Wilson Software
philip berretta
Hold'em? I am a relatively new player and looking for good learning tools.
Thanks.
Tom
Try Poker Academy
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Tad Perry
news:RbBRh.5336$YL5...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> New to this site. Anyone have experience with Wilson's Tournament Texas
> Hold'em? I am a relatively new player and looking for good learning tools.
It's clunky and some built-in assumptions have to be accounted for, but it's
very, very useful.
(Yes, Virginia, you can be so good in other areas of the game that starting
hand requirements don't mean much.)
tvp
![Mark B [Diputsur]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjW1ukZesLHTvLryryGaLhoUTsW-4I5_N8bKNVoFKGU5T0OxggP6=s40-c)
Mark B [Diputsur]
"philip berretta" <pber...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:RbBRh.5336$YL5...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Hold'em? I am a relatively new player and looking for good learning tools.
It sucks. I made a post about it a few months back...
but the quick summary was: it's a video game (and a
shitty one at that) which Wilson should be shot for
trying to pass off as a trainer. Don't waste your
money on the tournament version... (their limit trainer
on the other hand does offer some analysis with Sid)
Those are the only 2 products of theirs I'm familiar
with... HTH.
Mark
--
www.myspace.com/diputsur
lawh...@hiwaay.net
While I haven't practiced against the Poker Academy software, I have
used and practiced (almost daily) against the Wilson Tournament Hold
'Em software. (I frequently play single-table tournaments against
nine computer opponents versus the "Tough" level of competition.) I
won't speak for other players, but my experience is that practicing
against the Wilson Software has improved my game immensely. It was
pure frustration at first, but after you have played a couple of
hundred thousand hands against the software, certain "things" start
sinking in. The bottom line is that if you stick with it, your game
WILL improve.
There are some "unhuman" plays that the Wilson computer players
occasionally make, (which a human player would probably never do), so
the software does have a few quirks. One of these "quirks" which I
have noticed is that if the board flops trips - such as three 8's or
three Aces - and one of the software players has the fourth card of
that rank for quads - the software player will lead out with a pot-
sized bet! Admittedly, this is a very rare occurrence, but I suspect
that 99.9999 percent of human players will slow play flopped quads all
the way to the river hoping and praying that one of their opponents
will catch a boat and go all-in. (I sent Mr. Wilson an email about
this anomaly, so I suspect this quirk will be corrected in the next
release.)
On the other hand, there are certain things that the Wilson program is
exceptionally good at. Chief among these, I would say, is the ability
to run a good bluff. I can't count the number of times I have folded
the winning hand to a total bluff against "Lois" or "Hal" and sat in
utter shock once I realized I had been bamboozled. (I'm gradually
coming to the realization that I may be a bit of a "weak-tight"
player, as I tend to fold too often. This is a "leak" in my game
which the Wilson software is helping me to identify.) On a positive
note, I am slowly getting better at picking off their bluffs; but the
Wilson players are still quite challenging - especially versus the
"Tough" level of competition. (I haven't graduated to the "Toughest"
level of competition - yet.)
Purely for training and learning purposes, I think the Wilson software
is worth its weight in gold, but that's just my 0.02 cents worth.
Alan C. Lawhon
Huntsville, Alabama
Gary Carson
On Apr 7 2007 1:44 AM, lawh...@HiWAAY.net wrote:
> Philip:
>
> While I haven't practiced against the Poker Academy software, I have
> used and practiced (almost daily) against the Wilson Tournament Hold
> 'Em software. (I frequently play single-table tournaments against
> nine computer opponents versus the "Tough" level of competition.) I
> won't speak for other players, but my experience is that practicing
> against the Wilson Software has improved my game immensely. It was
> pure frustration at first, but after you have played a couple of
> hundred thousand hands against the software, certain "things" start
> sinking in. The bottom line is that if you stick with it, your game
> WILL improve.
>
> There are some "unhuman" plays that the Wilson computer players
> occasionally make, (which a human player would probably never do), so
> the software does have a few quirks. One of these "quirks" which I
> have noticed is that if the board flops trips - such as three 8's or
> three Aces - and one of the software players has the fourth card of
> that rank for quads - the software player will lead out with a pot-
> sized bet! Admittedly, this is a very rare occurrence, but I suspect
> that 99.9999 percent of human players will slow play flopped quads all
> the way to the river hoping and praying that one of their opponents
> will catch a boat and go all-in. (I sent Mr. Wilson an email about
> this anomaly, so I suspect this quirk will be corrected in the next
> release.)
>
Yes, 99.99 of human players will slowplay the nuts, but not anywhere close to
most good players will do so automatically. I like the rule of thumb I give in
may book -- the problem with slowplaying the nuts is that you'll often find that
some other clown was slowplaying the second nuts and you'd have busted him
instead of getting part of his stack if you'd just lead out.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
lawh...@hiwaay.net
wrote:
> Yes, 99.99 of human players will slowplay the nuts, but not anywhere close > to most good players will do so automatically. I like the rule of thumb give > in may book -- the problem with slowplaying the nuts is that you'll often find > that some other clown was slowplaying the second nuts and you'd busted
> him instead of getting part of his stack if you'd just lead out.
>
> Gary Carsonhttp://www.garycarson.com
>
OK Gary, I see your point, (I think), but the specific situation
described, (i.e. flopping quads), is very unusual. (In over 100,000
hands that I've played versus the Wilson Software, I have only seen
trips [on the board] on the flop about two times.) While your
"general rule" is probably correct 99.99 percent of the time, I don't
think that is the case in this specific situation. And no less an
authority than Doyle Brunson himself advocates that flopped quads
should be slowplayed. (See the fourth paragraph, page 574, of Doyle's
"Super System 2".)
OrangeSFO
wrote:
> Yes, 99.99 of human players will slowplay the nuts, but not anywhere close to
> most good players will do so automatically. I like the rule of thumb I give in
> may book -- the problem with slowplaying the nuts is that you'll often find that
> some other clown was slowplaying the second nuts and you'd have busted him
> instead of getting part of his stack if you'd just lead out.
I flopped quad fours (three on the board, case in my hand) in a
tourney today; checked the flop, checked the turn, and pushed all-in
on the river hoping my opponent had paired something.
He bit hard, as he'd rivered a boat.
Gary Carson
On Apr 7 2007 2:57 AM, lawh...@HiWAAY.net wrote:
> On Apr 7, 1:41 am, Gary Carson
If he says they should routinely be slowplayed then he's just wrong.
Sometimes they should be slowplayed, sometimes not. If you just bet out you are
very unlikely to get someone with AK or a pair to lay it down. Check, check,
allin might well get someone with 66 to fold if the turn and river is something
like K8.
It depends on the range of hands you're opponents have, it depends on your
image, it depends on stack sizes, pot sizes, preflop action, position etc, etc.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Apr 7 2007 5:12 AM, OrangeSFO wrote:
> On Apr 7, 12:41 am, Gary Carson
The reasons that might have been the right thing to do are all left out of your
telling of the story.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
garminblue
>
> Try Poker Academy
>
Or not... At least Wilson is legit about when you buy their product - you own
it. PA on the other hand uses (without advance notice) some of the most onerous
anti-piracy measures in the industry. Aside from the expiring reg. codes
(backed-up by highly incompetent customer service staff who wont help verify
your ownership before sending new keys for a simple reinstall - unless you
registered with their online game service beforehand or some bullshit.) And if
you forget your original purchase info - old e-mail, old visa, etc - you will
never get a new reg. code. Trust me - keep your records with this outfit - they
wont help you out - at all.
Aside from the fact that 99% of the computer literate population would refuse to
do business with these pitiful outfits who pull such crap, which is why they
don't warn you in advance before your purchase - PA doesn't warn you after the
purchase - lol... I have a copy that worked pretty well until I moved and my
hard drive got busted in the process, no problem - just buy a new one and
reinstall everything, right... everything except PA. I refuse to buy another
copy simply because they're ass-holes...
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Ian Stuart
My experience with PA was much the same. Sad, as it was a pretty good
product.
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
I'm glad y'all mentioned that. I hadn't yet bought PA and since I'm really bad
about keeping track of things I think I'll pass. Wilson keeps good records of
customers and has significantly reduced prices for updates.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
risky biz
wrote:
I think he's relating that the problem with the Wilson software is
that the player who has the case always leads out with a pot-size bet
whereas most real players wouldn't all the time.
Can anyone who has both speak to a comparison of the two different
software packages simply on their educational and player improvement
merits?
Peg Smith
>Yes, 99.99 of human players will slowplay the nuts, but not anywhere close to
>most good players will do so automatically. I like the rule of thumb I give in
>may book -- the problem with slowplaying the nuts is that you'll often find that
>some other clown was slowplaying the second nuts and you'd have busted him
>instead of getting part of his stack if you'd just lead out.
Yes! I don't slowplay. If I flop a royal, I'm going to check only if
I'm certain that someone will bet out so that I can check-raise. The
amount I bet or raise is dependent on the situation, of course, but
generally I just bet out. Most players have the OP's thought that if I
really had it I'd slowplay it all the way, I sure as hell wouldn't be
announcing my hand right off the bat. So if the flop is AAA and I have
the quads, by betting out I can be sure that most players will think
I'm full of shit.
Peg
Elisabeth Chorraz
Holdem non-tournament version, and it seemed to be a piece of shit as far as
the software engineering goes. The GUI was amateurish, at it crashed on the
first two hands.
Bett
"philip berretta" <pber...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:RbBRh.5336$YL5...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
lawh...@hiwaay.net
>
> Yes! I don't slowplay. If I flop a royal, I'm going to check only if
> I'm certain that someone will bet out so that I can check-raise. The
> amount I bet or raise is dependent on the situation, of course, but
> generally I just bet out. Most players have the OP's thought that if I
> really had it I'd slowplay it all the way, I sure as hell wouldn't be
> announcing my hand right off the bat. So if the flop is AAA and I have
> the quads, by betting out I can be sure that most players will think
> I'm full of shit.
>
> Peg
Peg:
If you read what Mr. Brunson has to say about slowplaying flopped
quads in Super System 2, (see page 574, 4th paragraph), it would seem
that you are reducing your EV (to virtually zero) by betting out on
the flop. That is Doyle's whole point: Despite the fact that you have
flopped such a powerful hand, it is not a very profitable hand due to
the fact that the deck is crippled. Mr. Brunson states (probably
correctly) that the only way you can reasonably hope to make any money
on flopped quads is to check both the flop (and turn) and only bet a
small amount on the end. Of course, what you're hoping for, (as Doyle
states), is that one of your opponents will either pair up (for a
second best full house) or bluff at the pot on the end. In this
particular (very rare) circumstance, I suspect that betting right out
will be promptly followed by all the rest of the table folding,
(especially if you bet out on the flop), so all you're likely to get
for your quads are the antes and blinds. By quietly checking your
monster, it looks more like you're drawing [to a full house] rather
than sitting on the nuts; so it seems (at least to me) that what Doyle
is saying makes more sense.
Maybe it doesn't really matter that much though as flopping quads is
such a rare event anyway. I've been playing live poker for 3-4 years
now, and I have NEVER flopped quads (that I can recall) although I do
remember hitting a royal flush once. I suspect this is another of
those "neither right nor wrong" situations in poker where different
people have different opinions about how the hand should be played.
(And the funny thing is that there are merits to both sides of the
argument!)
risky biz
> On Apr 7, 12:09 pm, Peg Smith <PegSmith...@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes! I don't slowplay. If I flop a royal, I'm going to check only if
> > I'm certain that someone will bet out so that I can check-raise. The
> > amount I bet or raise is dependent on the situation, of course, but
> > generally I just bet out. Most players have the OP's thought that if I
> > really had it I'd slowplay it all the way, I sure as hell wouldn't be
> > announcing my hand right off the bat. So if the flop is AAA and I have
> > the quads, by betting out I can be sure that most players will think
> > I'm full of shit.
>
> > Peg
>
> Peg:
>
> If you read what Mr. Brunson has to say about slowplaying flopped
> quads in Super System 2, (see page 574, 4th paragraph), it would seem
> that you are reducing your EV (to virtually zero) by betting out on
> the flop. That is Doyle's whole point: Despite the fact that you have
> flopped such a powerful hand, it is not a very profitable hand due to
> the fact that the deck is crippled.
> Alan C. Lawhon
> Huntsville, Alabama
You may have overlooked that she switched the discussion to "flopping
a royal" for some reason.
I haven't read SS2. Is Brunson talking about any quad crippling the
deck or something like 10 or higher?
The looseness or tightness of the table is obviously a very important
consideration. If it's loose enough it may pay to bet out the case
quad. If it's tight it might make more sense to let them lead and hope
they pair up.
Gary Carson
> On Apr 7, 12:09 pm, Peg Smith wrote:
> >
> > Yes! I don't slowplay. If I flop a royal, I'm going to check only if
> > I'm certain that someone will bet out so that I can check-raise. The
> > amount I bet or raise is dependent on the situation, of course, but
> > generally I just bet out. Most players have the OP's thought that if I
> > really had it I'd slowplay it all the way, I sure as hell wouldn't be
> > announcing my hand right off the bat. So if the flop is AAA and I have
> > the quads, by betting out I can be sure that most players will think
> > I'm full of shit.
> >
> > Peg
>
> Peg:
>
> If you read what Mr. Brunson has to say about slowplaying flopped
> quads in Super System 2, (see page 574, 4th paragraph), it would seem
> that you are reducing your EV (to virtually zero) by betting out on
> the flop. That is Doyle's whole point: Despite the fact that you have
> flopped such a powerful hand, it is not a very profitable hand due to
> the fact that the deck is crippled. Mr. Brunson states (probably
> correctly) that the only way you can reasonably hope to make any money
> on flopped quads is to check both the flop (and turn) and only bet a
> small amount on the end.
He's close to right about maximizing his chances to win something. But that's
not the most profitable, it's not the same as maximizing EV.
I had some other comments but after I wrote it I liked it so much I put it on a
blog.
http://garycarson.blogspot.com/2007/04/super-system.html
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Kenneth Sloan
>
> Maybe it doesn't really matter that much though as flopping quads is
> such a rare event anyway.
BINGO!
--
Kenneth Sloan Kennet...@gmail.com
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
Kenneth Sloan
>
> I had some other comments but after I wrote it I liked it so much I put it on a
> blog.
>
do you find that repeating something makes it more true?
do you find that repeating something makes it more true?
do you find that repeating something makes it more true?
Peg Smith
>> Maybe it doesn't really matter that much though as flopping quads is
>> such a rare event anyway.
>
>BINGO!
But it isn't just that situation where too many players think they
need to slowplay their big hands.
Most of us are playing in low-limit, pretty soft games (both limit and
no-limit). We don't need to be tricky to get the money. The players
we're playing against think they need a big bag of tricks, though, and
they're in love with slowplaying, bluffing, etc., and they think we
are, too. They expect us to slowplay a big hand and giggle in glee
when we bet a big flop because they just know we're on a steal. I
seldom have any trouble finding at least one opponent who *needs* to
keep me honest.
Yes, in a tough game you need to be trickier. But why would you be in
a tough game?
Peg
phlash74
You should be able to see a correlation between the simulated players'
strong bluffs and their tendency to bet strongly with monster hands
like quads. Players who take aggressive action a majority of the time
will get paid off on their monster hands because you can never put
them on that hand (and they're not really losing anything if you fold
to their flopped quads, because they're not getting anything anyways
unless you have a strong second best hand). Nits get a small amount
with their monsters and lose the maximum with TPTK against a weird two
pair or small set. If your computer opponents in the Wilson software
bluff too often, you should concentrate on picking those off and not
trying to figure out when they have quads.
Michael
Texan_2112
"Mark B [Diputsur]" <dipu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46173504$0$18149$25e...@news.inteliport.com...
>
> "philip berretta" <pber...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:RbBRh.5336$YL5...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> New to this site. Anyone have experience with Wilson's Tournament
>> Texas Hold'em? I am a relatively new player and looking for good
>> learning tools.
>
The Sidewinder Sid analysis feature of their limit version can give
you a detailed analysis of your play by a cartoon character with a
disturbingly robotic voice...
Poker Academy has a nicer interface, but the bot tweaking seems more
powerful in the Wilson, PA seems to recommend a looser play pre-flop
than the Wilson.
I downloaded the 'standard' PA online and have never had any issues
keeping it working due to licensing problems.
Free online poker courseware:
There's a decent Java based limit holdem tutorial, 15 or so actually,
at http://www.tilteddonkey.com/LimitHoldem/limitholdem.htm
(I don't think they are officially connected with Full Tilt or
anything like that)
The tutorials have good accompanying text as well.