two year anniversary

[Mandraktophiles]

of logging into PokerStars. I find $ 35.19 in my account
and have it transferred to my checking. I like this kind
of thing.
--
This time we will get them all.

[Ken Johnson]

Op donderdag 10 januari 2013 18:45:31 UTC+1 schreef Mandraktophiles het volgende:

> of logging into PokerStars. I find $ 35.19 in my account
> and have it transferred to my checking. I like this kind
> of thing.

I understand that the curious feature of poker is that, although it is easy to express the rules of poker in a computer language, nobody has ever written a computer program that plays a good game of poker. So I have to ask myself, "What is the point of it?"

Ken Johnson
...the policeman's flush is half constructed

[Mandraktophiles]

People do not like games where the computer is too good.
Take Othello aka Reversi for example. I do not think
there is a person on Earth who can beat a good Reversi
program playing it straight up. One of the number one
features that make a good poker players is surprise.
So, I contend that if you take all of the poker programs
that have ever been designed and randomize their
algorithms, there would be a challenge to a skilled
poker player. The problem I see with computer poker,
having spent some time with Strip Poker software upon an
occasion, is that they follow patterns too predictably.
Randomization could help with this. All of the poker
software I played against was Limit Poker, which means
there are basically three positions to take on every
decision. I would surmise that it is more difficult to
design a No Limit Poker player, because there are
thousands of possible decisions each time.

I don't put much faith in Poker Afficionado stances that
computer programs playing good poker are impossible.
First, that's exactly the same thing Kasparov said
about chess and he ended up being the loser. Second, I
haven't seen anyone really try. Third, there is a
conflict of interest [1] because they want to promote
their top players; if a computer program could do what
they do and be in every household, they feel it would
cheapen their guys.

I am not convinced about the third. They are just thugs
who cannot foresee effects of software. I cannot bring
myself to play against computer chess programs, because
they completely eliminate the delightful fun of
trickery in the game. Perhaps not entirely. Some
trickery may work, but it is of an artifact nature.

--
This time we will get them all.

[1] Rule 10X712.342a) All apparent conflicts of interest must be
addressed in the agreement. All parties must be convinced that the
conflict of interest is resolved in a neutral manner.

[Nikolai Kingsley]

> So I have to ask myself, "What is the point of it?"
>

it's a substitute for primate conflict. it tends to favor those who can
read the expressions of the other players, which makes the online
versions a little redundant, unless it's done over skype.

--
"I got five aces. WHAT YOU GOT, SUCKAH?"

"*I've* got *six* aces."

[Mandraktophiles]

On 1/10/2013 4:31 PM, Nikolai Kingsley wrote:
>
>> So I have to ask myself, "What is the point of it?"
>>
>
>
>
> it's a substitute for primate conflict. it tends to favor those who can
> read the expressions of the other players, which makes the online
> versions a little redundant, unless it's done over skype.
>

My friend who used to lose a lot had the same feeling.
There actually are quite a few tells from faceless poker.
Delay time, raise patterns, expectations that in a
cheap tournament everyone is going to raise heavily in
the beginning even if they don't really have much of a
hand. I found that I was able to do quite well, but I
suspected the sites of cheating. This has been borne
out by illegal gambling charges which the top sites were
convicted of.

How can I detect cheating in a random game?

One of the most common indications that I viewed was
while playing hold em poker. In this game, each player
has two cards down that only they know. Five cards
are laid face up in the center, turned up slowly,
suspensefully. Often there were raise-fests that came
down to the last card. The final fifth card did not
help me at all but would put a nice hand for the
opponent who had raised a great deal. Why would they
raise so much not having a complete hand? This
happened frequently enough that I felt quite
suspicious. This is a pattern that seems coincidental
with designed hands and lays. That is, cards that were
picked out by a human to maximize profit. It promotes
heavy raising right up until a win and gets a win for
a lackey. Their bets exhibited an over-confidence not
in line with the cards that they could see.

[nikolai kingsley]

>
> There actually are quite a few tells from faceless poker.
> Delay time, raise patterns, expectations that in a
> cheap tournament everyone is going to raise heavily in
> the beginning even if they don't really have much of a
> hand.

assuming delay time is how long the player takes to make their play, how do you differentiate delay time from lag?

> I found that I was able to do quite well, but I
> suspected the sites of cheating.

*mock horror* no! weeaally? what is the world coming to?

> How can I detect cheating in a random game?
>

the domain name ends in .ru

[Mandraktophiles]

On 1/10/2013 7:28 PM, nikolai kingsley wrote:
>
>>
>> There actually are quite a few tells from faceless poker.
>> Delay time, raise patterns, expectations that in a
>> cheap tournament everyone is going to raise heavily in
>> the beginning even if they don't really have much of a
>> hand.
>
>
> assuming delay time is how long the player takes to make their play, how do you differentiate delay time from lag?
>

Nevermind that because it is difficult to explain. I
will tell you a tactic that worked well for me, though.
Introducing false delay to make my hand appear weak
was a sure-fire winner. I would delay maybe till my
bar turned yellow and then act, and without fail the
fish would bite.

[nikolai kingsley]

> Introducing false delay to make my hand appear weak
> was a sure-fire winner. I would delay maybe till my
> bar turned yellow and then act, and without fail the
> fish would bite.

live fish or resident bot-fish? if it was the latter, and they noticed their revenues dropping off, they'd get their in-house coder to tweak it.

[Mandraktophiles]

If it is so obvious to you that they would cheat, why
wasn't it obvious to me?

[Nikolai Kingsley]

>>> Introducing false delay to make my hand appear weak
>>> was a sure-fire winner. I would delay maybe till my
>>> bar turned yellow and then act, and without fail the
>>> fish would bite.
>>
>> live fish or resident bot-fish? if it was the latter, and they noticed
>> their revenues dropping off, they'd get their in-house coder to tweak it.
>
> If it is so obvious to you that they would cheat, why
> wasn't it obvious to me?

what you describe sounds to me like the behavior of bots, but it's
possible that anyone who thinks they can get cured playing online poker
might have the same lack of scope.

[euclid]

On Jan 11, 4:27 am, Nikolai Kingsley <shera...@netspace.net.au> wrote:

> what you describe sounds to me like the behavior of bots, but it's
> possible that anyone who thinks they can get cured playing online poker
> might have the same lack of scope.

It seems to me that the whole point of poker is to read the other
players' body english and bid appropriately. So sitting in a virtual
room where it's impossible to see the other person fidget or smirk is
rather pointless.

euclid
"A host is a host
From coast to coast
But nobody talks to
A host that is close
Unless the host
That isn't close
Is busy, hung, or dead."

Name that tune.

[Mandraktophiles]

I once got 1st place in a tournament out of 90 players,
so I disagree with you. There is still a card game.
I think you are just trying to make me fidget or smirk
because I already answered this once before.

[Nikolai Kingsley]

> It seems to me that the whole point of poker is to read the other
> players' body english and bid appropriately. So sitting in a virtual
> room where it's impossible to see the other person fidget or smirk is
> rather pointless.

unless they all have icons or avatars that can simulate emotions, and
nobody's going to click on the button that says "involuntarily raise
your eyebrows in surprise, then try to cover it up".

> "A host is a host
> From coast to coast
> But nobody talks to
> A host that is close
> Unless the host
> That isn't close
> Is busy, hung, or dead."
>
> Name that tune.

is it by Severed Heads, from the album "Come Visit the Big Bigot"? i
could probably tell if i didn't have Gary Numan's "Jagged" album
blasting into my earholes.

[elsie]

euclid writes --

> "A host is a host
> From coast to coast
> But nobody talks to
> A host that is close
> Unless the host
> That isn't close
> Is busy, hung, or dead."
>
> Name that tune.

It's the theme from 'Mister Ed', written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans.

In other news, consider the following facts:

1. Jay Livingston was head of A & R at Capitol Records (and his younger brother Alan was Capitol's president) when the Beatles began recording at EMI (which owned Capitol).

2. Jay turned down 'Please Please Me', 'From Me to You', and 'She loves you.'.

3. Brian Epstein played 'I want to hold your hand.' to Alan, who then overrode Jay's judgement.

4. Livingston / Evans had written a song entitled 'Sexy Sadie' during the fifties.

5. Livingston / Evans wrote another song called 'The Beatles Show' in the mid-60s which mocked The Beatles.

love,
Elsie

in my tree

[Nikolai Kingsley]

>> "A host is a host
>> From coast to coast
>> But nobody talks to
>> A host that is close
>> Unless the host
>> That isn't close
>> Is busy, hung, or dead."
>>
>> Name that tune.
>
> It's the theme from 'Mister Ed', written by Jay Livingston and Ray Evans.

okay. i can see i was wrong, but i stand by my wrongness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKHI6kCSHDM

[Ken Johnson]

Am Samstag, 12. Januar 2013 04:18:07 UTC schrieb elsie:

> 1. Jay Livingston was head of A & R at Capitol Records (and his younger
> brother Alan was Capitol's president) when the Beatles began recording at EMI
>(which owned Capitol).

The Beatles began recording with Parlophone, a small record company which specialised in comic songs and had made records of songs by Bernard Cribbins, The Temperance Seven and Peter Sellars. By the time Parlophone engaged them, every big record company had turned them down.

Ken Johnson

[elsie]

Ken Johnson writes --

> The Beatles began recording with Parlophone ..

Parlophone was also owned by EMI, was it not?

[Nikolai Kingsley]

>> The Beatles began recording with Parlophone ..
>
> Parlophone was also owned by EMI, was it not?

And EMI was owned by Yoyodyne, inc.

--
a subsidiary of X Industries

[elsie]

Nikolai writes --

> > > The Beatles began recording with Parlophone ..
>
> > Parlophone was also owned by EMI, was it not?
>
> And EMI was owned by Yoyodyne, inc.
>

> a subsidiary of X Industries

Yes, indeed, making the world safe for technology.

The point is that Livingston / Evans were -not-
making the world safe for technology. No, rather
they were threatening both technology and the
world with their treacly, sickening sweet song
confections. Listen to their music, I dare you!
See if your head doesn't explode. Bob Hope on
'Buttons and Bows'; Doris Day on 'Que será, será';
Debbie Reynolds on 'Tammy'; any number of singers
on 'Silver Bells'. -Besides- all those TV themes.
-- And then they tried to squelch the Beatles, not
once but three times!

It's a plot, I tell you. Those guys were trying
to destroy the world. If it weren't for X industries,
we'd all be living in a kind of Pottersville, walking
around in trances, eyes glazed over, silly grins on
our faces humming some mind-numbing song over and over ..

wait .. Who wrote 'Gangnam Style'?

[nikolai kingsley]

> wait .. Who wrote 'Gangnam Style'?
>

the unacknowledged bastard clone of Skrillex and Deadmau5.