Winholdem ban is a good thing
Shabbir
and found this in the manual:
"One of the most exciting WH features is the ability to easily and
conveniently share your cards with a fellow friend playing Hold'Em at the
same online poker casino table."
I don't really see why you'd feel justified in fighting a ban on a program
that considers cheating one of it's most exciting features.
You know it doesn't happen very often that programmers actually create
something that's immoral, but you've done it. That's vile.
-Shabbir
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Lynx
someone had written it in the first place.
I was put off by it just as you were.
James Monroe
wrote:
>Curious about the talk about the ban on winholdem, I went to their website
>and found this in the manual:
>
>"One of the most exciting WH features is the ability to easily and
>conveniently share your cards with a fellow friend playing Hold'Em at the
>same online poker casino table."
>
>I don't really see why you'd feel justified in fighting a ban on a program
>that considers cheating one of it's most exciting features.
>
>You know it doesn't happen very often that programmers actually create
>something that's immoral, but you've done it. That's vile.
>
>-Shabbir
Mind boggling.
Cheating is so pervasive in online poker that people are writing
programs so the cheaters can get more high tech.
And make no mistake...as the poker sites write scanning routines to
stop people from using stuff like this, better stuff will be written
for the cheaters as well.
It would seem that the software like this to worry about would be a
non-commerical program written by a cheater that only shares it with
his or her team mates.
I guess I must be very old fashioned and out of date because I can't
imagine why anyone would play online poker and not realize they're
opening themselves up to being cheated on a grand scale.
I get a kick out of posts in threads like this from those who say
"I've played for hundreds of hours online and haven't seen anything
suspicious", as if to say "If I personally can't spot a cheater, then
no cheating exists".
TigerSmoke
cheating. That is part of the game. Figure it in your head.
O-PGManager
effectively. Eventually, a truly powerful colluding bot could be a
threat, but probably no more than experts cheating 4 deep in a mid-high
limit game 10 hours a day.
O-PG
------------------------------------------
http://www.online-pokerguide.com
Home of the ** 900% BONUS ** and Power Holdem+
Lynx
effective than you state. (Actually, the most effective way to utilize
this type of collusion might be to put the bots on manual override.)
Nonethless, it bothers me only in that it makes it that much easier for
cheaters to find each other.
WinHoldemSupport
we've said this many times before but in the context of online holdem,
we do not think card sharing should be defined as cheating.
rather it should be incorporated as part of the game.
i.e. everyone should do it if they want to.
here are two cold hard facts:
1) you cannot rid the internet of card sharers.
2) you can eliminate all the whining about it if you incorporate
cardsharing into the game.
and any game where whining, by the general population, is the primary
security mechanism is not a secure game.
there are a lot of people out there that do not care about your whining.
the short lesson here is that people are going to card share and there is
absolutely nothing you or the opc's can do about it. and everyone knows
this yet the whining still continues.
winholdem support.
WinHoldemSupport
please show us where we are 'blatantly' advertising the winholdem team
edition.
our primary advertising thrust is the pro edition.
read here for details:
http://www.winholdem.net/wh_pricing.php
winholdem support.
Gaash
variation of the game where everyone knows everyone elses cards.
Gaash
it's only real benefit?
Clearly, if these people were smart (as some others have mentioned on this
board) they would make the bot WinOmaha8
WinHoldemSupport
your statement about odds is very wrong. and it is further proven by the
fact that you want everyone to calculate odds in their head. notice that
not even the most avid winholdem hater is speaking up to agree with you
here. one thing alreay in evidence is that a computer beats a human when
it comes to quick accurate calculations.
winholdem support
_________________________________________________________________
WinHoldemSupport
please define "colluding effectively."
specifically 'effectively',
the reason i ask is because i think you very wrong here about what
winholdem can do.
winholdem support
WinHoldemSupport
in our experience, most teamers prefer auto-verify mode,
http://www.winholdem.net/help/#autoverify
(it is just human nature to want full control)
nevertheless, if the bots are setup correctly,
they can and will be very effective if left unattended.
i speak from personal experience here.
winholdem support
Spence
thing poeple seem to be missing here is that if they really are good
players they should be able to spot cheating in a game very quickly. It
just won't FEEL right. And then you can either find another table or,
because a lot of the cheaters are, quite frankly, PISS POOR as actual
players(I'm mainly thinking of people card sharing by MSN, etc here) -
stay and take their money.
* New Poker Magazine:
http://www.liveactionpoker.com/magazine/magazine.html
** $30 Free Poker Bankroll at http://www.liveactionpoker.com/free30
WinHoldemSupport
one other thing, your statement:
"...it is much easier for cheaters to find each other"
is incorrect. we do not provide a team dating service.
anyone that is currently using the team version is
doing so with people they already know (friends,family,coworkers,etc.)
your statement is however correct about the original design for the team
edition which was going to allow team players to meet and find each other
just by sitting down at a table. but as we discovered there were serious
unfixable problems with this design all having to do with being able to
trust others. the final realization is that nobody is going to like the
idea of a total stranger showing up at a table and sharing cards with you.
players demand to know the people on their team. and this was all
brought clearly home when somebody suggested one day that we needed to
make sure that we did not allow an opc spy to sit down at a table with the
winholdem team edition ... <insert picture of all the developers staring
at each other in silence> at that moment the design changed from a public
sharing model to a private sharing model with secure private channels
where each channel is controlled by a single individual that controls who
gets into the channel.
so at present, if you have the team edition, you can open a secure channel
of your choosing on the winholdem.net channel server and begin publishing
your cards to that channel; and there is no way for anybody to gain
access to this channel unless you let them by telling them what the
channel number is. and you must use some other alternate communication
means to relay the channel number to them (we do not do this for you; we
are not a poker player introduction service). also just simply telling
your teammate what channel you're in does not do much if they do not know
where are sitting and playing so it pretty much goes without saying that
teamates also communicate their table location to each other as well -
otherwise the card info in the channel is 100% meaningless.
take a moment and set aside all your wild feelings about card sharing and
take the time to learn how it works and understand it. this way you will
at least have accurate knowledge of the subject and not some half-witted
consipiracist rgp theory.
winholdem support.
On Apr 28 2004 5:10AM, Lynx wrote:
WinHoldemSupport
they lied to you man. and we know how you feel - same experience for us
about 3 years ago. the game you think you are signing up for does not
exist on the internet.
winholdem support.
On Apr 28 2004 12:43PM, Gaash wrote:
> The problem is people sign up to play texas hold 'em, not a card sharing
> variation of the game where everyone knows everyone elses cards.
_________________________________________________________________
WinHoldemSupport
winholdem is just a holdem formula engine. it run/plays/uses the formula
set you give it; if you read any complaints about winholdem
out-of-the-box the complaints are actually about the default formula set
that comes with the product; some people here were very unhappy that
winholdem did not win them a car the first day of playing; it is a
perfectly fine formula set, fully modifiable and will do just fine on low
limits. so the real truth is that winholdem only plays texas holdem as
good as the formula set it is using; it should also be said that the table
conditions at the time of play are important as well.
once players get under the hood and see what it can do; they stop whining
almost immediately. comments have ranged from "this is the most powerful
thing ive ever seen" to ... "amazing! ... now can you add this feature for
me..."
so the real truth is that winholdem is a programmable holdem bot. and it
only plays as well as the formula set you give it. the formula set is the
real gold ... not winholdem.
winholdem support.
_________________________________________________________________
WinHoldemSupport
we could echo your sentiment here, however, your feelings about table
conditions are just that - feelings. and there is no guarantee they are
accurate. and of course we absolutely agree that every player has the
power to leave the game when they want to. we agree that a good player
should probably be able to id blatant pot jacking fairly quickly. but i
can tell you this, that if you were seated against two unattended teamed
winholdem bots ... you would never know it. it is that good.
now obviously we have no way of knowing if winholdem has ever played
against you. i am basing these comments on a long history of teamed
playing sessions where not a single eyebrow was raised in our direction.
if team players play prudently, they will never be detected.
winholdem support.
_________________________________________________________________
Gaash
WinHoldemSupport
image recognition. the basic rule is: if you cant see the game state then
neither can winholdem.
there is a lot of mis-information out there about bots that log directly
into the casino server. this is bogus; many of the sites use strong
encryption so unless they have hacked that encryption and then hacked
their entire protocal set, they are blowing smoke out of a random orifice.
winholdem support.
On Apr 28 2004 1:40PM, Gaash wrote:
> How does your software read the cards on the board and in your hand?
_________________________________________________________________
Gaash
James Monroe
<anon...@winholdem.net> wrote:
>tiger,
>
>your statement about odds is very wrong. and it is further proven by the
>fact that you want everyone to calculate odds in their head. notice that
>not even the most avid winholdem hater is speaking up to agree with you
>here. one thing alreay in evidence is that a computer beats a human when
>it comes to quick accurate calculations.
>
>winholdem support
I really don't think I qualify as a "most avid winholdem hater", but I
agree with what Tiger wrote; calculating odds in the heat of battle is
indeed part of the game.
James Monroe
<anon...@winholdem.net> wrote:
>spence,
>
>we could echo your sentiment here, however, your feelings about table
>conditions are just that - feelings. and there is no guarantee they are
>accurate. and of course we absolutely agree that every player has the
>power to leave the game when they want to. we agree that a good player
>should probably be able to id blatant pot jacking fairly quickly. but i
>can tell you this, that if you were seated against two unattended teamed
>winholdem bots ... you would never know it. it is that good.
>
>now obviously we have no way of knowing if winholdem has ever played
>against you. i am basing these comments on a long history of teamed
>playing sessions where not a single eyebrow was raised in our direction.
>
>if team players play prudently, they will never be detected.
I believe that last sentence above to be completely accurate, which is
online poker's core problem IMHO. As a poker buddy puts it "it's so
easy to make money cheating, it could turn an honest person
dishonest".
Cheating online has become so easy and prevasive that I know people
who don't even consider it "cheating" or "dishonest" in a very real
sense. They consider it like fudging a little on your taxes; something
*everyone* does.
James Monroe
<anon...@winholdem.net> wrote:
>lynx,
>
>one other thing, your statement:
>"...it is much easier for cheaters to find each other"
>is incorrect. we do not provide a team dating service.
>anyone that is currently using the team version is
>doing so with people they already know (friends,family,coworkers,etc.)
Now, how in the world would you know that?
If I buy your program, how do you know who I use it with?
James Monroe
<anon...@winholdem.net> wrote:
>shabbir,
>
>we've said this many times before but in the context of online holdem,
>we do not think card sharing should be defined as cheating.
It would appear you've hit upon the very basic difference in mindset
between yourself and the majority of the poker community:
The majority of us (God, I certainly HOPE we're a majority) believe
that people playing together as teams secretly are cheating. You, on
the other hand, do not.
Is your opinion limited to online poker? Are two or more players in a
live B&M game communicating with an elebrate set of hand, chip, etc.
signals cheating?
ruylopez
player is fluid during a game; learning about his opponents, switching
gears, adjusting on-the-fly to quick and subtle changes in the game. You
can't beat it with a formula. I don't know how your software works but
the best I can imagine is that you can program a specific response for
every possible situation.. maybe a frequency of possible responses. But
this totally ignores game conditions.
It ignores whether your opponents have caught on to you. So many things I
can't imagine it could play well at all. Granted, low-limit online is
pretty easy to beat but I'm skeptical any formula set out there is doing
it consistently. If it is, it's being run by someone practicing great
game selection, and anyone with the time and knowledge to do so would
surely do better playing himself.
I don't doubt that computers will eventually play world-class poker; but
it's a much more complicated problem than you can solve with a set of
formulas about how to play certain hands. Even more so than chess, I
think poker requires a computer to show genuine intelligence, and the
machines aren't there yet. (lucky for us)
And if it does win, you really should produce something more than "hey,
trust me".
James Monroe
<anon...@winholdem.net> wrote:
>gaash,
>
>winholdem is just a holdem formula engine. it run/plays/uses the formula
>set you give it; if you read any complaints about winholdem
>out-of-the-box the complaints are actually about the default formula set
>that comes with the product; some people here were very unhappy that
>winholdem did not win them a car the first day of playing; it is a
>perfectly fine formula set, fully modifiable and will do just fine on low
>limits. so the real truth is that winholdem only plays texas holdem as
>good as the formula set it is using; it should also be said that the table
>conditions at the time of play are important as well.
>
>once players get under the hood and see what it can do; they stop whining
>almost immediately. comments have ranged from "this is the most powerful
>thing ive ever seen" to ... "amazing! ... now can you add this feature for
>me..."
>
>so the real truth is that winholdem is a programmable holdem bot. and it
>only plays as well as the formula set you give it. the formula set is the
>real gold ... not winholdem.
>
>winholdem support.
Or, to phrase the above concisely, a cheating program is only as good
as the cheater using it.
thermopyla
I have read all (yes all!) of the 17 pages of posts in this thread and I
noticed only one mention of the problem which is bigger than any bot or
team bot software. Simply put what about the online poker rooms using
their own bots?
What would be more simple and more profitable than to run a bot with 100%
access to the game. I mean "inside the firewall" access is easy. And,
although I know this will not stop those posts, could we limit the yack
about "why would they do that when they are making so much anyway?" The
answer is simply, to make a whole lot more!
Example: 1,000 players paying $215 for a NLHE tournament. $15,000 profit,
right? Wrong, they have to pay a large fee when the big winners withdraw
that money. Neteller etc. are free to users (us) but not to vendors
(pokersites). So let's put 5% internal bots into the mix (50 bots) and
although that lowers the collected fees by $10,750, this only means you
have to be sure of winning at least that much. Run the bots until you are
down to the final say 10 bots, have your poker-savvy team sit down and
play those to the end (with 100% access to the all the cards). Sound
cynical? Well I have just seen information (I am at the WSOP) on
interviews with players here and they were asked one question: "Do you
personally know anyone who has cashed out of a internet poker site with
more than $20,000?" Want to guess the results?
Again, if there is already a thread on this topic (that I did not find)
please send me there, so I don't pollute the WinHoldEm discussion.
C06777
>Again, if there is already a thread on this topic (that I did not find)
>please send me there, so I don't pollute the WinHoldEm discussion.
This is very considerate of you to ask. However, the nature of WinHoldEm
itself being what it is, it would be impossible to pollute any discussion about
it ;)
WinHoldemSupport
agreed. calculating odds is part of the game.
and computers do it much better than even the best human savant.
winholdem support.
WinHoldemSupport
the people that we view as unethical are those who secretly collude, but
actively and publically promote to the whole world that online holdem is
safe and that collusion is almost non-existant. this is doing one thing
and saying another.
we do not do that. we publically promote exactly what we and others are
doing in private. there are some who have scolded us for not keeping the
team edition a completely private, exclusive black-market kind of thing.
to us, that type of business practice is unethical. if you are going to
give yourself some distinct advantage then you need to offer the same
opportunity to everyone - that is the ethical thing to do.
the sooner players understand that it is a joke to expect poker players to
act in a 100% ethical fashion, the sooner they will wise up and take some
defensive measures.
winholdem support.
WinHoldemSupport
well we dont know with whom you or anyone would choose to card share.
what we do know is that regardless of who it is, you did not meet them
through us; you met them some other way - exactly how we do not know and
we do not care; my statement about "friends, family co-workers" was
basically a logical best guess as to the most likely choices players make
in choosing online teammates.
card sharing using winholdem occurs like this:
1) two or more players (who know each other), acquire winholdem.
2) using some alternate means (like chat, phone, email, etc.) one of the
team members communicates at least two pieces of information to the other
teammates,
a) the casino/table where they are to meet and play
b) the private winholdem.net channel number they will use to auto-share.
3) they each sit at the same table and begin playing
4) the other teammates then connect to winholdem.net channel and they all
immediately begin cardsharing with each other (and nobody else).
so, the important thing to note here is that we did not introduce the
teammates, some how, some way, they already knew each other and are/were
communicating via some other alternate means.
winholdem support.
WinHoldemSupport
there are only two things in this world that modify human behavior:
1) internal force (human conscience)
2) external force (physical reality)
right now there is almost zero external security when it comes to online
holdem. very simply put; we do not care how we win at online holdem; we
just want to win; and we believe that we are not any different than most
players out there; they just want to win; and they want to do it with zero
risk if possible;
so, just to repeat our view of online holdem; it is every man for himself;
so you should do whatever is necessary to win money because you can be
sure that everyone else is doing what is necessary - regardless of what
they say publically.
as for b&m's, if i could collude risk free (meaning there was a near 100%
chance of not getting caught), then i would definitely be tempted; but my
guess is that i would not be able to do it without offending my
conscience; also, i feel that the chances of getting caught in a b&m are
very high as opposed to getting caught online; so if you're going to
collude, doing so online is much safer and much less riskier than doing so
in a b&m.
also, if you use winholdem to assist you in cardsharing online, then you
get the use of instant odds calculations that consider all the known cards
(good luck trying to find info on how to do this in any of the holdem
books)
winholdem support.
James Monroe
<anon...@winholdem.net> wrote:
>james,
>
>the people that we view as unethical are those who secretly collude, but
>actively and publically promote to the whole world that online holdem is
>safe and that collusion is almost non-existant. this is doing one thing
>and saying another.
>
>we do not do that. we publically promote exactly what we and others are
>doing in private. there are some who have scolded us for not keeping the
>team edition a completely private, exclusive black-market kind of thing.
>to us, that type of business practice is unethical. if you are going to
>give yourself some distinct advantage then you need to offer the same
>opportunity to everyone - that is the ethical thing to do.
>
>the sooner players understand that it is a joke to expect poker players to
>act in a 100% ethical fashion, the sooner they will wise up and take some
>defensive measures.
>
>winholdem support.
Yeah, well OK; your point about being up front about the purpose of
the software is a positive thing and commendable and all that.
But still, I'd have to liken it to Jesse James and his gang who were
equally up front about being bank robbers.
Owning up to it doesn't make it right.
Gaash
ruylopez
>
> as for b&m's, if i could collude risk free (meaning there was a near 100%
> chance of not getting caught), then i would definitely be tempted; but my
> guess is that i would not be able to do it without offending my
> conscience;
LOL
WinHoldemSupport
well the interesting thing is that players have the power to select their
own definition of "right" ... very much the same way people have the power
to select their own definition of "god"
winholdem support
WinHoldemSupport
why laugh? im being very honest here.
for whatever reason, my conscience does not bother me when colluding
online.
but i believe that it would if i did this in a live game.
im just reporting my own subjective response here.
winholdem support
ironside
information you are sending to their server to take your money off you
wow i love this software where cheats try to take money off players but are
infact getting ripped off by the crooked owners that gave them the tools to
cheat
and if you are lucky enough to get past the crooks your still 99.9% likely
to get your BR taken off you by the pokersite your playing on.
so basically anyone using this software has to have a screw loose somewhere
close to the brain
"WinHoldemSupport" <anon...@winholdem.net> wrote in message
news:SZ_jc.3361180$iA2.3...@news.easynews.com...
Matt
> ...
> very simply put; we do not care how we win at online holdem; we
> just want to win; ...
>
> so, just to repeat our view of online holdem; it is every man for himself;
> so you should do whatever is necessary to win money because you can be
> sure that everyone else is doing what is necessary - regardless of what
> they say publically.
Yet more shining examples of the morals behind WinHoldEm. Somehow,
even if I was inclined to cheat, I would have difficulty trusting
someone with a perspective like this to not write a 'cheating
assistance' program that wasn't also cheating me simultaneously.
Believe me, it's not hard to do once you're already sending your card
data through his server.
> as for b&m's, if i could collude risk free (meaning there was a near 100%
> chance of not getting caught), then i would definitely be tempted; but my
> guess is that i would not be able to do it without offending my
> conscience;
Only a *little* hypocritical. It's fine online, but you suddenly have
pangs of conscience when you can see the people's faces?
> also, i feel that the chances of getting caught in a b&m are
> very high as opposed to getting caught online; so if you're going to
> collude, doing so online is much safer and much less riskier than doing so
> in a b&m.
OTOH, an online site has a much higher chance of detecting collusive
play from betting patterns than a casino does, since they know what
everyone's hole cards are. In a casino, for example, you can whipsaw
a third player when your partner has the nuts and you have nothing,
and it doesn't necessarily look suspicious -- whereas online, that
play would stand out like a sore thumb if someone complained about it
(or they had software looking specifically for plays like that, which
wouldn't surprise me).
Also, if an online site catches you, they could very well confiscate
all the money you have in your account there (whereas a casino will
just unceremoniously toss you out). So the 'risk' is potentially
quite a bit more than you're implying.
> also, if you use winholdem to assist you in cardsharing online, then you
> get the use of instant odds calculations that consider all the known cards
> (good luck trying to find info on how to do this in any of the holdem
> books)
I have yet to see a poker book that doesn't talk about computing odds
-- at least a good one. I will admit that few books talk specifically
about computing odds when you're CHEATING, but the math behind it is
the same.
ruylopez
> ruy,
>
> why laugh? im being very honest here.
> for whatever reason, my conscience does not bother me when colluding
> online.
>
> but i believe that it would if i did this in a live game.
> im just reporting my own subjective response here.
>
> winholdem support
I would suggest that this is merely a psychological effect of not being
able to see your opponents, who are real people. The same thing that
emboldens so many civil people to become absolutely abusive online. Not
because it's any less moral.
You go on claiming that there's nothing immoral about colluding online
when the whole mass of poker players here is telling you you're wrong. We
all think it is cheating, because it obviously is.
If you're basing what's right and wrong on whether you're likely to get
caught you're exhibiting a very low level of moral reasoning. I know
you're going to keep spamming, but at least be up front and stop claiming
that colluding isn't wrong just to sell your crap. Truth in advertising.
WinHoldemSupport
you are mis-informed.
the only information passed through the channel server is player cards.
it has already been shown that card information in and of itself has no
value outside the context of the current game to which they apply.
here let me demonstrate:
<im looking over at winholdem seated and playing> ... he just got dealt
68o ... knock yourself out man. i just told the whole world what my hand
was. the point is that it has no value to anybody unless you know the
current game to which it applies.
the winholdem channel server was built in such a way that it is impossible
for anybody <including us> to derive any value from the card info passing
through why? because absolutely nobody knows the game to which they
apply <not even us>.
you can read more here:
http://www.winholdem.net/license_agreement.html
winholdem support
WinHoldemSupport
> "WinHoldemSupport" <anon...@winholdem.net> wrote in message
> news:<ug%jc.14217476$Id.23...@news.easynews.com>...
>
> > ...
> > very simply put; we do not care how we win at online holdem; we
> > just want to win; ...
> >
> > so, just to repeat our view of online holdem; it is every man for himself;
> > so you should do whatever is necessary to win money because you can be
> > sure that everyone else is doing what is necessary - regardless of what
> > they say publically.
>
> Yet more shining examples of the morals behind WinHoldEm. Somehow,
> even if I was inclined to cheat, I would have difficulty trusting
> someone with a perspective like this to not write a 'cheating
> assistance' program that wasn't also cheating me simultaneously.
> Believe me, it's not hard to do once you're already sending your card
> data through his server.
>
you and others keep raising the morality issue; if we wanted to be truly
amoral about this, we would never have gone public right? also, you are
dead wrong about just how stupid it is to try and win money from seeing
another players cards without their knowledge; i've already explained
this in a previous post a while back (apparently you didn't see it). if i
am playing in a game right now and you happen to be able to see my cards,
you dont just automatically see large sums of money float your way; on the
contrary; you first have to know where i am playing (good luck with that
by the way), but lets assume you know where i am playing ... you now have
to get there and wait for a chair (if the table is full), once you get a
chair (if i am actually still playing) you then need the following to
occur you need to be dealt the best hand at the table (1 in 10 chance) you
then need me to get the 2nd best hand at the table (1 in 9 chance each
time you get the best hand), that means that 1 of 90 hands you are in a
position to milk money out of me ... the rest of the time one of both of
us has folded dude. if you can find a table that deals 90 hands an then
you can get the jump on me once an hour at the most. it is a stupid
strategy matt.
it is far better to take care of your customers and treat them well so
that they will renew their license next year.
> > as for b&m's, if i could collude risk free (meaning there was a near 100%
> > chance of not getting caught), then i would definitely be tempted; but my
> > guess is that i would not be able to do it without offending my
> > conscience;
>
> Only a *little* hypocritical. It's fine online, but you suddenly have
> pangs of conscience when you can see the people's faces?
your characterization matters little. the question to me was a personal
one about what i thought about cardsharing in b&m's. and i answered very
accurately. everyone is wired different matt; there are people who would
experience guilt in either environment; some neither; some one or the
other; you may want everyone in the world to exhibit the same behavior [
you are young and naive if that is your expectation ] ... very simply put,
i do not experience guilt when card sharing online; but i believe that i
definitely would in a live game. thats just how im wired.
>
> > also, i feel that the chances of getting caught in a b&m are
> > very high as opposed to getting caught online; so if you're going to
> > collude, doing so online is much safer and much less riskier than doing so
> > in a b&m.
>
> OTOH, an online site has a much higher chance of detecting collusive
> play from betting patterns than a casino does, since they know what
> everyone's hole cards are. In a casino, for example, you can whipsaw
> a third player when your partner has the nuts and you have nothing,
> and it doesn't necessarily look suspicious -- whereas online, that
> play would stand out like a sore thumb if someone complained about it
> (or they had software looking specifically for plays like that, which
> wouldn't surprise me).
>
please explain how you can scientifically distinguish a pot jack from a
failed bluff ... you cant.
> Also, if an online site catches you, they could very well confiscate
> all the money you have in your account there (whereas a casino will
> just unceremoniously toss you out). So the 'risk' is potentially
> quite a bit more than you're implying.
>
no, not if you use prudence and you dont stockpile wads of cash in a
casino account [ meaning you make regular withdrawals ] to limit your risk
if the opc's decide to steal your account balance.
> > also, if you use winholdem to assist you in cardsharing online, then you
> > get the use of instant odds calculations that consider all the known cards
> > (good luck trying to find info on how to do this in any of the holdem
> > books)
>
> I have yet to see a poker book that doesn't talk about computing odds
> -- at least a good one. I will admit that few books talk specifically
> about computing odds when you're CHEATING, but the math behind it is
> the same.
im not sure i agree that it is the same;
try doing the math for a 4-way team such that you have an answer in a
matter of seconds and a bet decision that will not register on any
anti-collusion software radar. winholdem does better than anyone on the
planet.
winholdem support.
WinHoldemSupport
morality is very simply a stated expected behavior of some percentage of
the population based on certain criteria.
morality is the physical term we use to describe the social force that a
group of people apply to individuals within that group in order to modify
and maintain their behavior.
if you change the external criteria (i.e. move holdem from b&m to
internet), then it is absolutely impossible for the morality of the
general population to remain unchanged.
On Apr 29 2004 6:48PM, ruylopez wrote:
> On Apr 29 2004 12:36PM, WinHoldemSupport wrote:
>
> > ruy,
> >
> > why laugh? im being very honest here.
> > for whatever reason, my conscience does not bother me when colluding
> > online.
> >
> > but i believe that it would if i did this in a live game.
> > im just reporting my own subjective response here.
> >
> > winholdem support
>
> I would suggest that this is merely a psychological effect of not being
> able to see your opponents, who are real people. The same thing that
> emboldens so many civil people to become absolutely abusive online. Not
> because it's any less moral.
>
you are probably right about the 'real people' aspect of a live game.
most humans are socially needy creatures [ they need the respect and
approval of those around them - (more social forces) ] unless you are 100%
sociopath, it is provably harder to damage another if you have become
involved with them in any way. clinical interviews with prostitutes show
this to be true; while they provide complete physical contact (the basic
hooker product) they withold all emotional contact of any kind. they
reduce their psychological risk this way; the internet can have the same
depersonalizing effect on people and can create immunity from the social
pressure that might be experienced in a live game.
> You go on claiming that there's nothing immoral about colluding online
> when the whole mass of poker players here is telling you you're wrong. We
> all think it is cheating, because it obviously is.
>
i never claimed that it was globally moral; what im claiming is that
regardless of what you say, there are many people out there that are not
going to act in a poker 'moral' fashion (according to your definition).
you are attempting to modify the behavior of the masses by defining right
and wrong; and what i keep telling you is that there are people that are
immune to your definitions; and therefore their behavior is not modified
in the least; isnt that what you really want? you simply want to use
'morality' as a social force to modify the behavior of online poker
players? this is correct is it not? and all ive been saying is that
given the present state of online holdem, it is impossible for an opc to
defend all players from those who decide to card share. and since they
cannot guarantee the safety of the game, i am going to do whatever is
necessary to gain every advantage available to me; you can do the same; or
not.
> If you're basing what's right and wrong on whether you're likely to get
> caught you're exhibiting a very low level of moral reasoning. I know
> you're going to keep spamming, but at least be up front and stop claiming
> that colluding isn't wrong just to sell your crap. Truth in advertising.
here's the thing you need to understand; each individual is limited by
their own moral conscience and external forces (physical
reality/security). all i am trying to tell you is that there are people
out there that simply do not experience any guilt when card sharing
online; and therefore, the social moral force has zero effect on their
behavior. do you not understand this? you can keep preaching, crying,
whining, whatever, i am just trying to say that it is not achieving the
goals you want. and here is the krux of the matter; if you cannot modify
their behavior through moral force applied to their conscience then the
only thing that remains is the security of the game itself and as everyone
knows ... there is none. and this is why we keep saying that the game has
been changed as a result of the internet [ past tense - the game has
already changed but some just wont admit it ].
winholdem support.
James Monroe
wrote:
>On Apr 29 2004 12:36PM, WinHoldemSupport wrote:
>
>> ruy,
>>
>> why laugh? im being very honest here.
>> for whatever reason, my conscience does not bother me when colluding
>> online.
>>
>> but i believe that it would if i did this in a live game.
>> im just reporting my own subjective response here.
>>
>> winholdem support
>
>I would suggest that this is merely a psychological effect of not being
>able to see your opponents, who are real people. The same thing that
>emboldens so many civil people to become absolutely abusive online. Not
>because it's any less moral.
Precisely.
This whole thread has served to remind me of an incident in the
workplace years ago.
Seems we had this young chick in the office who was screwing pretty
much anyone. Over lunch one day, she mentioned that SoAndSo had
invited her over to his apartment for the evening. The problem she had
was that he was known to have a big mouth and gossip.
She pointed out that she'd be delighted to go, except that she was
afraid *everyone* would know about it the next day.
I was close enough friends with her to point out "So, you don't mind
BEING a slut, you just don't want everyone to KNOW you're a slut".
After a moment of thought, she responded "Yeah....I guess that's
right".
Same situation here with this winholdem thing: the users don't mind
being cheats as long as no one knows their cheats.
ruylopez
> ruy,
>
> morality is very simply a stated expected behavior of some percentage of
> the population based on certain criteria.
>
> morality is the physical term we use to describe the social force that a
> group of people apply to individuals within that group in order to modify
> and maintain their behavior.
>
> if you change the external criteria (i.e. move holdem from b&m to
> internet), then it is absolutely impossible for the morality of the
> general population to remain unchanged.
>
I'm sorry but this is essentially nonsense.
I'm not going to debate what morality is because we'll run around in
circles. We can all agree, mostly, that it involves distinguishing
between right and wrong and acting on it; and maybe some associated
emotions like guilt. It certainly has a cognitive component. It is not
merely the external social force.
While the society at large may be primarily responsible for the
individuals sense of what is right or wrong, they are not primarily
responsible for enforcing it; or at least in large part it is done
internally. And if you are deciding what is right or wrong based solely
on whether you will get caught you have the moral reasoning of a child.
Granted, many never progress. Kohlberg: Level 1 preconvential morality.
It's not something you should brag about.
Honestly, I think you're going to have a problem showing a difference in
morality of cheating at B+M vs cheating online in any logical way. So,
nonsense is your best bet.
Tony H.
> "WinHoldemSupport" <anon...@winholdem.net> wrote in message news:<ug%jc.14217476$Id.23...@news.easynews.com>...
>
> > ...
> > very simply put; we do not care how we win at online holdem; we
> > just want to win; ...
> >
> > so, just to repeat our view of online holdem; it is every man for himself;
> > so you should do whatever is necessary to win money because you can be
> > sure that everyone else is doing what is necessary - regardless of what
> > they say publically.
>
So, by that reasoning, one should do whatever is necessary to win
money when playing online, regardless of what they say publically. By
this reasoning, wouldn't you cheat and use WinHoldem's customer's hole
cards to your advantage?
You say that WinHoldem doesn't send user's hole cards to you so you,
but by what you stated above, you need to do "whatever is necessary"
to win money, "regardless of what they (you) say publically".
WinHoldemSupport
not quite the same thing. shame and guilt are just one form of the
apparent risk of going against the group (violating the morality of the
majority). for those here who keep attempting to use the 'shame' force
(i.e. "its wrong; you're cheating; we hate you; you're a bad person"), i
am simply trying to say that it will never have an effect on many people
out there; they simply do not care. they are immune to the moral force
of the majority.
while card sharers might be immune to the forces of guilt and shame
weilded by the moral majority, they are in no way immune to any real
physical security in the hands of the opc. being identified right now as
a card-sharer would be detrimental and so flying under the radar is the
best policy, if they want to continue to win. and so that is what they do.
winholdem support
WinHoldemSupport
> On Apr 29 2004 4:09PM, WinHoldemSupport wrote:
>
> > ruy,
> >
> > morality is very simply a stated expected behavior of some percentage of
> > the population based on certain criteria.
> >
> > morality is the physical term we use to describe the social force that a
> > group of people apply to individuals within that group in order to modify
> > and maintain their behavior.
> >
> > if you change the external criteria (i.e. move holdem from b&m to
> > internet), then it is absolutely impossible for the morality of the
> > general population to remain unchanged.
> >
>
> I'm sorry but this is essentially nonsense.
oh quite the contrary. it is very accurate regardless of whether or not
you admit it.
> I'm not going to debate what morality is because we'll run around in
> circles. We can all agree, mostly, that it involves distinguishing
> between right and wrong and acting on it; and maybe some associated
> emotions like guilt. It certainly has a cognitive component. It is not
> merely the external social force.
i wasn't discussing necessarily 'what' morality was. most people
understand what it is and the concept of right and wrong. i was simply
analyzing exactly 'who' benefits from morality. and my position is that
the 'moral' force benefits the majority in most cases (especially in the
case of online holdem). if you are a member of the majority then you
stand to benefit by promoting the morality of that majority because you
are lending a hand in the social force the controls the behavior of
individuals. and absolutely everyone is interested in modifying and
affecting the behavior of the individuals around us.
i am also pointing out that right now given the current conditions of
online holdem. an individual can benefit by breaking their ethical
agreement with the majority. and any time one party can benefit by
breaking an agreement, then the agreement was weak to begin with.
very simply put:
1) online holdem players can benefit from using computer assistance.
2) online holdem players can benefit from using a bot.
3) online holdem players can benefit from card sharing.
we have been discussing the moral issues surrounding item 3 and you are
failing to make your case. very simply put, as long as team players can
benefit by card sharing, all of your talk about 'right' and 'wrong' will
be ineffective. <insert picture of bugs bunny melting elmers gun barrel>
> While the society at large may be primarily responsible for the
> individuals sense of what is right or wrong, they are not primarily
> responsible for enforcing it; or at least in large part it is done
> internally. And if you are deciding what is right or wrong based solely
> on whether you will get caught you have the moral reasoning of a child.
> Granted, many never progress. Kohlberg: Level 1 preconvential morality.
> It's not something you should brag about.
>
it is a very bad idea to rest the security of a real money poker game on
the ethics of poker players. so many here just fail to understand this.
> Honestly, I think you're going to have a problem showing a difference in
> morality of cheating at B+M vs cheating online in any logical way. So,
> nonsense is your best bet.
i can only show a subjective difference for myself, based on my own
conscience. there are two types of people in the world - those who govern
their own conscience independent from the wishes of others and those who
construct their conscience according to the wishes of society at large
(poker players being just one instance of a society). i am a member of
the former group. and i tend to be adhere to an objectivist philosophy.
i am a self-interested creature and i view others the same way and i
behave accordingly.
<and i am very sure that poker players are self-interested creatures>
<regardless of how holy and innocent you want to construe them to be>
let me ask you a question ruy, right now i realize benefit by card
sharing online. please help me understand how i can benefit more by not
doing that.
dont talk to me about morality ... tell me about how i can benefit.
appeal to my self interest. if you cant do that then your words have
little value.
winholdem support
WinHoldemSupport
when i say "i", it was in the context of a lowly support grunt in the role
of a poker player.
i was referring to my personal use of the winholdem team edition, nothing
more.
however, to answer your question on a company level.
we stand to benefit much much more by offering a very legitimate valuable
product to online poker players and then supporting that product into the
future such that many customers will be happy with their results such that
they will renew their licenses next year.
doing this is much easier and far more rewarding than trying to implement
the highly stupid strategy you suggest of trying to "cop a feel" or "sneek
a dirty panty peek" at users cards.
you are welcome to analyze both scenarios [ our management already did ],
there is far greater benefit to finding and keeping loyal customers than
there is to find them and then abuse them and make them go away. every
business needs to keep their customers ... we are no different.
winholdem support.
http://www.pokerbot.com
_________________________________________________________________
Edward Hutchison
product, a self-described "grunt" at winholdem.net writes:
>there is far greater benefit to finding and keeping loyal customers than there
is to find them and then abuse them and make them go away<
Do you suppose the slaughterhouses worry about customer retention?
Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS
Point systems for evaluating poker starting hands:
http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html
ruylopez
> let me ask you a question ruy, right now i realize benefit by card
> sharing online. please help me understand how i can benefit more by not
> doing that.
> dont talk to me about morality ... tell me about how i can benefit.
> appeal to my self interest. if you cant do that then your words have
> little value.
>
> winholdem support
Enough with this stupid thread. I never said my words had value.
I also never said you can't benefit by cheating online. I just said it's
immmoral, which it clearly is. In reality, your philobabble is just
keeping this thread alive and keeping your spam active, so I'll just shut
up now.
WinHoldemSupport
very poor analogy, not even close to accurate.
beef ranchers need not do a thing to get more cows except breed them.
the cattle are their property.
very hardly the same thing with human poker players.
you have to offer value at a reasonable price,
then you have to treat customers well.
we do both.
winholdem support.
_________________________________________________________________
WinHoldemSupport
calling card sharing immoral does not accomplish anything whatsoever,
other than provide you with a coping mechanism for a reality you are
unwilling to accept - classic online holdem is not secure against
collusion.
and nothing you can say or do can make it secure.
there are people that know this and have accepted it and have changed the
way they play - you can do the same - nothing is stopping you.
changing the way you play does not make you a bad person.
it is simply the act of a prudent individual.
winholdem support.
Matt I.
<anon...@winholdem.net> wrote:
>On Apr 29 2004 6:24PM, Matt wrote:
>
>> "WinHoldemSupport" <anon...@winholdem.net> wrote in message
>> news:<ug%jc.14217476$Id.23...@news.easynews.com>...
>>
>> > ...
>> > very simply put; we do not care how we win at online holdem; we
>> > just want to win; ...
>> >
>> > so, just to repeat our view of online holdem; it is every man for himself;
>> > so you should do whatever is necessary to win money because you can be
>> > sure that everyone else is doing what is necessary - regardless of what
>> > they say publically.
>>
>> Yet more shining examples of the morals behind WinHoldEm. Somehow,
>> even if I was inclined to cheat, I would have difficulty trusting
>> someone with a perspective like this to not write a 'cheating
>> assistance' program that wasn't also cheating me simultaneously.
>> Believe me, it's not hard to do once you're already sending your card
>> data through his server.
>>
>
>you and others keep raising the morality issue; if we wanted to be truly
>amoral about this, we would never have gone public right?
No, if you had morals you would have never written the program, let
alone started selling it. Your morality (or lack thereof) is not what
I'm arguing about -- you've proven well beyond a shadow of a doubt
that you don't care about anybody but yourself or anything but the
bottom line.
>if i
>am playing in a game right now and you happen to be able to see my cards,
>you dont just automatically see large sums of money float your way; on the
>contrary; you first have to know where i am playing (good luck with that
>by the way),
Your software can trivially read it along with the player's cards.
>but lets assume you know where i am playing ...
Yes, let's.
>you then need the following to
>occur you need to be dealt the best hand at the table (1 in 10 chance) you
>then need me to get the 2nd best hand at the table (1 in 9 chance each
>time you get the best hand), that means that 1 of 90 hands you are in a
>position to milk money out of me
Not exactly. The opponent has to *think* they have the best hand when
you know you have them beat. Even more critically, in any hand where
you are both involved, you have extra information, and obviously know
whether or not they have you beat (potentially saving you many bets,
or allowing you to bluff when you know they have nothing). You also
gain a slight edge on every hand by seeing two more cards preflop --
if you have pocket kings, and they have aces, it changes the value of
your hand a bit.
Also, wouldn't there *always* be at least two cheaters at a table
(thus giving you a much bigger edge)? Unless, of course, you silently
install your program as a service, and have it 'sharing' the cards of
everyone who has it installed with you all the time...
> ... the rest of the time one of both of
>us has folded dude. if you can find a table that deals 90 hands an then
>you can get the jump on me once an hour at the most. it is a stupid
>strategy matt.
You only need to jump a few times to make quite a bit of money. And
in NL, you only need to jump once to clean someone out. I'm also
assuming you'd use a bot to do this, so time is not an issue.
>it is far better to take care of your customers and treat them well so
>that they will renew their license next year.
No doubt. But wouldn't that require morality?
>> > as for b&m's, if i could collude risk free (meaning there was a near 100%
>> > chance of not getting caught), then i would definitely be tempted; but my
>> > guess is that i would not be able to do it without offending my
>> > conscience;
>>
>> Only a *little* hypocritical. It's fine online, but you suddenly have
>> pangs of conscience when you can see the people's faces?
>
>very simply put,
>i do not experience guilt when card sharing online; but i believe that i
>definitely would in a live game. thats just how im wired.
The only difference between cheating in a casino and cheating online
is that it's easier to cheat online (and, you posit, harder to be
caught), and you have to look the people you're fleecing in the eye in
the casino. Barring difficulty and risk of getting caught, you say
that you're fine with one and not with the other.
So, yes, you're a hypocritical cheat (blame genetics or your parents
if you like). Thanks for clearing that up.
>>
>> > also, i feel that the chances of getting caught in a b&m are
>> > very high as opposed to getting caught online; so if you're going to
>> > collude, doing so online is much safer and much less riskier than doing so
>> > in a b&m.
>>
>> OTOH, an online site has a much higher chance of detecting collusive
>> play from betting patterns than a casino does, since they know what
>> everyone's hole cards are. In a casino, for example, you can whipsaw
>> a third player when your partner has the nuts and you have nothing,
>> and it doesn't necessarily look suspicious -- whereas online, that
>> play would stand out like a sore thumb if someone complained about it
>> (or they had software looking specifically for plays like that, which
>> wouldn't surprise me).
>>
>
>please explain how you can scientifically distinguish a pot jack from a
>failed bluff ... you cant.
If you do it once, no, you can't. If you do it ten times with the
same partner in a week (or month), the difference is obvious.
>> Also, if an online site catches you, they could very well confiscate
>> all the money you have in your account there (whereas a casino will
>> just unceremoniously toss you out). So the 'risk' is potentially
>> quite a bit more than you're implying.
>>
>
>no, not if you use prudence and you dont stockpile wads of cash in a
>casino account [ meaning you make regular withdrawals ] to limit your risk
>if the opc's decide to steal your account balance.
I think most players would need at least 100BB in their account at all
times, and potentially 200BB or more. So unless you're cheating at
$1/$2, we're talking potentially thousands of dollars here. That's a
pretty sizable amount to me.
>> > also, if you use winholdem to assist you in cardsharing online, then you
>> > get the use of instant odds calculations that consider all the known cards
>> > (good luck trying to find info on how to do this in any of the holdem
>> > books)
>>
>> I have yet to see a poker book that doesn't talk about computing odds
>> -- at least a good one. I will admit that few books talk specifically
>> about computing odds when you're CHEATING, but the math behind it is
>> the same.
>
>im not sure i agree that it is the same;
>try doing the math for a 4-way team such that you have an answer in a
>matter of seconds and a bet decision that will not register on any
>anti-collusion software radar. winholdem does better than anyone on the
>planet.
>
>winholdem support.
The math is the same for computing odds; there are just more cards to
consider. Can a computer do it faster? Sure.
James Monroe
No one doubts you can justify your cheating in your own mind; be that
as it may, it's exactly the same.
WinHoldemSupport
first off i didnt write winholdem, i just support it.
we can discuss my personal morality as one who uses winholdem.
we can discuss the morality of the parties who created it.
try to keep them separate because they are.
> >if i
> >am playing in a game right now and you happen to be able to see my cards,
> >you dont just automatically see large sums of money float your way; on the
> >contrary; you first have to know where i am playing (good luck with that
> >by the way),
>
> Your software can trivially read it along with the player's cards.
obviously it could read the players table and announce that to the world.
that is not the business model we want.
that is a very short-lived model ... no value.
the better business model is to provide a legitimate product of value,
and then treat the customers well, so that they renew licenses.
let's have this discussion next year when winholdem users begin
renewing their annual license.
what you are describing, by way of full unattended automation does not
exist.
while your scenario might be easy for a human to negotiate,
it is quite another thing to get a piece of software to do that
automatically.
you have also completely ignored the fact that you need many many accounts
to pull that off; and the accounts couldn't be fake either; not if you
plan to withdraw money; its just not worth the trouble dude. we are in
the business of providing legitimate pokerbots to the general poker
playing public, most of which have licensed the professional edition -
where card sharing is not possible. it has already been independently
verified early on that the winholdem professional edition never connects
to the internet except once at startup to verify the end-user license. so
the scenarios you are outlining simply do not exist. also, your scenario
is simply not possible because it would violate our own business ethics;
you have to be ethically loyal to something in this life; for us we are
loyal to our customers.
> >it is far better to take care of your customers and treat them well so
> >that they will renew their license next year.
>
> No doubt. But wouldn't that require morality?
i guess it would. it also requires good business sense. we are loyal to
our customers. if you are not a winholdem customer then you can be sure
that we are doing what we can to help the winholdem customers take your
money. we view the online poker playing population as two groups -
winholdem users and everyone else. and essentially we are interested in
helping winholdem users take as much money as possible from non winholdem
users anyway they possibly can. hope this clears up matters for you. one
of the other support grunts has been using the lion and the gazelle
analogy. i will rely on that for a moment; if you are a lion (winholdem
user) then we are trying to help you eat gazelles (non winholdem users);
if you are a gazelle (non winholdem user) then we are trying to help you
get eaten by the lions. we want to modify the behavior of all gazelles
everywhere and convert them to lions (customers).
> >> > as for b&m's, if i could collude risk free (meaning there was a near
100%
> >> > chance of not getting caught), then i would definitely be tempted; but
my
> >> > guess is that i would not be able to do it without offending my
> >> > conscience;
> >>
> >> Only a *little* hypocritical. It's fine online, but you suddenly have
> >> pangs of conscience when you can see the people's faces?
> >
>
> >very simply put,
> >i do not experience guilt when card sharing online; but i believe that i
> >definitely would in a live game. thats just how im wired.
>
> The only difference between cheating in a casino and cheating online
> is that it's easier to cheat online (and, you posit, harder to be
> caught), and you have to look the people you're fleecing in the eye in
> the casino. Barring difficulty and risk of getting caught, you say
> that you're fine with one and not with the other.
>
> So, yes, you're a hypocritical cheat (blame genetics or your parents
> if you like). Thanks for clearing that up.
not hypocritical. honest. you want the moral force to be good enough and
strong enough to cause all online poker players to behave in an approved
manner. and i am telling you that the moral force is not strong enough or
good enough to do that. imagine a bank where all the money is piled on a
table in the lobby and the main security mechanism for the bank is the
honor system; patrons are expected to never withdraw more than they
deposit. talk to me about the value of morality in that scenario. explain
why the physical security of the bank is not necessary.
> >>
> >> > also, i feel that the chances of getting caught in a b&m are
> >> > very high as opposed to getting caught online; so if you're going to
> >> > collude, doing so online is much safer and much less riskier than doing
so
> >> > in a b&m.
> >>
> >> OTOH, an online site has a much higher chance of detecting collusive
> >> play from betting patterns than a casino does, since they know what
> >> everyone's hole cards are. In a casino, for example, you can whipsaw
> >> a third player when your partner has the nuts and you have nothing,
> >> and it doesn't necessarily look suspicious -- whereas online, that
> >> play would stand out like a sore thumb if someone complained about it
> >> (or they had software looking specifically for plays like that, which
> >> wouldn't surprise me).
> >>
> >
> >please explain how you can scientifically distinguish a pot jack from a
> >failed bluff ... you cant.
>
> If you do it once, no, you can't. If you do it ten times with the
> same partner in a week (or month), the difference is obvious.
agreed. you cant pot-jack for a partner on an ongoing basis without being
seen on the radar. you put yourself at risk each time you do it.
> >> Also, if an online site catches you, they could very well confiscate
> >> all the money you have in your account there (whereas a casino will
> >> just unceremoniously toss you out). So the 'risk' is potentially
> >> quite a bit more than you're implying.
> >>
> >
> >no, not if you use prudence and you dont stockpile wads of cash in a
> >casino account [ meaning you make regular withdrawals ] to limit your risk
> >if the opc's decide to steal your account balance.
>
> I think most players would need at least 100BB in their account at all
> times, and potentially 200BB or more. So unless you're cheating at
> $1/$2, we're talking potentially thousands of dollars here. That's a
> pretty sizable amount to me.
i guess sizeable amount to me would be any amount equal to or greater than
one months bills.
> >> > also, if you use winholdem to assist you in cardsharing online, then you
> >> > get the use of instant odds calculations that consider all the known
cards
> >> > (good luck trying to find info on how to do this in any of the holdem
> >> > books)
> >>
> >> I have yet to see a poker book that doesn't talk about computing odds
> >> -- at least a good one. I will admit that few books talk specifically
> >> about computing odds when you're CHEATING, but the math behind it is
> >> the same.
> >
> >im not sure i agree that it is the same;
> >try doing the math for a 4-way team such that you have an answer in a
> >matter of seconds and a bet decision that will not register on any
> >anti-collusion software radar. winholdem does better than anyone on the
> >planet.
> >
> >winholdem support.
>
> The math is the same for computing odds; there are just more cards to
> consider. Can a computer do it faster? Sure.
agreed.
WinHoldemSupport
let me put it to you this way. as a holdem player, i cant afford your
online poker ethics; those ethics cost me money and they are not worth
it. when i play holdem online i want to win money, and i am willing to
test all physical limits to do that. as a holdem player i like my chances
much better when i have a teammate at the table. both of us benefit from
this relationship and as such i will continue to benefit from it pretty
much forever because there is nothing to prevent me from doing that in an
internet environment.
i am not bothered in the least by people who continue to play in the
traditional fashion (no computer assistance, no card sharing), why am i
not bothered ... because those are the people that lose money to winholdem
users. and we welcome a steady supply of those people ... very much the
same way the lions welcome a steady supply of gazelles.
winholdem support.
Matt
Sure, Ray. Whatever you say.
> we can discuss my personal morality as one who uses winholdem.
> we can discuss the morality of the parties who created it.
> try to keep them separate because they are.
I suppose there's a subtle difference between a cheater and someone
who enables cheaters, but they both require a basic lack of respect
for other human beings.
> > >if i
> > >am playing in a game right now and you happen to be able to see my cards,
> > >you dont just automatically see large sums of money float your way; on the
> > >contrary; you first have to know where i am playing (good luck with that
> > >by the way),
> >
> > Your software can trivially read it along with the player's cards.
>
> obviously it could read the players table and announce that to the world.
> that is not the business model we want.
> that is a very short-lived model ... no value.
You're not thinking big enough, Ray. You already know where everyone
who has the team edition is, and what their cards are. You just need
to occasionally sit down and take some of their money. Don't do it
too often to any one person and they'll never catch on. Sounds like a
solid plan to me.
> the better business model is to provide a legitimate product of value,
> and then treat the customers well, so that they renew licenses.
> let's have this discussion next year when winholdem users begin
> renewing their annual license.
Will that be before or after all the sites stop it from working for
good? You have *no* long-term security here, and thus no incentive to
not rip off your customers while you still can.
> what you are describing, by way of full unattended automation does not
> exist.
> while your scenario might be easy for a human to negotiate,
> it is quite another thing to get a piece of software to do that
> automatically.
Well, that should be trivial for you, since you have such a great
pokerbot already.
> you have also completely ignored the fact that you need many many accounts
> to pull that off; and the accounts couldn't be fake either; not if you
> plan to withdraw money; its just not worth the trouble dude.
Why many accounts? Just fleece a different person each day. What are
they going to do, complain to the site and say "Hey, this guy cleaned
me out even though I'm cheating!" ?
> it has already been independently
> verified early on that the winholdem professional edition never connects
> to the internet except once at startup to verify the end-user license. so
> the scenarios you are outlining simply do not exist.
I'm talking about the 'team' edition here, obviously. I'm sure that's
where the big money is anyway, with the colluders.
> also, your scenario
> is simply not possible because it would violate our own business ethics;
> you have to be ethically loyal to something in this life; for us we are
> loyal to our customers.
Ethics? Loyalty? "Honor among theives", right?
Ha, that's a good one. Got any more?
>
> > >it is far better to take care of your customers and treat them well so
> > >that they will renew their license next year.
> >
> > No doubt. But wouldn't that require morality?
>
> i guess it would. it also requires good business sense. we are loyal to
> our customers.
You're hilarous, Ray.
Will people lie, cheat, and steal if you give them the opportunity?
Absolutely. That doesn't make it right, or mean you shouldn't try to
stop them.
In any case, you're deflecting the question. What about the bank with
no security? The response you gave to cheating at poker should mean
that you'd be fine stealing the bank's money via an electronic
transfer, but that you would feel guilty walking into the lobby and
taking their cash in person. At best, you're being completely
illogical. Personally, I still think you're just a hypocrite.
> > >> Also, if an online site catches you, they could very well confiscate
> > >> all the money you have in your account there (whereas a casino will
> > >> just unceremoniously toss you out). So the 'risk' is potentially
> > >> quite a bit more than you're implying.
> > >>
> > >
> > >no, not if you use prudence and you dont stockpile wads of cash in a
> > >casino account [ meaning you make regular withdrawals ] to limit your risk
> > >if the opc's decide to steal your account balance.
> >
> > I think most players would need at least 100BB in their account at all
> > times, and potentially 200BB or more. So unless you're cheating at
> > $1/$2, we're talking potentially thousands of dollars here. That's a
> > pretty sizable amount to me.
>
> i guess sizeable amount to me would be any amount equal to or greater than
> one months bills.
I would think half of a standard bankroll would be quite a bit to
anyone who plays seriously.
James Monroe
<anon...@winholdem.net> wrote:
I think most holdem players feel the same way about making money and
being willing to test the limits to do it. It's just that most (again,
I like to hope it's most) do so by becoming better players rather than
seeking the easy way out.
But then, if a dedicated player reaches his or her intellectual limit
and is still not satisfied with the results and is unwilling to be
satisfied with the low level of play his or her brain power will
allow, I suppose cheating is the only option left.
as a holdem player i like my chances
>much better when i have a teammate at the table.
Well, duh.
If you and I are trying to rob each other and I have a gun and you
don't, I like my chances much better too.
both of us benefit from
>this relationship and as such i will continue to benefit from it pretty
>much forever because there is nothing to prevent me from doing that in an
>internet environment.
Certainly true.
>
>i am not bothered in the least by people who continue to play in the
>traditional fashion (no computer assistance, no card sharing), why am i
>not bothered ... because those are the people that lose money to winholdem
>users. and we welcome a steady supply of those people ... very much the
>same way the lions welcome a steady supply of gazelles.
There have always been con men to lure the unsophisticated and
gullible into their trap. I suppose there always will be.
Here's a question for you:
Earlier, you posted that you wouldn't participate in the same behavior
in a B&M poker room for whatever reason.
While playing in a B&M room and the table discussion turned to online
play, would you be comfortable announcing to the table you views of
"card sharing" online? Would you share with the other players present
that you participate in collusion regularly online, but assure them
you would never do so in the B&M environment?
How that I think of it, since you make so much money cheating online,
why would you ever venture into a B&M room?
Deep Throat
>
>
> i am not bothered in the least by people who continue to play in the
> traditional fashion (no computer assistance, no card sharing), why am i
> not bothered ... because those are the people that lose money to winholdem
> users.
Are you actually suggesting that anybody loses money to winholdem users?
LOL.
joe stevens
james,
well the interesting thing is that players have the power to select
their
own definition of "right" ... very much the same way people have the
power
to select their own definition of "god"
winholdem support
a communal setting of any type be it poker, government or religion, it
is the community, not the individual that sets the standard.The
individual, who, in the end, cannot accept this is usually then cast
out by the community...
James Monroe
Good point and well put.
WinHoldemSupport
in general i agree with your comments. however, they apply to physical
scenarios - like a village or a church or any society, etc.
as soon as poker moves from a live game to a net game, things change.
the most important change is that the village, the church, the society,
loses most if not all of its ability to physically apply social pressure
to an errant individual.
if the aspect of physical force is removed then only thing that remains is
the use of phsychological force (which is much weaker), that can be
applied in a converstation (similar to what is happening right now in this
thread).
the game itself (which can be viewed as a society) became much more
vulnerable when it moved to the internet, mainly because it lost its
ability to apply physical force to misbehaving players.
some people are keenly aware of this (and have modified their behavior),
others are just plain blind. we are here to help wake everyone up.
if you play the old traditional way
(no computer assistance, no card sharing),
then you are at a disadvantage.
nothing anybody can say or do can change this fact.
winholdem support.
Lester Hayes
> the game itself (which can be viewed as a society) became much more
> vulnerable when it moved to the internet, mainly because it lost its
> ability to apply physical force to misbehaving players.
>
> some people are keenly aware of this (and have modified their behavior),
> others are just plain blind. we are here to help wake everyone up.
>
> if you play the old traditional way
> (no computer assistance, no card sharing),
> then you are at a disadvantage.
For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. You're not, of course,
and pretty much everyone knows this...... but for the sake of arugment,
let's say you are.
I'm sure you've seen the Matrix. The guts of the movie is that reality is
all just a fabrication, etc. The few people who know the truth and are
battling aren't having a great time of it, but they slave away. At some
point, they all had a choice to face reality or just sit back and enjoy the
illusion for the 80 years or so it'll last for them. Even Neo had that
choice and he chose to fight. Others chose to live in the Matrix and just
live their own lives.
I suppose me and thousands of others are living in the illusion that online
poker can be played and enjoyed on a level playing field. I know that
overall I've won modest amounts at it. Many others have as well. At a
recent live tournament, I had the opportunity to meet a few support staff
from a couple of different online sites and I brought up this topic with
them. They both described to me in great detail what security measures they
employ to create a level playing field. With respect to your product, they
didn't go into great detail about how they detect its use but they did
mention that after putting in the detection code, they were somewhat
surprised to see just how few people are even bothering to try. So as it
turns out, the alternate evil parallel universe just doesn't exist.
So, either we're all under the illusion..... or you're the dellusional one.
Given what awful software it really is, the kind of hoops you make people
jump through to use it (and by the way, a quick email to two "opc"s
confirmed what we all assumed; your little jerry-rig of two computers
achieves nothing in preventing them from detecting its use. They're not
doing something so dumb as to "crawl the window list" or whatever you said.
They search for it the way virus scanners search for viruses). Given all
that and the reception your software is getting, isn't it time to move on?
At some point when you decide to actually go out to the world and do some
serious and beneficial work for the betterment of society, your prospective
employer is going to google you and come up with tons of RAY BONERT IS AN
UNETHICAL PERSON type messages. They'll read these threads and see how you,
for months, defended a product whose only reason for existence was to cheat
and defraud. This message and all before and after are in the google
archive, effectively forever. And in it, it's clear that you have no morals,
no ethics. Whatever talent you may have as a programmer is greatly
overshadowed by these personal defects.
Does your wife read these posts? What do you think she'd say if she did?
What about your baby? When your kids are old enough, what are they going to
think when they read this stuff? What are you going to tell them when they
ask you how you could have been the creator of something whose sole purpose
was to cheat and defraud? What does the rest of your family think of this?
Well, here's your out... and it might be the last one you'll have before you
destroy the shred of credibility you may have left.
Pull that piece of shit off the market, remove it from your website and post
a nice long reflective letter about how you're moving on to something more
worthwhile, that this was just a project, useful for experience and to try
to prove a concept, yadda yadda. And that, reflecting on it, etc.
The character assasination you're effecting on yourself will only become
much more clear when its effects start coming back to haunt you. Take this
3rd-party advice from someone who doesn't know you but is starting to see
that the direction of this project in your mind is starting to seep into the
personal and illogical. It doesn't work well, nobody's really using it and
you're destroying your character defending it.
Time to move on.
James Monroe
A "Post Of The Year" nominee.
da pickle
post. Ray decided to get a "tattoo" and while there is no physical "ink,"
the virtual ink of Usenet may be here forever.
"Lester Hayes" <radie...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1097to3...@news.supernews.com...
Dave Hitt
<anon...@winholdem.net> wrote:
>lynx,
>
>in our experience, most teamers prefer auto-verify mode,
>http://www.winholdem.net/help/#autoverify
>(it is just human nature to want full control)
>
>nevertheless, if the bots are setup correctly,
>they can and will be very effective if left unattended.
>i speak from personal experience here.
Of course, we have to take your word for it, because you won't
a) offer some proof as to how well off you are from using this program
b) play your bot against any of us, including me, an admittedly
mediocre player, for real money.
Now, if you'd put your money where your mouth is, we might have a
reason to believe your product was worth a bucket of warm spit. But
you won't, so we are left to draw the obiovus conclusion.
Dave Hitt
----
If it kills so many people, why can't they name three of them?
http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html
Quick Hitts - Rapid Rants From the Hittman
http://www.davehitt.com/blog/index.html
joe stevens
In reading your response, you make an understandable, but crucial
error. The community does not lose its ability to punish the
transgressor, it simply takes different forms, for instance, Im sure
that the users of your software would probably not like it at all if
thier names were posted in a public forum like this one by the sites
who catch them, say in a monthly report. Since the information on
theyre banning from a site would not be considered privaleged
information as long as no finiancial information was disclosed..
WinHoldemSupport
> In reading your response, you make an understandable, but crucial
> error. The community does not lose its ability to punish the
> transgressor, it simply takes different forms, for instance, Im sure
> that the users of your software would probably not like it at all if
> thier names were posted in a public forum like this one by the sites
> who catch them, say in a monthly report. Since the information on
> theyre banning from a site would not be considered privaleged
> information as long as no finiancial information was disclosed..
this still does not constitute physical pressure; it is psychological
pressure. also, make sure that when your "list of shame" is posted, that
it also includes the names of all online holdem players that use computer
assistance of any kind (not just winholdem), also make sure that your list
distinguishes between the 3 major classes of computer assistance:
1) analysis
2) autoplay
3) cardshare
you may also wish to include the names of anyone that has ever had their
account closed for any reason; and be sure to provide the reason.