Microgaming poker software comments for Gaming Club.

[mongeron]

These are the things that annoy me the most in the Microgaming poker software. As I play mostly at Ladbrokes with that software, these are comments based on their client. However, the basic client is the same everywhere I think, so the comments should apply to other sites too.

I play mostly Pot limit Omaha, and some of the stuff applies to it.

With the PL Omaha, the "Raise any" advance action button makes a mini-raise. It is useless that way, since mini-raises are very rarely used in PL / NL games. I think it should raise the pot.

Actually, the text "Raise any" is very confusing in other than split limit games. So, the text should be more describing. The same applies to No-limit games too, however "Raise any" is actually pretty useless in no-limit games, at least if the stacks are deep.

Then, there are no advance action checkboxes shown when I am in big blind. In other sites, there is at least fold/check and call/check options available.

Another odd thing in PL and NL games is that the minimum bet is increased in turn & river. Not that it matters too much, but usually the minimum bet is always the big blind.

It has already been mentioned that the advance action checkboxes are far too small and very badly placed. Take a look at PokerStars and compare.

Also, what looks odd to me, that there are cents used even in $3/$6 PL games. I would prefer that the rake is rounded to at least 5 cents. I don't actually know, if cashouts are processed so that I get every cent there is, if I withdraw all my money from a site.

Also the betting slider is quite hard to use. Quite often when I want to bet the pot, the slider doesn't go to the upper end of the range, and not whole pot is bet then.

Also, the granularity is way too fine in the slider. Again, PokerStars slider is the best in my opinion, there is the perfect amount of steps in the slider, and if those are not enough, you can use numbers to enter the desired bet size.

Also, the showdown procedure is quite interesting sometimes. I've often seen that only the winning hand was shown on showdown, when there was no betting on river. The correct procedure is of course to show the hands starting from front of button, and clockwise after that.

Then, currently the hand histories (Playcheck) don't show the hole cards of each player, when there is a showdown. It shows only the playing 5-card poker hand. This is totally wrong.

In Omaha, all four cards must be exposed to get the pot. And if there is some network lag just at showdown, you don't see the cards at the table. Then I want to check the hand history in order to see what those players were playing. This information is currently missing. This isn't as bad thing in Hold'em than in Omaha, since quite often you can deduce the player's cards from the final hand. This is not the case in Omaha, where only two cards out of four are used.

One technical comment. The client is using 22 MB of memory, when there is only one table open. Compared to PokerStars, which uses only 6 MB with one table open, it's quite huge an overhead.

These are my observations on the software. When these things are fixed, the software will be a bit better.

When I play my next tournament at a Microgaming site, I will try to report my feelings about those too. Of course the advance action "Raise any" thing applies to tournaments too.

Hope you read this and find the information useful. Please ask for more details if you need them.

- mongeron

[mongeron]

And of course one more thing I forgot.

Since the update to 2003 version of the poker client, Omaha hi/low has been missing from the games. It has been said that it would come back at some point, but it's been missing for a long time already.

Also, there should be an option "Muck uncalled hands". Currently there is a timer, during which you have to either press "Muck cards" or "Show cards". This makes an additional delay to the game, and I very rarely show my cards.

One feature I would like to see. Being able to play only with the keyboard would be nice. So, there would be the following options:

F for Fold,
B for Bet/Raise, first you have to enter the amount, or press P for the pot.
C for check.

Also, the advance action buttons could be labeled too.

- mongeron

[mongeron]

[archmagi]

I would just summarise it as being totally crap. It's a shame, because Ladbrokes is full of fisf, if you're willing to put up with the software.

[mongeron]

Well, to me it seems that Gaming Club is sincerely interested in enhancing the software, therefore it's useful to highlight the bad things, so that we get a better software.

And yes, the games are good at Ladbrokes, although not so much PL Omaha action as I would like /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ralle]

Don't forget the bug that sometimes makes you post the big blind two deals in a row, while sitting at the same table.

Also at Prima Poker (who also uses Microgaming software), the betting limits go up in the middle of a hand when it's time to change levels.

[Gaming Club]

Thanks mongeron for the very comprehensive comments – much appreciated. Herewith detailed responses to the items raised in your various posts:

[ QUOTE ]

With the PL Omaha, the "Raise any" advance action button makes a mini-raise. ... I think it should raise the pot. … The same applies to No-limit games too, however "Raise any" is actually pretty useless in no-limit games, at least if the stacks are deep.


[/ QUOTE ]
Good suggestions – will put them forward.

[ QUOTE ]

Then, there are no advance action checkboxes shown when I am in big blind.


[/ QUOTE ]
We’ve already raised this issue and are awaiting feedback on when / if it is going to be fixed.

[ QUOTE ]

Another odd thing in PL and NL games is that the minimum bet is increased in turn & river. Not that it matters too much, but usually the minimum bet is always the big blind.


[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for pointing this out

[ QUOTE ]

It has already been mentioned that the advance action checkboxes are far too small and very badly placed.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is something that we’d like to see changed very soon as well. Prima tell us they are working on it but cannot give us an ETA at present. We’ll revert when we know more.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, what looks odd to me, that there are cents used even in $3/$6 PL games. I would prefer that the rake is rounded to at least 5 cents. I don't actually know, if cashouts are processed so that I get every cent there is, if I withdraw all my money from a site.


[/ QUOTE ]
You should indeed get every cent you cashout, but we’d be happy to round the rake up if you want /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

Also the betting slider is quite hard to use … doesn't go to the upper end of the range … granularity is way too fine


[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, betting slider is another pet dislike. Also being worked on, no ETA yet tho. Thanks for the good suggestions.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, the showdown procedure is quite interesting sometimes. I've often seen that only the winning hand was shown on showdown, when there was no betting on river. The correct procedure is of course to show the hands starting from front of button, and clockwise after that.


[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly this is because the software immediately shows the winning hand to all the losing players and then gives them the option of mucking their losing hand (or otherwise does so automatically if they have checked the appropriate box). Obviously if everyone is just calling a check from the first player to bet then it is wrong. Will follow up.

[ QUOTE ]

Then, currently the hand histories (Playcheck) don't show the hole cards of each player, when there is a showdown.


[/ QUOTE ]
Wasn’t aware of this – will follow up

[ QUOTE ]

The client is using 22 MB of memory, when there is only one table open. Compared to PokerStars, which uses only 6 MB with one table open, it's quite huge an overhead.


[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for pointing this out.

[ QUOTE ]

Hope you read this and find the information useful.


[/ QUOTE ]
Very useful – tyvm /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

Since the update to 2003 version of the poker client, Omaha hi/low has been missing from the games. It has been said that it would come back at some point, but it's been missing for a long time already.


[/ QUOTE ]
Prima have it on their development schedule but it’s not very high we’re afraid.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, there should be an option "Muck uncalled hands".


[/ QUOTE ]
We have requested this.

[ QUOTE ]

Being able to play only with the keyboard would be nice.


[/ QUOTE ]
Great minds think alike /images/graemlins/smile.gif … we asked for this shortly before we read your post

[ QUOTE ]

Well, to me it seems that Gaming Club is sincerely interested in enhancing the software, therefore it's useful to highlight the bad things, so that we get a better software.


[/ QUOTE ]
Very much the aim of our participation in this forum. If we aren’t trying to give you guys what you want then what is it exactly that we are doing? (in advance reply to the smart alecks out there: yes we’re trying to make money, and we simply believe that we’ll make more if we offer customers what they want, as opposed to what we think they want).

[Gaming Club]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't forget the bug that sometimes makes you post the big blind two deals in a row, while sitting at the same table.


[/ QUOTE ]
Currently being worked on.

[ QUOTE ]

Also at Prima Poker (who also uses Microgaming software), …


[/ QUOTE ]
fyi, Microgaming develop the software, Prima operate common elements of the underlying network, and the various poker room operators license the software from Microgaming and Prima and run all the "front of house" aspects.

An analogy would be that Microgaming is the manufacturer, Prima Poker is the wholesaler and Gaming Club (for example) is one of a number of retailers who market the product.

You are presumably referring to one of the poker room operators (licensees), since Prima does not run any poker rooms itself.

[ QUOTE ]

… the betting limits go up in the middle of a hand when it's time to change levels


[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you mean – can you be more specific?

[Gaming Club]

[ QUOTE ]

I would just summarise it as being totally crap. It's a shame, because Ladbrokes is full of fisf, if you're willing to put up with the software


[/ QUOTE ]
Ouch – that hurts! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

As previously posted, we see more value in being out there with a less than perfect product and then taking player feedback to make improvements where players want them first, as opposed to trying to anticipate everything in advance and then launching the perfect product (which is probably impossible anyway – there’s always going to be something the developers don’t think about or get wrong).

[lorinda]

In Omaha, all four cards must be exposed to get the pot

I agree with the rest of the post Mongeron, but in England at least, this rule is correct.

Lori

[Adde]

I'll be damned! Wish you were around 6 months ago when me and many other players were requesting these fixes from Ladbrokes, when they were so proud of their new update (that actually sucked). I played there A LOT, but since they refused to listen to us players, I haven't played there since.

Good work, Gaming Club!


adde

[Gaming Club]

[ QUOTE ]

I'll be damned! Wish you were around 6 months ago when me and many other players were requesting these fixes from Ladbrokes, when they were so proud of their new update (that actually sucked). I played there A LOT, but since they refused to listen to us players, I haven't played there since.

Good work, Gaming Club!


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Obviously it remains to be seen whether or not Prima follow through on all the changes we're requesting, but from discussion with them we're confident that the major items at least will be dealt with reasonably quickly.

Based on all the comments that have been made we are keeping a running "to do" list, and as and when major items are sorted out we will report back to the forum.

[Jim Kuhn]

Will these bugs be fixed prior to the $100,000 tourney? It is one thing just 'being out there' and quite another when you are holding a major tourney.

With a $30,000 first prize these bugs will be in the forefront. If not fixed do you intend to compensate players that have been impacted by the bugs? How do you plan to estimate the $$$ of impact?

[mongeron]

I was around back then too, and I actually cashed out totally from Ladbrokes because of the software. I also told them what was wrong, and they didn't listen.

And yes, one thing more to Gaminng Club. I'd like to disable the animation, but it's not possible.

- mongeron

[Gaming Club]

[ QUOTE ]

Will these bugs be fixed prior to the $100,000 tourney?


[/ QUOTE ]
We expect with a reasonable degree of confidence that all the major ones (which, in fairness, we should point out is really a very short list) at least will be resolved, but in the end it is up to Prima / Microgaming to deliver on this front. We will certainly apply lots of pressure in respect of the ones that matter the most, and will be giving feedback in the forum as development progresses.

The first feedback we can give in this regard is that we believe that the bug where cards don't display in certain all-in situations has now been fixed, so certainly we are seeing some quick response from Prima already.

If you feel strongly about any other issues that you believe are imperative to fix before the tournament, please let us know and we will make sure that our priority list agrees with yours as far as possible.

[ QUOTE ]

With a $30,000 first prize these bugs will be in the forefront. If not fixed do you intend to compensate players that have been impacted by the bugs? How do you plan to estimate the $$$ of impact?


[/ QUOTE ]
It is obviously extremely difficult, if not impossible, to try to evaluate the effects of any glitch that impacts only one player in a tournament situation.

While the impact on that player's stack may be substantial and will clearly have a bearing on their final position and thus prize, it is by no means given that any such effects will necessarily be decisive given the multitude of factors that determine the result of a tournament, particularly a NL one, where winning a big pot in one hand doesn't prevent you from busting out of the tournament in the very next one.

We will certainly be prepared to examine any problems on a case by case basis, and in circumstances of legitimate complaint will be happy to at least refund the entry fee plus possibly a bit more for any player that is already near to or in the money.

At this stage though we believe it would be unwise to commit to anything further than that, and are anyway confident that we will see quick progress similar to above in respect of outstanding issues.

Note that the situation is somewhat different for ring games, where it is relatively easy to estimate the effects of any issues that arise, and we will again review individual circumstances on a case by case basis.

[Jim Kuhn]

[ QUOTE ]
We will certainly be prepared to examine any problems on a case by case basis, and in circumstances of legitimate complaint will be happy to at least refund the entry fee plus possibly a bit more for any player that is already near to or in the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone feels a 'software bug' has cost them the $30,000 first prize - offering to refund them their $200 entry fee will not be very satisfactory. I feel you should have the programmers concentrate their efforts on factors that impact gameplay. One that really stands out is the posting of big blinds multiple times in a row. Late in a tourney this could have a huge impact. The all in showdown displaying of the cards would not impact gameplay as the participants are already 'all in'.

[Gaming Club]

[ QUOTE ]

If someone feels a 'software bug' has cost them the $30,000 first prize - offering to refund them their $200 entry fee will not be very satisfactory.


[/ QUOTE ]
Certainly we understand that, hence we left the door open to further compensation beyond just the entry fee. Any player who is so deep in the money that they feel a bug has cost them first prize is obviously already a large prize winner, and in circumstances of legitimate complaint compensation would naturally take account of this.

In the end though any judgment that we would make at the time would be a function of the circumstances involved, and we therefore need to be careful at this point to ensure that unreasonable expectations are not created.

Our language in expressing all of this is naturally going to be guarded therefore, but ultimately we are well aware that the PR costs of a substantial bug in the context of a large prize are significant. By contrast, $30,000 is not a lot of money to us and if the circumstances warrant you can be sure that Gaming Club will do the right thing (note of course that in this matter we speak only for ourselves, not for Prima Poker nor any of its other operators)

[ QUOTE ]

I feel you should have the programmers concentrate their efforts on factors that impact gameplay. One that really stands out is the posting of big blinds multiple times in a row. Late in a tourney this could have a huge impact.


[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the feedback.

As far as we are aware this particular bug is relatively infrequent, since it only happens in isolated cases when a player joins the table from another one (i.e. it doesn't happen every time a new player joins the table, but rather only in some cases, and the maximum that we have heard about anyone having to play the BB in a row is twice).

Unless we are incorrect in our understanding, this is therefore unlikely to be a bug that would cost anyone the first prize, since if you're short-stacked enough to be blinded out with only two players left you can hardly claim you were very likely to win the tournament.

Notwithstanding that, depending on the circumstances (most principly the size of the stacks of other players who went out shortly thereafter), a player could claim to have been prejudiced by a couple or a few places, and our compensation would therefore take this into account.

The cause of this particular bug has anyway already been isolated, and it is currently being fixed. We confidently expect that it will have been killed well before the tournament starts.

[ QUOTE ]

The all in showdown displaying of the cards would not impact gameplay as the participants are already 'all in'


[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. We included reference to this primarily to show that quick progress is being made towards resolution of issues that have previously been identified, and you can therefore be confident that others will also be addressed similarly quickly.

[mongeron]

[ QUOTE ]
In Omaha, all four cards must be exposed to get the pot

I agree with the rest of the post Mongeron, but in England at least, this rule is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, how should I interpret your answer? It's kind of vague, when you say: "I agree with the rest of the post..., _but_ ... this rule is correct."

Are you referring to the "All cards must be exposed" thing? If yes, then you agree with me, and the "but" is contradictionary /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Just a bit confused,

- mongeron