Disturbing e-mail from partypoker

[Schwartzy61]

Well there might be less tables overall, but there will be less tables overall with Tight players or "pros" on them won't there?

A fish plays one table. That's one player on the tables.

A pro plays four tables. He is gonna account for four players at the tables. Now there are even pros playing 8, 12, and 16 tables, how can having that many "extra" pros be a good thing for those playing 2-3 tables without HUDs.

Wouldn't decreasing the number of pros be a good thing even if it means less tables? If these guys can't play 4+ tables because their HUDs are gone then you are effectively reducing the number of pros on Party at any given time. And in my eyes this is a very good thing.

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
If these guys can't play 4+ tables because their HUDs are gone then you are effectively reducing the number of pros on Party at any given time

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw in a previous thread Party doesn't allow "pro" players at their site. I wonder what they define as a "pro" player? Anyone know?

[Lestat]

I'm having trouble because the *overall edge* of "Good player A", who is on Table #20, does NOT effect "Bad player B" who is playing against Player A on table #25. What matter to "Bad player B" is what Player's A's edge is on #25!!! I am just as amazed why you are having trouble understanding that.

You're argument relates to another issue that was discussed a while back.. If the pros all left Party and went to play somewhere else, many think that would be a GOOD thing for the fish. I maintain it would be a bad thing, because there would be less games.

But both these arguments are getting silly. We keep saying the same thing and I'm convinced now that we understand what each is saying. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. On both issues.

[Lestat]

<font color="red">1. The average multitabling pro will make much less money if he is forced to play fewer tables because he loses his toys. </font>

I agree with this.


<font color="red">2. That means that all pros combined will win much less money. </font>

I agree with this.

<font color="red">3. That means that all fish combined will lose much less money. </font>

I'm not sure about this. They will lose their money SLOWER. But the rake will get the remaining money eventually.

<font color="red"> 4. That means the average fish will lose much less money. </font>

See #3

<font color="red"> Since losing players ultimately fund all rake costs, the reduction in total site rake further reduces the loss rate of the losing players. </font>

Losing players do not fund ALL rake costs! I can prove that by showing you the thousands PT says I have paid in rake through 250k hands.

I won't respond to rest because your calculations are based on faulty assumptions. Yes, the worst players pay more in rake. But only because they are winning more pots. Both winning and losing pay rake. In fact, some losers would turn into winners if they didn't have to pay rake. If I played against players with the same skills I have, I would become a losing player who can't beat the rake. Winning player overcomes the rake he pays, while losing players lose in addition to the rake they pay.

[Greg J]

I really not sure that you understand the depth of stupidity of Party's staff. I think they recruit strictly out of India's special education schools or something.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]

EmpirePoker strictly prohibits usage of programs that:

1) Automate playing of the hand in any way
2) Participate in collusion or any other cheating methods
3) Use any information which may provide you with an unfair advantage through cheating

We detect and block programs that fall in any of the above categories. Usage of such programs may result in poker account closure and funds forfeiture as per our Terms and Conditions.

Regarding your query on 'poker-edge', 'poker-edge' falls in the above categories and usage of 'poker-edge' will result in poker account closure and funds forfeiture as per our Terms and Conditions.

Sincerely,
Francis Hamilton
Investigations Team
alerts@empirepoker.com

[/ QUOTE ]


Wouldn't ANY IM client (or IRC client, since that is in the forefront of 2+2 agendas) violate the second commandment, here?

HOW is this enforceable? I mean, I know they can threaten and do anything they want with their software and accounts on their system, but this is the internet we're talking about. Just about every application, including a web-browser connected to a message board website, or a news-client reader can lead to collusion.

#2 just seems too vague to be legitimately enforceable. They need to define it a little better.

KO

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
Are people still using GT+ after getting a warning email, or are people playing naked now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been using GT+ for months on both Party and Empire, and I have not received a warning email.

[tshak]

The hand histories are grabbed from the screen (chat window with dealer messages on), not the hard drive.

[tshak]

[ QUOTE ]
Bots can cheat. Networked computer programs can easily be designed to collude with each other.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that a single bot playing poker can not cheat someone out of their money. Collusion is a form of cheating orthogonal to bots. While you can claim that bots can collude more effectively, I disagree. Bots can not strategically trap people nearly as effectively as a good team of colluders. But again this is irrelevant because collusion is a form of cheating in which banning bots will have no affect.

[pokerplayer28]

I think stellar gave up on you, so ill give you my 2 cents please correct me if im wrong

Banning HUDs is
1)Bad for pros as a whole
2)Good for fish as a whole
3)Bad for the site in the short term but good in the long term
4)Good for the industry in the short and long term

except for #3 which can be debated(other variables to consider) these are facts

1)Its bad for the pros for obvious reasons, sure some pros will actually be better off but as a whole their WR will come down

2)Its good for the fish.

[ QUOTE ]
The pro could win say, 3/100 if he were to just play 1 table. But he decides to make more money through volume, so he accepts less edge per/100 (say 1.5/100), and adds another 3 tables. So he is now making an extra 1.5 big bets even though he cut his win rate in half. But he by doing this, he takes LESS money off each table per 100.

Now say the fishes loses 1/100 (he only plays 1 table). Playing 6 tables, the pro is taking aprox. .75/100 off the table the fish is at. If the pro eliminates the other 5 tables and only plays at the fishe's table, he's back to 3/100.

Now I can reverse the question... Where do you think THIS money comes from? At least part of it is going to come from our fish who now will be losing a little more than 1/100. So if we are talking about just 1 pro and 1 fish, clearly the fish is better off if the pro divided his attention among 6 tables, instead of just the one game the fish is in.

[/ QUOTE ]

the pro is taking .75/100 off the fish when he plays 6 tables
when he plays 1 table he is taking .5/100 off that fish since the fish is now 6x less likely to be playing the pro.

[ QUOTE ]

3. That means that all fish combined will lose much less money.

I'm not sure about this. They will lose their money SLOWER. But the rake will get the remaining money eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is some what true if the fish plays till they lose a certain amount per day/week/month/year or play till they lose a certain amount and quit.

But what about the fish that play 10 hrs / month no matter what they lose are they not much better off?

3) and 4) you should be able to figure out now