WSOP.com does not allow remote control software

[ramashiva]

If you are running any remote control software on your computer, WSOP.com will not let you play. Brewmaster suggested running the poker client in a virtual machine. That might work, I don't know.

See this 2+2 thread for details --

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/220/wsop-com/remote-control-software-trouble-validating-location-1392830/


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[brewmaster]

I only read a little of the thread, but it sounds like the issue is that
if you have any citrix or vnc or other remote control software on your
machine it will block you from playing. If you were to set up a VM and
NOT install any citrix or vnc server inside the VM it will probably work,
especially if you aren't getting the IP on the VM through NAT. It may not
work if the VM doesn't have its own assigned IP though. The poker client
would have no way to look outside the VM at the host machine, unless you
have host directories shared on the VM.

[ramashiva]

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:13:12 AM UTC-8, brewmaster wrote:

> especially if you aren't getting the IP on the VM through NAT.

What's scary is that I actually understand what you are talking about. Sort of.

Is there no trace at all of a VM inside a VM?

Here's a Wikipedia article on NAT for those of you who don't understand what is being discussed --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation

What is the relevance of this to playing on WSOP.com? WSOP.com attempts to determine whether you are in the state of Nevada by using cell phone towers to triangulate the location of your cell phone, and by using reverse IP lookup to determine the location of your computer. These two procedures are called geo-location.

It should be possible to circumvent the phone geo-location measures by having a friend in Nevada plug in your cell phone for charging and leave it on.

It may be possible to run the poker client in a VM on a computer with a Nevada IP address and use remote desktop software to control the Nevada computer.

By the way, you are not dealing with an online poker room in some third world shithole. This discussion is purely for educational purposes.

If you get caught using or facilitating such a scheme, the Nevada Gaming Control Board would likely file felony charges against you.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[brewmaster]

On Nov 27 2013 11:35 AM, ramashiva wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 10:13:12 AM UTC-8, brewmaster wrote:
>
> > especially if you aren't getting the IP on the VM through NAT.
>
> What's scary is that I actually understand what you are talking about. Sort
of.
>
> Is there no trace at all of a VM inside a VM?
>
> Here's a Wikipedia article on NAT for those of you who don't understand what
is being discussed --
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation
>
> What is the relevance of this to playing on WSOP.com? WSOP.com attempts to
determine whether you
> are in the state of Nevada by using cell phone towers to triangulate the
location of your cell
> phone, and by using reverse IP lookup to determine the location of your
computer. These two
> procedures are called geo-location.
>
> It should be possible to circumvent the phone geo-location measures by
having a friend in Nevada

> plug in your cell phone for charging and leave it on..

>
> It may be possible to run the poker client in a VM on a computer with a
Nevada IP address and use
> remote desktop software to control the Nevada computer.
>
> By the way, you are not dealing with an online poker room in some third
world shithole. This
> discussion is purely for educational purposes.
>
> If you get caught using or facilitating such a scheme, the Nevada Gaming
Control Board would likely
> file felony charges against you.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

The reason I say it would be better not to use NAT to provide the IP of
the VM is that externally it will still look like you are coming from the
host machine, but if you set the VM to obtain its own IP through DHCP from
your router it will have its own (for example the host machine might be
192.168.1.5 and the VM 192.168.1.6...if you are using NAT the VM would
look externally like it has 192.168.1.5 also...note this is different from
using NAT on your entire home network, which most everybody is). Now, the
other thing is if you run a VM and install something like a VNC server on
it, the WSOP software will see that you are running remote control
software on the client, and block you. However, if you run the VNC server
on the host machine and the VM in a sandboxed window of its own, when you
run the WSOP software in the VM they will not see any remote control
software running. What you would do then is connect through VNC (or other
remote control software) to the host machine, and you would see the full
screen of THAT machine, and on that screen you would see the screen of the
VM in a window, and you'd be able to control it without the fact that you
are doing the remote control visible to the WSOP software.

I hope that makes sense. As far as the cell phone, it seems that it would
make sense to buy a cheapie prepaid and leave it with a friend in Vegas to
verify location.

[ramashiva]

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 11:58:57 AM UTC-8, brewmaster wrote:

> The reason I say it would be better not to use NAT to provide the IP of
> the VM is that externally it will still look like you are coming from the
> host machine, but if you set the VM to obtain its own IP through DHCP from
> your router it will have its own (for example the host machine might be
> 192.168.1.5 and the VM 192.168.1.6...if you are using NAT the VM would
> look externally like it has 192.168.1.5 also...note this is different from
> using NAT on your entire home network, which most everybody is). Now, the
> other thing is if you run a VM and install something like a VNC server on
> it, the WSOP software will see that you are running remote control
> software on the client, and block you. However, if you run the VNC server
> on the host machine and the VM in a sandboxed window of its own, when you
> run the WSOP software in the VM they will not see any remote control
> software running. What you would do then is connect through VNC (or other
> remote control software) to the host machine, and you would see the full
> screen of THAT machine, and on that screen you would see the screen of the
> VM in a window, and you'd be able to control it without the fact that you
> are doing the remote control visible to the WSOP software.

I wonder what would happen if you used a different network connection for the host, or didn't configure any network connection at all for the host. Then configure the network connection for playing poker inside the VM.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[brewmaster]

I would think that if the IP for the VM is different from the IP of the
host it would work. If you have two different ISPs (e.g. Time-Warner and
DSL both active) that you could configure the VM to be on a different one
than the host, I would think there would be no way for them to detect that
(just make sure you run the poker sw on the vm and the remote control sw
on the host).

>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Bill Vanek]

But what does all this get you, besides tax headaches? And didn't
someone say that the NV sites are dead?

[ramashiva]

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 4:08:31 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:

> But what does all this get you, besides tax headaches?

A lot of poker players already pay income tax on their poker winnings. I haven't previously, but I certainly plan to pay taxes on my Caesars winnings. There's no 1099 unless you win more than $600 in a freeroll or $5000 in a tournament with an entry fee. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if Caesars gives the IRS information about each players net poker winnings.

What do you get in return? Well, you get the peace of mind of knowing that your money is as safe as if you deposited it at a Caesars property cashier cage. You get fast, secure withdrawals and deposits to and from your checking account. And Caesars is promising to soon have the ability to deposit and withdraw at any Caesars property cashier.

> And didn't someone say that the NV sites are dead?

Yes, someone who hasn't actually looked recently. Last night, a weeknight, there were the following full-ring NL games --

4 10¢/20¢
4 25¢/50¢
1 50¢/$1
1 $1/$2
1 $5/$10

There were a lot more 6-max games, but I have no interest in them, so I didn't count them.

There's also quite a bit of tournament action, but most of it is 6-max, turbos, superturbos, and/or rebuys/addon. There's also quite a bit of SNG action, in which I have no interest. For someone like me, who likes full-ring MTT freezeouts, there's not much.

There's a nightly $16.50 ($15+$1.50) Midnight Mayhem which usually has about 30 players. There's usually several daily $5.50 MTT and an occasional $11 MTT with similar participation. On Sunday, there's a $215 15K Guaranteed MTT.

So there's not a lot of cash game action, but for someone like me who wants to grind micro stakes NL, there's usually at least one 10¢/20¢ and one 25¢/50¢ full-ring game available 24/7. The max buyins for these games are $20 and $50, respectively. If you use the rule of thumb that you need 20 max buyins to play at a given level, then the recommended bankrolls to play these games is $400 and $1000. That fits my current playing bankroll perfectly.

Caesars is advertising on TV and with billboards, so the player pool has grown noticeably and will probably continue to grow, especially when they clear the regulatory hurdles to combine the Nevada and New Jersey player pools. As each state legalizes online poker, look for Caesars to expand WSOP.com into that state.

Everyone has been clamoring for legal online poker for years. Unless major players like PokerStars are allowed back into the U.S. market, this is what the future of legal online poker will look like.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Bill Vanek]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 18:35:57 -0800 (PST), ramashiva
<ramas...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 4:08:31 PM UTC-8, Bill Vanek wrote:
>
>> But what does all this get you, besides tax headaches?
>
>A lot of poker players already pay income tax on their poker winnings. I haven't previously, but I certainly plan to pay taxes on my Caesars winnings. There's no 1099 unless you win more than $600 in a freeroll or $5000 in a tournament with an entry fee. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if Caesars gives the IRS information about each players net poker winnings.

I have to think that's going to keep a lot of players, at all levels,
away. It'll be interesting to watch it grow, or not.