|
|
#31
05-03-2005, 07:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Crossposted from the Zoo
My reply, also crossposted.
Thank you Nostradamus. Without immitation, there would be no innovation. I'm trying to offer a cheaper alternative. If GameTime+ suited my needs, I'd be using that. Basically, I plan on writing a simple application that allows the stats from PokerTracker to be displayed on the poker window. It will be pretty cut and dry. It will likely be released for free. I have other open source projects, so releasing my software for free is not a big deal. I get satisfaction in releasing applications that people find useful. I play poker to pay the bills, and I have ample free time. I'm putting some of that free time to good use now. If my application catches on and the need for advanced features is there, then I may branch off and create a commercial version. How much I charge depends on how much it does. With equivalent functionality to PlayerView, that would be $20. 
|
|
#33
05-03-2005, 07:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PlayerView/GameTime+ Alternative
thing i like about GT+ is that it tells you how much your up/down on each table. Maybe have a total for this too. Its easier to glance at when ur multitabling then looking at PT or calculating it urself
|
|
#34
05-03-2005, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crossposted from the Zoo
[ QUOTE ]
My reply, also crossposted. Thank you Nostradamus. Without immitation, there would be no innovation. I'm trying to offer a cheaper alternative. If GameTime+ suited my needs, I'd be using that. Basically, I plan on writing a simple application that allows the stats from PokerTracker to be displayed on the poker window. It will be pretty cut and dry. It will likely be released for free. I have other open source projects, so releasing my software for free is not a big deal. I get satisfaction in releasing applications that people find useful. I play poker to pay the bills, and I have ample free time. I'm putting some of that free time to good use now. If my application catches on and the need for advanced features is there, then I may branch off and create a commercial version. How much I charge depends on how much it does. With equivalent functionality to PlayerView, that would be $20. [/ QUOTE ] Great job man, I'll be looking forward to checking it out. These people have no clue about what they are talking about, let the haters hate, it's -EV for them. Software of this nature was meant to be free or very (very) inexpensive. People act like they've never downloaded freeware/shareware before... Did you all download the FREE Kazaa? Or did you PAY???? How about WINAMP??? Paying for that or using the free one???? Fking haters and hypocrites have no clue. You don't think that Amir, a likely college student, gained experience that will translate to $$ down the road from writing PV?? For most upcoming developers, it is enough...but others get greedy once they actually make something people like. Others (and eventually more successful ones) typically abondon their first products to freeware...gaining a following and building a reputation...and then release a BETTER...WORKING version for $$$. How times change.
|
|
#35
05-03-2005, 09:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PlayerView/GameTime+ Alternative
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Only support one database (PostgreSQL is around the corner). It won't be much more work to support multiple databases. It keeps it backwards compatible with older versions of PT too. [/ QUOTE ] I think supporting multiple databases may be more trouble than it is worth, especially with a flexible/user-defined query. Perhaps my concerns are easily fixed, but here they are: If the SQL query calculates PFR multiple queries must be combined weighted by pre-flop observations. If it calculates turn aggression, it must be weighted by turn observations. If the query doesn't calculate these items, then there needs to be another facility for users to define the calculations. Good luck with the development. [/ QUOTE ] It's trivial to support multiple databases as long as you stick to standard SQL. An abstract factory will accomplish this without a ton of effort. You can write the concrete implementations for other DB's as you need them.
|
|
#36
05-03-2005, 10:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PlayerView/GameTime+ Alternative
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Only support one database (PostgreSQL is around the corner). It won't be much more work to support multiple databases. It keeps it backwards compatible with older versions of PT too. [/ QUOTE ] I think supporting multiple databases may be more trouble than it is worth, especially with a flexible/user-defined query. Perhaps my concerns are easily fixed, but here they are: If the SQL query calculates PFR multiple queries must be combined weighted by pre-flop observations. If it calculates turn aggression, it must be weighted by turn observations. If the query doesn't calculate these items, then there needs to be another facility for users to define the calculations. Good luck with the development. [/ QUOTE ] It's trivial to support multiple databases as long as you stick to standard SQL. An abstract factory will accomplish this without a ton of effort. You can write the concrete implementations for other DB's as you need them. [/ QUOTE ] I think my original point was poorly made. You should support multiple database platforms. Using standard SQL and ODBC will go a long way towards that. You should not bother combining data from multiple databases into one resultset for display onto the screen. This is a feature of PV and missing (I believe) in GT+. The necessary processing of resultsets to combine them would either eliminate the flexibility of what the user can do or significantly increase the complexity of what the user would have to do. (My original suggestion list included having the stats available not be pre-defined, but created by a editable SQL statement.) Of course, do what you want.
|
|
#37
05-04-2005, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: PlayerView/GameTime+ Alternative
People will come, ray, people will most definitely come.
|
|
#38
05-04-2005, 03:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You are greedy whiners
[ QUOTE ]
PlayerView was a great free application. However, it just doesn't cut it as a commercial application costing $50. [/ QUOTE ] You know why you could use it for free? Because we were a bunch of people who donated $ to Amir so he could work on his program when it still wasnt working very well. Now when its working great, u are prepared to pay $20. Wow! If any of u whiners in this thread are anywhere near decent pokerplayers you know that Playerview have saved you a lot more then $50. If any of you were around when "Pokertracker" was still young u will remember that it was a much worse program then today. And with whiners like you it still would be as bad as it was then.
|
|
#39
05-04-2005, 09:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are greedy whiners
I suppose it's debatable whether PV is worth $50 or not but I find it pretty funny that on a forum full of "great" poker players that are supposedly crushing the online games and taking the fish for all they are worth, so many are complaining about a measly 50 bucks.
$50 bucks is [censored]. Just pay it and get back to the tables for crying out loud.
|
|
#40
05-04-2005, 10:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: You are greedy whiners
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] PlayerView was a great free application. However, it just doesn't cut it as a commercial application costing $50. [/ QUOTE ] You know why you could use it for free? Because we were a bunch of people who donated $ to Amir so he could work on his program when it still wasnt working very well. Now when its working great, u are prepared to pay $20. Wow! If any of u whiners in this thread are anywhere near decent pokerplayers you know that Playerview have saved you a lot more then $50. If any of you were around when "Pokertracker" was still young u will remember that it was a much worse program then today. And with whiners like you it still would be as bad as it was then. [/ QUOTE ] So to recap your argument: Competition is bad for the consumer. You may want to rethink that one.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
