would trace back to your GTO Wizard account, not theirs. You would potentially risk losing your own GTOW sub. Streamers could verify their accounts with GTOW (we work with most of them through affiliates anyway).

You could argue there's still potential for malice. What happens in this case:
Operators would be tipped off that this player might be suspect. Since we work directly with sites, the operators could then scan all of the suspected player's hands to see if matches occur even when all the opposing players change.

If you think of an easy solution to this problem, please do let me know.

The long-term solution is to build proper RTA detection. Something that can detect superhuman play from any large sample of hand histories, regardless of what solver they were using. Every site and player wants this, but there exists no economically viable solution to this problem. But this technology has the potential to solve that problem.

Read more here: https://blog.gtowizard.com/introduci...-ai/#fair_play

There are a lot of useful lessons to be drawn from the competitive chess community, I think.

First of all, I think stopping cheating in online poker will run into the same issue as stopping cheating at a high level in online chess. People have been saying that GTO Wizard could merge with Stars and other sites and then flag cheaters. Chess.com bans people all the time for playing so many high accuracy moves that the odds of it being human at their recorded strength are statistically too small.

At a higher level of cheating, Grandmaster chess players play as themselves for 90% of the game and then for 1-3 of the trickiest moves, they rely on a computer. This makes it virtually impossible to prove they cheated.

You can imagine all kinds of similar circumnavigations with Poker. I play 200nl and 500nl. Mostly I know what I'm doing. If every 1000 hands I used a solver, this would be impossible to prove as cheating.


Not to mention, let's say the solver says bet hand X for 25% pot 1/2 the time. Well first of all, we don't know if I'm randomizing exactly 50-50 or not, so it's tough to say if I'm following the solver output. On top of that, what if I bet 27%? You'd need a very smart AI to flag that.

Or, what if I'm a smart player and I look at a solver output and I think "Okay, looking at this output, I notice that it is extremely difficult to find natural bluffs for my opponent. Since I am looking at this output, it is very easy for me to get a concrete sense of how much value he has compared to bluffs. Ergo, I will pure fold this hand that actually I bet the solver is mixing. Or even pure fold this hand that is really a pure call."

Similarly, let's say the solver likes specifically the busted flush draw with 86 of hearts. All busted flush draws bluff at some frequency, but it pure bluffs 86 of hearts. Who cares! I look at the output, I see that busted flush draws bet at 70% frequency, so I randomize my specific busted flush draw and bet it.

People are obsessed with blockers but they are very little of the winrate. Mostly it is about not overbluffing or underbluffing backed by a reasonable amount of common sense. Back to the chess analogy, I don't have to make the best move every time. I am better than 99.999999999% of humans if I just never blunder.
And a blunder in this case would be something like bluffing with Ace high when there are way too many weaker hands to bluff with.

As cheating becomes more and more of a part of online poker, so will catching cheaters. Actually cheating in chess is somewhat irrational in the sense that if you are already eking out a living playing chess professionally, you are risking a great deal just to win 1 tournament by cheating. Just being suspected of cheating can be so damaging to your career. If it was ever proven, you'd be completely ****ed. If these sites invest in anti-cheating technology, there will still be cheaters. But hopefully few enough at the highest level to kill the games. And then at the lower levels, hopefully enough people that just totally suck at cheating.

The last five years, it seems like online poker sites have not truly prioritized the longterm sustainability of their market. Disaster will be if they simply can't bother to properly fund anti-cheating measures. One thing we have going for us is that recreationals and professionals probably hate cheating a similar amount. Online sites have failed to cater to pros which is short-sighted in the sense that people get into poker to become pros. If people stop aspiring to be pros, their market will die in the long term. In this case however, they might be worried about their market dying in the SHORT term. So, I'm like 80% confident most sites will try their best to keep up with anti cheating measures.

Hopefully that wasn't too ramble-y

(I should add: there is a discrepancy in accuracy ratings for live tournaments vs online in chess which strongly suggests there is some cheating but also strongly suggests there is not a lot of cheating. And then even at the highest level, people get caught. Probably it is not just people's ethics that stops cheating, it is also that even a small risk of getting caught is not worth the potential reprecussions. So I imagine poker will hopefully end up there as well)


One other note, probably our only frame of reference will be recorded win rates and also public scandals, because I expect (and hope) sites will keep their specific measures very close to the vest

Does the tool only flag identical matches for suits? Like, what if a player is trying to solve AhAd3d2d and they look up AcAs3s2s instead?