Revised software review of Turbo and Acespade

After more testing has been done, I need to revise the review I posted here before.


Software review of Turbo and Acespade


Experiment overview: The experiment is done on Turbo Texas Hold’em version 5 and Acespade Texas Hold’em pro 2002. The computer used is an Intel Celeron processor 1.1 GHz with 128 MB memory running in Windows XP.


Experiment methodology: Review is done on five categories: 1) User interface; 2) Easy of use; 3) Features; 4) Speed of play; 5) Quality of play; Rating is from 1 to 10 in which 1 is the worst and 10 is the best.


Experiment conclusion:


1)User interface: Turbo provides online look-like screen layout while Acespade does not. Acespade provides bigger push buttons with more direct access while Turbo provides conventional Windows menu layout. They both look nice and attractive. The rating is 8 for Turbo and 7 for Acespade.


2)Easy of use: Both software can be installed easily. Turbo provides both a hard copy and online user’s manual while Acespade provides an online user’s manual. Acespade’s computer player definition is easy while Turbo’s computer player definition is difficult and time consuming. The rating is 7 for Acespade and 6 for Turbo.


3)Features: Both software have features such as simulation, challenge play, skip garbage hands, and hand replay, etc. Acespade provides more playing modes such as watch-play, case-play and Internet-play modes. In the challenge play Acespade allows users to see how the computer plays in the background by repeating Roy’s play, while how Turbo plays the current hand in the background is unknown. I’m not saying Turbo is untrustworthy, but it will be more trusty if the background play is revealed like Acespade. The rating is 8 for Acespade and 6 for Turbo.


4)Speed of play: Turbo is faster than Acespade and it maybe more obvious in a slow computer. In my computer both software play so fast that option need to be set to slow it down. The rating is 9 for Turbo and 7 for Acespade.


5)Quality of play: Both software play realistically, and both play pretty good before the Flop. Acespade plays better on the Flop, Turn, and River as well while Turbo does not play as well after the Flop. Turbo’s play is more predictable such as in many case if a player checked, it is pretty sure the other will bet, and if a player raised, it is pretty sure the other will fold. The rating is 9 for Acespade and 6 for Turbo.

"Quality of play: ... The rating is 9 for Acespade and 6 for Turbo."


I have never looked at Acespade and I haven't looked at the newer versions of Turbo, so my remarks need to be considered from that point of view. However, this is the first time I have ever seen anyone say that Acespade is better. So perhaps it is catching up.

... This is also the first time I'VE seen anyone (besides Gpyu, who's with the company) say it's better...


based on what I've read, I would disagree with several of the contentions, INCLUDING the one you clipped... but what do I know?

I have the latest Turbo and Acespade software too. From my point of view, Turbo has many questionable plays. Acespade's play seems more realistic. I've tested the plays of Acespade using its case-play and the examples given by the expert authors from poker magazines, in most cases they agree with the experts' play. I like both software, but for the quality of play, I choose Acespade.

Why don't I believe this is an honest evaluation?


Care to give some examples?

If you have the latest Turbo and Acespade software, you may test it yourself. Turbo's advisory problem is well awared of by most people here. To test Acespade's play, you may gather some examples given by expert authors from poker books and magazines, and use the case-play feature from Acespade to play those hands to see if it agrees with the experts' play.

Well, since I don't have any Acespade's software on my system, don't think I'll be taking your challenge.


However, since this is starting to smell like a certain Internet "meat"....

Maybe you and "big bob" (assuming there's a difference- if there IS a difference, and neither of you are spamming, you have my apology now) can give a better justification for your ratings, so that people are sure that this is an impartial review.... and since most people aren't going to invest in 2 expensive poker analysis software pieces...


...maybe, something similar to the detailed reviews that have been posted on RGP about the Acespade product, such as this one:


a) Title- "AceSpade's Texas Hold'em Pro software - a review"

Message-ID:

Izmet Fekali in Sept 1999


or this more recent one

b) "Software review- Acespade vs. Wilson Hold'Em- Overview section (again)"

Message-ID:

SGarcia in April 2002

** Plus, SGarcia's reply to Gpyu (from Acespade) at the end of that thread has very detailed walkthroughs of the advice/advisor arguement that may reveal issues with Acespade's "advisory problem"


If you can't, then I'll assume this "review" is spam... or, at best, a misinformed opinion.


The Turbo Avenger

.. and while I'm ranting (sorry, but spamming drives me crazy.... of course, I'd better be careful that I don't fall into the same category by accident? /images/wink.gif


1) If Acespade is so wonderful to use, why isn't there an available demo to compare head-to-head with Wilson's demos? Quality should be obvious, shouldn't it?


2) If Acespade is so wonderful, why does it seem that no one (except for what seem to be new posters) seems to use it on a regular basis?


Here's a list of known "famous" users of Turbo Texas Hold 'Em... in no particular order:


Izmet Fekali


Lou Kreiger


Abdul Jalib


Gary Carson


... along with various less "famous" regular posters on 2+2 and RGP. Search either NG and see what I mean...


3) If Acespade software is so wonderful, why are they having a firesale and practically giving most of it away?


After several adjustments, currently 10 games for $199 is advertised on the website (normally $70-80 EACH)... coincidently, this promo started soon after the Wilson vs. Acespade review on RGP.... hmmm...


Obviously, based on what I've read and seen (I've bought all of the Wilson games over the years, as I've stated before), a lot MORE people are choosing the Wilson Turbo products over anything else... for the quality of the software.


Just "my point of view"


The Turbo Defender (actually, I think Avenger is better)

If it is not the $199 poker collections, I would not have had Acespade software and would not have known there is better software than Turbo.


It is too bad that big bob did not post his review here sooner, otherwise I would have been converted from Turb to Acespade earlier.

There was a lengthy post here about a month ago defending Acespade against S. Garcia hand by hand. It came out that Acespade's play is smarter. If you search the archive of this forum, you will find that post.


D. Johnson

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion, though I don't believe it was the correct move.... maybe it was for you.

Hi, Gpyu! Wondered where you disappeared to!


If you read carefully, the post of mine from yesterday points to the original chain of posts on RGP- which contained your defensive post that was evidently reproduced here on 2+2, according to your note...


... and I believe a lengthy rebuttal to YOUR claims of superiority was ALSO in that RGP chain..(at least, it was yesterday when I checked for it).


I remain unconvinced that Acespade is better (excuse me, "smarter") based on your claims.


Tell you what- I'm up for a challenge! Why don't you send me a copy of one of your games to review?


Pick any game that matches up with a Wilson product on Bob's site- I have them all... though, since Hold'em has been beaten to death already, a different game to review would make sense... for the knowledge of 2+2 and RGP. Also, since tourneys are so tough to duplicate conditions in, we should stick to regular casino games (will affect more people anyway)


That would mean 7stud8, omaha8, Omaha high or 7 stud.


I'll do as an impartial review as I'm able (given that your spamming has hacked me off so much), comparing the Turbo and Acespade software games. I'll even front it with a disclaimer about my predisposition towards Wilson products (you can even view the disclaimer first, if you'd like!)


Give me some time to do it, I'd be happy to return the software to you afterwards if you'd prefer- I won't even keep the installed copy! If you're interested, send me an email- I'll send you the address.


Is your software up for that challenge? You'll have the opportunity to dispute any results I report.

The VHS videotape format beat Beta many years ago because it was on the market first and had a huge backing of a lot of major companies. Beta was a far superior product, no one argued that, but VHS was easier for the public to get. I have the Acespades HE sofware and have tested the demo of Wilson and find Acespades has more features, is easier to work with and seems very accurate.


Disclaimer- I am not a major player, do not have time to do comparison testing, have no tie to any major or minor software company, am not a member of the communist party, own a PC (inferior product to a Mac but more convienient? could be...), and I really don't care what software company I give my money to as long as it helps me keep more of it at the table.


All I am trying to say is that just because the experts all play it doesn't make it right (especially Gary Carson, but that is a whole 'nother post, see "Texas Hold-Em, Small Stakes" July 1 "Good Book- HE Poker Gary Carson). I got some good book advice once- "If 1 piece of advice in 1 book that you read helps you win 1 pot it has paid for itself." Could this apply to redundant software too...


-Hat Trick

Okay, two things, then I'm ignoring this thread:


1) The screen shots made me think "beta" too... as in "beta software"


2) Your points in using the VHS comparison are contradictory and, as a result, facetious... as is comparing a demo with a full program.


Good to know that evidently the vast majority of people, who picked the other software over the last four years, were either sheep, stupid or misguided as all get-out.... while you made the 'intelligent' choice based on 'superior quality'.


Maybe i'll have to invest in this supposedly 'superior' product and buy something... say, 7-card stud? Will it be obvious then what a mistake I've made over the years?

To end my participation- "If all of the experts are using it, makes me think there's a reason..."