New Favorite Poster: Winholdemsupport
dmp
there would never be another "PokerDean" (which was almost assuredly a
troll) along comes this chap. Almost every one of Winholdemsupport's
posts is pure gold. What do I love about him so much you ask? Where do I
start....
I think my favorite thing is his multiple personality disorder. I love
how he uses the term "we" when referring to his rinky-dink one man
operation. He has called himself "just a support grunt" and suggested
that Winholdem is a large conglomerate consisting of "support,"
"programmers," "marketing," and "management." I love it!!! Often when
posing his inane poker theory ramblings he suggests that he got his
information from his programers and is just relaying what "they" told
"him." This is highest of high comedy. I'm sure the Winholdem $100 bot
is just flying off the shelves, so much so that the company can support an
entire staff of support, programers, marketing and management. Lucky
bastards must have one hell of a 401K plan.
Maybe I'm too cinical. Maybe when Winholdem says "we" he's not referring
to a mouse in his pocket. Maybe they really are a large operation. If
so, here's hopping that in a few years, Winholdemsupport can work his way
up the ladder at the Winholdem corporation. Just press on my good man,
keep your nose to the grindstone, and maybe, just maybe, in a few years,
you'll work your way from "support grunt" to "management." LOL. Where
can I apply for a job at this jugernaut.
Of course his split personalities do not stop within the boundaries of the
corporation. Indeed, another thing I love about Winholdem is when he
creates additonal rgp identities and to say nice things about his crappy
bot. Like I said, maybe I'm too cinical, but when someone's first and
only rgp post is something like "winholdem is great!!!!" and the poster
fails to use any capital letters (much like winholdem support himself) I
tend to question the legitimacy of the post.
If you haven't had the chance, you really should check out the
two-plus-two thread Winholdem started a month or two back to introduce
himself to that group. He started by creating a "personality" claiming to
have discovered a "great pokerbot." Of course it was that personality's
first post. Then, a few posts into the thread, Mr. Winholdemsupport shows
up saying- "Wow, thanks for the compliment" or something along those
lines. Of course, after people tested his bot and started calling it a
piece of crap, Winholdem created another personality (again first post)
claiming that the bot won him a bunch of money. When the two-plus-two
posters wondered why someone who had never posted on that forum before,
just so happened to make their first post touting a crappy bot, Winholdem
would re-post as his various personalities, claiming no affiliation with
Winholdem. I'm really not doing the comedy justice here. If you have a
chance, you should check it out for yourself. You won't be sorry.
Lastly, as a mention above, I love his poker theory ramblings. They are
truly some of the dumbest things I've ever seen in print about poker. For
example, in the above noted two-plus-two thread, posters who had used the
bot noted that it folded pocket Aces pre-flop. Winholdem explained that
the bot did this because it was designed to play "perfect pot odds" (what
ever that means) and that it would fold Aces if the pot wasn't "juicy"
enough. LOL!!! When is a pot ever not juicy enough for Aces. If there
is one move in poker that could unanimously be considered a mistake in
virtually every situation, its got to be folding Aces pre-flop. Excluding
some extraordinary tournament bubble situation, folding Aces pre-flop is
ALWAYS wrong. Anyone defending that fold by suggesting the pot isn't
"juicy enough" cannot have a clue about poker.
A couple other gems: in a recent thread Winholdem said:
"most people want to infer increased card value to a raiser when
in reality a raise does nothing more than increase the expected value of
the game. humans want to give more meaning to a raise - but there is no
mathematical reason to do so."
LOL. Here in Arizona whe have a name for guys who don't at least consider
a raise to be a sign of increased card value. We call them "fish." Of
course maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he's on to something. I think I'm going to
start raising may KJo in late position behind a couple tight early raisers
because there really is no "mathmatical reason" to think that my hand
might be dominated.
In that same thread Winholdem posed this question (which was provided to
him by the "programers":
"in a limit game, you are dealt holdem hand X and the flop is Y, there were
10 players dealt and 5 players including yourself paid 2 bets to see the
flop; you are on the small blind. what is the probability that you will
win,lose,tie the hand? please provide an answer that is within +/- 0.001
uncertainty for any value of X and Y ... you have 30 seconds."
I rank this question up there with "how much wood would a woodchuck chuck
if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
The idea that there is any answer to this question without knowing any of
the values of any of the hands in play or the cards on the flop is so
absurd, its laughable. What the hell, I'll take a crack at this one
anyway. Umm, lets see...my hand is X, the flop is Y, there are 5 players
for 10 small bets....I'll guess 7. How did I do?
Anyway... this post has gone on way too long. Let me just say this.
Winholdem support, I hope you sell a million of these things. You deserve
every penny you make. In the meantime, while you're working your way up
the Winholdem corporate ladder, promise me you won't forget us here at
rgp, and promise you'll never quit posting. I'm your biggest fan.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Edward Hutchison
One other comical aspect of this situation will follow shortly. It will be
when the poor chumps who sent Winholdemsupport their money in hopes of becoming
better cheaters complain about being cheated.
Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS
A free copy of "How to Hide Friends and Influence Odds: Russ G.'s Secrets of
Winning Poker," will be sent immediately upon publication to all who sign up
through me for Party Poker or the French Foreign Legion. See:
http://pokerprofessor.homestead.com/links.html
WinHoldemSupport
not sure whether this is a compliment or flame, however we will discuss
exactly one feature of your post ... folding AA preflop.
in the 1983 film war games ... when the humans asked the computer what the
best move was ... the computer responded "not to play" because it was
designed to decline to play negative sum games with negative ev.
if you begin with the assumption that you are facing opponents of equal
calibur in a holdem hand then the ev begins in a negative state due to
rake - meaning that you should not play this game. the reward (pot) of
the game must increase above a certain threshold in order for the ev to go
positive.
the original default settings for winholdem had the most conservative pot
estimates possible (assumed that you would be the only player to call and
assumed that exactly only 1 other player would call your raise). this was
intentional, and on purpose and certainly not because we dont understand
poker. also, the P formula (the formula that determines how many opponent
hands the analyzers test against) was at max conservative as well always
simulating play forward based on the number of players dealt in the hand
regardless of how many had folded - very conservative indeed.
do we agree that this is too conservative ... of course we do.
but you are missing the point of this experiment.
just before we went public we took this radical "pure-ev" formula set out
to a real money table to test the waters. everyone here believed that it
could not possibly make money, comments like:
"it is way too tight! it will fold aces in 3rd position 100% of the time,
the moon will explode before that formula set makes money" or
"you mean it is possible it will refuse aces preflop, well cindy crawford
will be my sex slave before that thing makes money".
nevertheless in the interest of honest science we let it play over 7k
hands over the course of about a week (all of us believing that it would
leak chips like niagra falls). (same table, same chair never sitting out)
damn the torpedos. the thing increased its table stake by 40% (the moon
is still there and i am not sleeping with a super model). so ... let me
ask you this, should we lie and not report what happened and chant "all
hail the aces" or should we just tell the truth?
so the whole point of that experiment was to show that an incredibly
simple pure-ev formula set had demonstrable positive expected value at a
real money table in a real online casino. the purpose was most certainly
not to try and convince the public that playing aces preflop was wrong.
but some people out there do not get this. they chime in with their two
cent sayings like "by god i may not know much about poker but i do know
you play aces preflop this winholdem thing is crap" and they are right and
we say "good for you jethro you understand aces", but that was not the
point. we never took offense at anybody saying preflop aces were a great
thing. on the contrary, we only took offense at the stupid people (who
called winholdem "crap") who were too dumb to understand the experiment
and the results.
since that time ... we changed the default winholdem settings .. the pot
estimate for number additional bets in the pot due to a raise has been
changed from 2 to nplayersplaying (which is more inline with what
normally happens in a game). also, the P formula is now defaulting to
half way between nplayersdealt and nplayersplaying as the value used by
the analyzers.
by the way we plan to release the entire game history of this experimental
session as soon as the opc will release the game histories ... they are
refusing to do this. so what does that tell you?
winholdem support
http://www.pokerbot.com
Nuts4daNuts
> LOL. Here in Arizona whe have a name for guys who don't at least consider
> a raise to be a sign of increased card value. We call them "fish."
So if winholdem sucks so bad, then why wouldn't you WANT to play against
it? What you are doing by discouraging people to buy it is akin to
"chasing away the fish". If this product is as bad as you say then I would
want to play at a table full of these bots. Or does that make too much
sense?
pudley4
increased its table stake by 40% "
Wow, truly revolutionary.
Except...
1-You never say what the original table stake was (turning $100 into $140
is trivial)
2-You never say the limits (winning $40 at .5/1 is slightly more
statistically relevant than winning $40 at 5/10)
3-7k hands is not even close to the long run
"by the way we plan to release the entire game history of this
experimental session as soon as the opc will release the game histories
.. they are refusing to do this. so what does that tell you?"
It tells me your employees are terrible when it comes to running a
"scientific study". One of the first things you should have done was to
plan to request the hand histories every 100 hands, so you could analyze
the data to:
A - make your crappy bot play better
B - verify you were winning due to superior play and not due to superior
cards
But then again, it's no more than we expected from this group of special
individuals
Dave's Fridge
Guaranteed to NOT play all day, every day. Won't play on ANY major site.
Won't lose money to ANY player.
"dmp" <anon...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:YBZ5c.10837946$Id.18...@news.easynews.com...
Dave's Fridge
a little then lose a lot?
Surely a bot will just lose quicker?
"Nuts4daNuts" <anon...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:2O_5c.10934618$Of.18...@news.easynews.com...
Dave's Fridge
Really? You amaze me.
"WinHoldemSupport" <anon...@winholdem.net> wrote in message
news:zD_5c.2769627$9p3.5...@news.easynews.com...
John Forsberg
> On Mar 17 2004 9:51AM, dmp wrote:
> So if winholdem sucks so bad, then why wouldn't you WANT to play against
> it? What you are doing by discouraging people to buy it is akin to
> "chasing away the fish". If this product is as bad as you say then I would
> want to play at a table full of these bots. Or does that make too much
> sense?
For me it is a sense of fair play. Further, most people play bad enough
even when they do try to play well, so saving them from winholdem won't
make much of a difference to me, I can find plenty of fish anyway. But
it will prevent a scamming asshole from making money, which is kind of
my main motivation. Had the thing been completely free, with no suspect
hidden features (eg contacting the programmers home site) I wouldn't
have cared nearly as much. Mostly it is to fuck with Ray Bornert though.
Regards
John Forsberg
John Forsberg
I can see Ray sitting in his dingy home. One minute he's the support
grunt who asks the programmer for help, the next he's the programmer
dispensing invaluable poker advice to the grunt. Kind of like gollum
really. But, if he has a good side I haven't seen it yet.
Regards
John Forsberg
dmp
> dmp,
>
> not sure whether this is a compliment or flame,
It was a compliment.
however we will discuss
> exactly one feature of your post ... folding AA preflop.
Ah, yes, the plural form again. Before I forget, please thank all of
support, programing, marketing, and managment for their attention to my
post.
>
> in the 1983 film war games ... when the humans asked the computer what the
> best move was ... the computer responded "not to play" because it was
> designed to decline to play negative sum games with negative ev.
>
> if you begin with the assumption that you are facing opponents of equal
> calibur in a holdem hand then the ev begins in a negative state due to
> rake - meaning that you should not play this game. the reward (pot) of
> the game must increase above a certain threshold in order for the ev to go
> positive.
>
> the original default settings for winholdem had the most conservative pot
> estimates possible (assumed that you would be the only player to call and
> assumed that exactly only 1 other player would call your raise). this was
> intentional, and on purpose and certainly not because we dont understand
> poker. also, the P formula (the formula that determines how many opponent
> hands the analyzers test against) was at max conservative as well always
> simulating play forward based on the number of players dealt in the hand
> regardless of how many had folded - very conservative indeed.
>
Let me get this straight, your "conserative" stratgey assumed that if you
had AA in early position, your raise would get called by only one person,
right? Let's assume the caller was the in the big blind (to keep the pot
as small as possible), making the pot 4 1/2 small bets (2 of them yours).
Furthermore, assuming your oppenent doesn't have AA, you figure to be at
least a 3-1 favorite, if not better. Let me see if I can do this math...
I have a 75% chance of more than doubling my money... nah not enough "ev"
in that play. I think I'll fold. Hmm, even after writing it out, I still
don't get it.
> do we agree that this is too conservative ... of course we do.
I don't think I'd call folding huge edges conservative, I think I'd call
it stupid.
> but you are missing the point of this experiment.
Apparantly.
> just before we went public we took this radical "pure-ev" formula set out
> to a real money table to test the waters.
Pure-ev? What the hell does that mean? Do you (and when I say you I am
really directing this at one of the dozens of programers that work at
winholdem, since you have admitted to being a simple "support grunt" who
doesn't understand complicated things of this nature) know what "ev"
means. Folding AA pre-flop, under virtually every circumstance known to
mankind, is NEGATIVE EV, i.e. over the long run, the total amount of money
you make will be less (a lot less) if you fold AA pre-flop than if you
play it. This is true regardless of the number of opponents that call
your pre-flop bet.
> so the whole point of that experiment was to show that an incredibly
> simple pure-ev formula set had demonstrable positive expected value at a
> real money table in a real online casino. the purpose was most certainly
> not to try and convince the public that playing aces preflop was wrong.
> but some people out there do not get this. they chime in with their two
> cent sayings like "by god i may not know much about poker but i do know
> you play aces preflop this winholdem thing is crap" and they are right and
> we say "good for you jethro you understand aces", but that was not the
> point. we never took offense at anybody saying preflop aces were a great
> thing. on the contrary, we only took offense at the stupid people (who
> called winholdem "crap") who were too dumb to understand the experiment
> and the results.
Count me among the ones too dumb to understand the "experiment." If you
(again referring to the entire support, programing, marketing and
managment staff overthere at Winholdem) were trying to develop a bot that
would play AA in the most stupid way possible pre-flop, then consider it a
success. If *I* were programing a bot, I think I would want to do so in a
way that would attempt to make the most money possible. Therefore, when
the bot was dealt the best hand possible, I would make sure that the bot
played the hand. I'm silly like that.
> by the way we plan to release the entire game history of this experimental
> session as soon as the opc will release the game histories ... they are
> refusing to do this. so what does that tell you?
It tells me you didn't have the foresight to order your hand histories
during your "experimental session." What does it tell you?
> winholdem support
> http://www.pokerbot.com
Anyway, good to hear from you. Give my best to everyone in support,
programing, marketing, and management. Like I said before, please keep
these posts coming. Pure gold, I tell you, pure gold.
Paul Rotering
> So if winholdem sucks so bad, then why wouldn't you WANT to play against
> it? What you are doing by discouraging people to buy it is akin to
> "chasing away the fish". If this product is as bad as you say then I would
> want to play at a table full of these bots. Or does that make too much
> sense?
If it were just a bot, then your argument would make sense. I'm
guessing that most people are more concerned about the
collusion-facilitation aspects.
While it's true that you don't need this product to collude, it lowers
the bar so that those who wouldn't have the technical or social
ability to pull it off now have a tool that allows *easy* collusion.
It's similar to a root kit in the computer security game. Yes, it is
possible for anyone to crack machines. On the other hand, if there's
a script available that will do the work for you so that you needn't
have intimate knowledge of the system of interest, then you get a
boatload of script kiddies breaking into boxes. This makes the
problem of defense that much harder.
I suppose the biggest hole in the defense of this product is the
"Everyone else is cheating, so I can too" rationalization. If it's
wrong for someone else, it's wrong for you. If you are convinced that
online cheating/collusion are rampant, the honest (and smart) thing to
do is stop playing (unless you can beat the colluders honestly).
Justifying your cheating by calling it defense just verifies your lack
of honesty.
John Forsberg
Folding AA pre-flop, under virtually every circumstance known to
> mankind, is NEGATIVE EV, i.e. over the long run, the total amount of money
> you make will be less (a lot less) if you fold AA pre-flop than if you
> play it. This is true regardless of the number of opponents that call
> your pre-flop bet.
stupid in this case since you've got alternatives with much higher EV.
It's possible you know this, but I thought it was worth pointing out.
>
>
> Count me among the ones too dumb to understand the "experiment." If you
> (again referring to the entire support, programing, marketing and
> managment staff overthere at Winholdem) were trying to develop a bot that
> would play AA in the most stupid way possible pre-flop, then consider it a
> success. If *I* were programing a bot, I think I would want to do so in a
> way that would attempt to make the most money possible. Therefore, when
> the bot was dealt the best hand possible, I would make sure that the bot
> played the hand. I'm silly like that.
support (even if they just are lowly grunts with no real knowledge, like
Ray Bornert), programing, marketing and management staff of winholdem?
Regards
John Forsberg
Nuts4daNuts
> "Nuts4daNuts" <anon...@msn.com> writes:
>
> > So if winholdem sucks so bad, then why wouldn't you WANT to play against
> > it? What you are doing by discouraging people to buy it is akin to
> > "chasing away the fish". If this product is as bad as you say then I would
> > want to play at a table full of these bots. Or does that make too much
> > sense?
>
> If it were just a bot, then your argument would make sense. I'm
> guessing that most people are more concerned about the
> collusion-facilitation aspects.
Then you should also be going after AOL, yahoo, and MSN for providing IM
capabilities.
> I suppose the biggest hole in the defense of this product is the
> "Everyone else is cheating, so I can too" rationalization. If it's
> wrong for someone else, it's wrong for you. If you are convinced that
> online cheating/collusion are rampant, the honest (and smart) thing to
> do is stop playing (unless you can beat the colluders honestly).
> Justifying your cheating by calling it defense just verifies your lack
> of honesty.
I don't collude or cheat. But I refuse to bury my head in the sand and
pretend that it's not rampant either.
WinHoldemSupport
im gonna try this one more time.
you're a smart guy you obviously know poker and you need some recognition
for that ... so let us hereby acknowledge you superior skill
"yay!!! dmp ... you go girl!!!"
.. now having said that
your tone is one filled with the assumption that somehow ... someway there
isn't anybody here that could possibly know as much about poker as you
(and you'd be very wrong) ...
our original point (before we ran the session) was to prove to ourselves
that this little formula set could not possibly make money - no way no how
.. and based on your response you would have been right there beside us
betting that it would leak chips terribly. (and you would have been wrong
just like we were). so climb down off your high horse for a moment and
listen.
here is the winholdem formula set that played for 5 days:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
call : (betround==1) && islistcall || (evcall > 0)
rais : (betround==1) && islistrais || (evrais > 0) && (evrais > evcall)
evcall: (prwin+prtie/2)*(1+rake)*(pot+call)-call
evrais: (prwin+prtie/2)*(1+rake)*(pot+call+bet*2)-(call+bet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*note that the call and rais list were completely empty/blank)
the formula text above is a total of about 160 characters including white
space. and since the lists were empty and moot you could reduce the set
to even further to this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
call : (evcall > 0)
rais : (evrais > 0) && (evrais > evcall)
evcall: (prwin+prtie/2)*(1+rake)*(pot+call)-call
evrais: (prwin+prtie/2)*(1+rake)*(pot+call+bet*2)-(call+bet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is about 100 characters of simple winholdem formula text.
and that text is what played the 7k game session - and increased the table
stake by 40% ... over the course of a week.
we were impressed by the result ... mostly because we expected it to fail.
not because winholdem is some great thing.
at this point winholdem was just a tool that could apply the formula text
above in an actual game.
what we were actually testing was the formula set above not winholdem.
winholdem just runs the formula set.
winholdem is really nothing more than just a holdem computer, and the
formula set is the program. the formula set is what actually does the
playing ... it is the AI ... not winholdem. winholdem is just a tool that
does whatever it is told to do. if you put in a crappy formula set you
get crappy results, if you put in a champion formula set you get champion
results.
and we are trying to get everyone to understand this.
it is the formula sets that are the real gold!!!
i repeat, the formula sets are the real gold.
now having said that ... we were floored that such a watered down simple
formula set actually made money after a week of playing.
thats all we are saying ... we expected it to lose and it didn't.
and we thought it was cool that a formula set of
100 characters of text
i repeat
100 characters of text
could make money.
and so we told everyone and thats when the proverbial defecation hit the
rotating metal wind thruster.
up to that point we were worried that a formula would have to be 75
gigabytes long to attain positive ev in a real money situation. because
if this is true then who can possibly hope to write a formula set.
however, if a 100 character formula set can make money then maybe there is
a chance that an average joe will feel comfortable 100 character starting
point and not 75 gigabytes.
if you're going to put a bot out to the public and give them the ability
to modify the behavior then you want it to be as easy as possible for the
customer. and so it is.
we get support emails asking from beginners asking us what is an
appropiate first mod and we usually say something like ... "add this to
your call and rais formula"
|| (betround==2 && ishipair)
since most players are comfortable raising/calling with hipair.
so what was meant to show potential customers how simple and easy it is to
use a bot, that a mere 100 characters made money (so dont feel
intimidated) modify the formula set, etc. got turned into .... "omg!!!!!
it folds aces!!!!! somebody do something!!!!"
but hey its a new concept, a new idea, and over time players will come to
understand how powerful winholdem is and that the formula sets are the
real bot - winholdem is just the computer that runs them. and that they
too can write a formula set that makes money.
winholdem supprt.
http://www.pokerbot.com
dmp
> dmp wrote:
> Folding AA pre-flop, under virtually every circumstance known to
> > mankind, is NEGATIVE EV, i.e. over the long run, the total amount of money
> > you make will be less (a lot less) if you fold AA pre-flop than if you
> > play it. This is true regardless of the number of opponents that call
> > your pre-flop bet.
> No folding anything is always exactly 0 EV. It is however mightily
> stupid in this case since you've got alternatives with much higher EV.
> It's possible you know this, but I thought it was worth pointing out.
> >
> >
>True- I mispoke. I should have said "REDUCES YOUR EV." Folding, would not
make your EV negative.
Joseph Novicki
for bringing him to my attention. Got a lot of reading to do now.
Joseph Novicki
--
Jay
WinHoldemSupport
players only collude with friends (not strangers),
there is no way to safely collude with a stranger because of trust issues.
also, winholdem.net provides no way for strangers to meet.
some people think that the team edition magically provides a way for you
to find other teammates and for them to find you. this is not so.
winholdem.net is not a poker dating service.
nobody in their right mind is every going to allow a stranger in their
hand.
andybody that has decided to collude with another has decided for reasons
known only to them. (presumably a trusted friend).
also, winholdem does not lower the bar that much, it just reduces the
amount of work invovled - basic convenience (for $100). most people have
the technical skills to email and chat and ... chating cards into MSN, AOL
or other is a sum total of 1 mouse click (if the chat does not have focus)
and 4 keystrokes (samecase). so most people like their $100 more than
they suffer from 1 mouse click and 4 keystrokes. so the winholdem
auto-share feature is like a cell phone kind of ... before you got one ...
you thought "i dont need a cell phone its not worth it" ... but after you
get one and use if for a while ... you cant imagine life without it.
also, you said that we use the "everyone else is cheating" argument.
this is incorrect. the arguments we use are:
"it is impossible to stop collusion" argument,
"we dont want to be gazelles anymore" argument,
"you too can choose not to be a gazelle" argument,
"dont expect lions to honor gazelle ethics" argument,
most of all we want poker to exist in a form that does not depend on the
ethics of others. and the best way to do this is to forsake the notion
that bots and collusion are sinful, evil, shameful, unethical.
just redefine the online game to include these elements and there will be
world peace.
pokerbot.com wants online poker to be redefined to include bots and
teaming for everyone ... not just a chosen few.
winholdem support
http://www.pokerbot.com
On Mar 17 2004 2:21PM, Paul Rotering wrote:
_________________________________________________________________
Noal McDonald
> not sure whether this is a compliment or flame,
>
> > I think my favorite thing is his multiple personality disorder.
I'm pretty sure I know.
Regards,
Noal
PattyP
Thanks for the truth, humor, and eloquent words.
I thought I could not take anymore from this guy either.
I searched the Web and posted his resume here so people could contact him
directly.
I thought I could not take anymore from him till now. Your summary is
perfect, his answer to your post is perfect....
It keeps the hopes alive for us all.....
I never really make many posts, but I got so tired of Seeing the Winholdem
posts... But now I think the enjoyment of it can last a few more weeks.
But then I wish he would use his software to make himself some millions,
as he claims it can so I can finally stop seeing his POSTS HERE!!!!!
again very impressed and entertained by your post. Keep up the good
analysis
B Buddy
On Mar 17 2004 9:51AM, dmp wrote:
dmp
> dmp,
>
> im gonna try this one more time.
> you're a smart guy you obviously know poker and you need some recognition
> for that ... so let us hereby acknowledge you superior skill
> "yay!!! dmp ... you go girl!!!"
> ... now having said that
Hmmm... hostility? I hope I haven't offended you, I'm your biggest fan.
> your tone is one filled with the assumption that somehow ... someway there
> isn't anybody here that could possibly know as much about poker as you
> (and you'd be very wrong) ...
You certainly could not have got that from my post. I'm the first to
admit that there are plenty of people that know a lot more about poker
than I do. You probably don't because, as you have admitted, you're just
a "support grunt." Some of your programers might though, I imagine you
have some pretty bright guys on staff. I'd bet even some of the guys in
the marketing department do, and I'm damn sure that more than a few of the
big wigs in managment know more about poker than me. They certainly
didn't achieve such success at a highly regarded enterprise like Winholdem
Inc. without knowing a thing or two about poker, that's for sure.
> our original point (before we ran the session) was to prove to ourselves
> that this little formula set could not possibly make money - no way no how
> ... and based on your response you would have been right there beside us
I'll tell you what- this is about the first thing you have ever written
that made any sense. Now if you had come out and said something like:
"Look, I tried to write a simple forumla where the bot could win some
money at low limit tables, and who would thunk... the damn thing folded AA
pre-flop..." I could have gone along with you. Instead you threw around
meaningless terms to justify its actions, like "it plays perfect-pot odds"
(or in your most recent post "pure-ev") and therefore it discarded Aces
when the pot wasn't "juicy" enough. Comments like those are utterly
stupid.
> we get support emails asking from beginners asking us what is an
> appropiate first mod and we usually say something like ... "add this to
> your call and rais formula"
>
> || (betround==2 && ishipair)
>
> since most players are comfortable raising/calling with hipair.
Do you warn them that if they do- they are jeopardizing the "perfect pot
odds"/"pure-ev" strategy that your team of programers spent so long and
hard perfecting? You should. You owe them that much.
> but hey its a new concept, a new idea, and over time players will come to
> understand how powerful winholdem is and that the formula sets are the
> real bot - winholdem is just the computer that runs them. and that they
> too can write a formula set that makes money.
I hope you sell a million of them. I really do. Best of luck to you.
Some day, if you ever work your way up the ladder high enough to where you
get to meet the great Ray Bornert (you know, Winholdem's founder), please
give him my best will you? Thanks.
> winholdem supprt.
> http://www.pokerbot.com
Jen
"dmp" <anon...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9%36c.10870780$Id.18...@news.easynews.com...
>
> I hope you sell a million of them. I really do. Best of luck to you.
> Some day, if you ever work your way up the ladder high enough to where you
> get to meet the great Ray Bornert (you know, Winholdem's founder), please
> give him my best will you? Thanks.
>
Dave's Fridge
"John Forsberg" <forsbe...@yahoo.se> wrote in message
news:c3a6i8$1as$1...@news.island.liu.se...
WardenS
> paul,
>
> players only collude with friends (not strangers),
> there is no way to safely collude with a stranger because of trust issues.
I find it to amazingly innappropriate that you (who designed a program
to allow others to abuse my trust) would post about "trust issues."
> also, winholdem.net provides no way for strangers to meet.
> some people think that the team edition magically provides a way for you
> to find other teammates and for them to find you. this is not so.
> winholdem.net is not a poker dating service.
> nobody in their right mind is every going to allow a stranger in their
> hand.
Anyone who uses your bot is allowing you (a stranger) to see their
hole cards.
I didn't bother to read the rest of your self-righteous rambling, as
you make no sense. You are trying to tell people who may be victims
of the cheating which your product facilitates that your product is
good.
Go to hell.
the pickle
Jen ... are you winholdemsupport? I don't know about anyone else ... but
I enjoy the dmp/whs exchanges. They certainly are about "poker" ... sort
of.