Disturbing e-mail from partypoker - Page 18

PairTheBoard · #**171** 07-09-2005, 11:34 AM

SamIam --
"I also have a program similar to GT+ and PokerAce, but is networked to other users, sharing data"

Does Poker Edge do this? I can see where they might flag something like this, thinking it could be getting used for collusion.

PairTheBoard

jrz1972 · #**172** 07-09-2005, 11:43 AM

After wading through this entire thread, I just wanted to mention that it is absurd that we have to sit around and guess what programs are legal and which are not, and it is similarly absurd that Party employees cannot even give consistent answers to the same basic query.

I can't believe such a poorly-run company is so dominant in this market. What a cluster----.

zerosum · #**173** 07-09-2005, 11:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
After wading through this entire thread, I just wanted to mention that it is absurd that we have to sit around and guess what programs are legal and which are not, and it is similarly absurd that Party employees cannot even give consistent answers to the same basic query.

I can't believe such a poorly-run company is so dominant in this market. What a cluster----.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Hence the call for communications that pertain to only one program per communication.

PairTheBoard · #**174** 07-09-2005, 12:43 PM

I don't worry about finding and beating the fish. I worry about getting beat by the sharks. I don't like being tracked by people with Poker Tracker, but at least they have to go to the trouble of entering me in their software themselves. I also track them as I play them - by taking notes.

But when a 3rd party company like Poker Edge tracks me by whatever means, and then sells their data on me to purchasers of their software, I find that a bit chilling. I imagine when casual players discover that their data is being sold by PE they also find it chilling. If it is indeed true, as someone here mentioned, that PokerEdge will agree to stop selling and sharing your data For A Price, I would consider that a form of blackmail. If that is true I doubt Poker Edge will be around for long because they would be setting themselves up for some costly lawsuits. If Party Poker is smart they will get themselves out of the way of such a PE trainwreck as soon as possible.

PairTheBoard

DMBFan23 · #**175** 07-09-2005, 12:57 PM

This is basically the same email that Mig got.

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Kevin ,

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 ]

I should have asked about Playerview and GT+ as well, maybe some other time

ckessel · #**176** 07-09-2005, 01:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Losing players won't lose any faster because of, or lack of, these tools. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes they will. What you people don't understand is that if you take away HUD's, then winning multi-tablers will be forced to concentrate on fewer tables. This INCREASES their edge per table! This is to the detriment of the fish who happens to be at his table.

A good player will have a 3/100 edge playing 1 table. This can literally get cut in half when he plays 4 (with or without HUD'S). Do you deny that edge is LOST with each table that is played? If not, then why do you feel it's *better* for fish if the pro plays just on the one table he's at? How does the fish not lose FASTER to the pro this way?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the point, but you're missing a consideration. Yes, the ONE table the TAG plays at he'll be better, but the fish have 3 other tables he isn't at and that's good for them. Think of it as a mathematical equation. Say a TAG=10 at the top of their game, and a fish=1. If he plays 1 table there's a new +9 points of TAG on party (10-1). Fish want as few +TAG points as possible in the system. If the TAG=7 when multitabling, but plays 4 tables then you're at 7*4 - 4 = +24 TAG points. The only time fish don't care is if the TAG plays so many tables his effective skill is that of a fish (1).

However, no matter which way you try to argue it, not that many people 8-table. I 2-3 tables, both before and after I had PokerEdge. I'll grant the massive multi-tablers gain an advantage. It's a drop in the bucket though compared to most of us who only run 2-3. You can run 2 tables just as well as one(say 99% as well). It's not a linear drop off though. As you add 3,4 tables it gets exponentially harder.

2+2ers are the minority of players (though probably majority of hands played). 2+2er's that use >4 tables is a minority of the minority. I'm not overly concerned if that fraction of multi-tablers plays a bit getter than they would otherwise. The extra -EV for the fish from this micro-fraction of players is on the order of noise compared to the -EV of their own fishy play.

Also, what HUD's do largely isn't let me take money from fish faster, but lets me avoid pushing money back and forth with other TAGs. You can't put a fish on a hand. You can put that 18/10 guy on a hand. When he raises UTG, I'm out of there.

The fish plays regardless. He's either losing to UTG, of if the UTG was out, he's losing to me. If I didn't know the UTG was good and stayed in, the fish's odds get even worse as he faces two TAGs in the hand.

Even if the datamining helps me, I'm not really convince it has much negative impact on the fish. If anything, it tends to disperse the sharks which is good for fish as they don't get saddled at a shark game. It tends to keep tags from playing together in the same hand, which increases the odds of a fish winning any particular hand. It keeps TAGs from pushing money back and forth and saves rake, which means TAGs don't need fish to lose as much for the TAGs to make money.

The only real loser is Party in reduced rake as TAGs don't fight each other. And that might be the real reason behind all of this, but fronted as a concern for play fair.

ckessel · #**177** 07-09-2005, 01:28 PM

It's really pretty sad. PokerEdge and PokerTracker are the same tool, just a matter of where the data resides. If 2+2 set up an ftp server where you could upload/download PT databases it'd have the same effect, but no one would complain.

If they want to ban these, fine, but be consistent on what's "cheating". Anything PokerEdge does, PT can also do.

bobbyi · #**178** 07-09-2005, 01:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If 2+2 set up an ftp server where you could upload/download PT databases it'd have the same effect, but no one would complain.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing people would complain.

DMBFan23 · #**179** 07-09-2005, 01:43 PM

PT displays the statistics on the table for you?

mosta · #**180** 07-09-2005, 02:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My reasons, and the reasons that I hear most often from others who agree (completely ignoring any ethical issues) are that HUDs stunt growth, are annoying, don't really help that much, and also that if they were all stripped away would be better off than those who would have to adapt back to playing without them.

[/ QUOTE ]

originally your "reason" for objecting was to hurt the competition and make the games better for you. now you want to help the competition--their growth is stunted and their HUDs don't even really help. (and annoying to who? what??) the only real point you've made and stood by is that you're a better player than a HUD user (and you're supposedly like various name-dropped higher limit players). good for you. that sure is an "intelligent" "hidden agenda" (and consistent too!)