A group for contestants and lovers of the Channel 4 game show 'Countdown'.
http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/
What day?Matt Morrison wrote:Main Event at 9:30pm again - $5 entry, this time with the same chips (2000) but quicker blinds (3m).
Co-main event at 8:30pm, £2 entry with 1500 chips and 3min blinds.
Preliminary fight at 7:30pm, $1 entry with 1000 chips (maybe? could be 1500, who knows) and 3min blinds.)
Is this today?Matt Morrison wrote:Main Event at 9:30pm again - $5 entry, this time with the same chips (2000) but quicker blinds (3m).
Co-main event at 8:30pm, £2 entry with 1500 chips and 3min blinds.
Preliminary fight at 7:30pm, $1 entry with 1000 chips (maybe? could be 1500, who knows) and 3min blinds.)
I'll probably join in for the main event, if I do the other ones it will ruin the fact I put in enough money to have precisely three $5 tournaments in my account.Matt Morrison wrote:distinct lack of participants with 2 hours to go to the preliminary match!
You talk like it's impossible for you to win any money back! Would you be angry if you won a quantity that wasn't a multiple of $5.50?Michael Wallace wrote:I'll probably join in for the main event, if I do the other ones it will ruin the fact I put in enough money to have precisely three $5 tournaments in my account.Matt Morrison wrote:distinct lack of participants with 2 hours to go to the preliminary match!
With gambling, I always operate on the assumption that I'll lose (so if, e.g., on Paddy I end up with an odd number of pence, then that will get absorbed in my next stake).Matt Morrison wrote:You talk like it's impossible for you to win any money back! Would you be angry if you won a quantity that wasn't a multiple of $5.50?Michael Wallace wrote:I'll probably join in for the main event, if I do the other ones it will ruin the fact I put in enough money to have precisely three $5 tournaments in my account.Matt Morrison wrote:distinct lack of participants with 2 hours to go to the preliminary match!
Course. You'll have to get Jono to confirm your entry to Da Club before you can sign up for any tourneys tho, so don't leave it too late.Nick Wainwright wrote:Is there room for me to join? I could make the 9.30pm game tonight.
Thanks - I've registered now.Matt Morrison wrote:Course. You'll have to get Jono to confirm your entry to Da Club before you can sign up for any tourneys tho, so don't leave it too late.Nick Wainwright wrote:Is there room for me to join? I could make the 9.30pm game tonight.
A reputation for being rigged = commercial suicide. I strongly doubt it. I can't watch that video here, but I'm assuming it's a series of highly improbable cards coming out?Jimmy Gough wrote:Pretty sure Pokerstars is rigged fwiw.
Proof - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66_QqECQ ... re=related
It was that hand I posted above where my AA got cracked by QJ.Ian Volante wrote:A reputation for being rigged = commercial suicide. I strongly doubt it. I can't watch that video here, but I'm assuming it's a series of highly improbable cards coming out?Jimmy Gough wrote:Pretty sure Pokerstars is rigged fwiw.
Proof - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66_QqECQ ... re=related
I think Jimmy was joking, although it's hard to tell with the Interweb in the way.Ian Volante wrote:A reputation for being rigged = commercial suicide. I strongly doubt it. I can't watch that video here, but I'm assuming it's a series of highly improbable cards coming out?Jimmy Gough wrote:Pretty sure Pokerstars is rigged fwiw.
Proof - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66_QqECQ ... re=related
I can't tell if people are being serious in real life, so I've no chance on screen!Charlie Reams wrote:I think Jimmy was joking, although it's hard to tell with the Interweb in the way.Ian Volante wrote:A reputation for being rigged = commercial suicide. I strongly doubt it. I can't watch that video here, but I'm assuming it's a series of highly improbable cards coming out?Jimmy Gough wrote:Pretty sure Pokerstars is rigged fwiw.
Proof - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66_QqECQ ... re=related
I'm all about Liv Boeree..Mark James wrote:I assume everyone got the email about the Pro Bounty Home Game. Are we gonna do this? We have to try get Vicky Coren to join our Home game. That would be sweet.
How does Sunday sound for people? If we get 6 people in small buy-in tournaments for the next few Sundays then we get the best chance of a pro and money!Jon O'Neill wrote:I'm all about Liv Boeree..Mark James wrote:I assume everyone got the email about the Pro Bounty Home Game. Are we gonna do this? We have to try get Vicky Coren to join our Home game. That would be sweet.
Bit silly since needing 6 players total you had three six hours before the event started.Jon O'Neill wrote:Fuck, completely forgot! I think I'll let Matt Morrison organise them in future..
I read the Metro.co.uk video game review section and on the letters pages was someone questioning the appeal of online poker because its fixed. I sent a letter in defending poker sites, particularly PokerStars as that's the one I'm on, and I included my PSN ID at the end of my letter. I then received a message on PSN from someone who had seen my letter saying they cheat on PokerStars all the time. Apparently they use some kind of software. Obviously its not the site itself doing the cheating but I would've thought they'd have a way to detect illegal software being used. Am I wrong?Jimmy Gough wrote:Pretty sure Pokerstars is rigged fwiw.
How would you cheat?Mark James wrote:I read the Metro.co.uk video game review section and on the letters pages was someone questioning the appeal of online poker because its fixed. I sent a letter in defending poker sites, particularly PokerStars as that's the one I'm on, and I included my PSN ID at the end of my letter. I then received a message on PSN from someone who had seen my letter saying they cheat on PokerStars all the time. Apparently they use some kind of software. Obviously its not the site itself doing the cheating but I would've thought they'd have a way to detect illegal software being used. Am I wrong?Jimmy Gough wrote:Pretty sure Pokerstars is rigged fwiw.
They probably mean by using a bot? Botting is one way of cheating, yeah. They have quite sophisticated ways of preventing it on the major sites, PokerStars particularly, but there are probably cases that slip through the net. They don't give out how they do it of course but I imagine any big winner will be looked at more closely by the sites. I think it is a big problem on smaller sites with lower security budgets which don't have an incentive to stoppeople using bots (the bots fill up the tables and make games happen, which pays rake to the site). Chinese Sit 'n' Go bot ring is probably the biggest profile one from PokerStars.Mark James wrote:I read the Metro.co.uk video game review section and on the letters pages was someone questioning the appeal of online poker because its fixed. I sent a letter in defending poker sites, particularly PokerStars as that's the one I'm on, and I included my PSN ID at the end of my letter. I then received a message on PSN from someone who had seen my letter saying they cheat on PokerStars all the time. Apparently they use some kind of software. Obviously its not the site itself doing the cheating but I would've thought they'd have a way to detect illegal software being used. Am I wrong?Jimmy Gough wrote:Pretty sure Pokerstars is rigged fwiw.
- Bots (as above).Charlie Reams wrote:How would you cheat?
PokerStars Security actually visited some guy's house because he passed all their regular bot testing but could play like 100+ tournaments at once. That's dedication.Jon O'Neill wrote:They have quite sophisticated ways of preventing it on the major sites, PokerStars particularly
I was under the impression that bots are pretty bad at poker. Otherwise it's pretty foolish to play for money. You wouldn't play online Scrabble for cash.Jon O'Neill wrote:- Bots (as above).'Charlie Reams wrote:How would you cheat?
Yep, so presumably it's not that.Jon O'Neill wrote:- Collusion with other players - quite easily detectable if it's a large scheme since these players will be on the same tables all the time.
How is that cheating? You might as well say bluffing is cheating.Jon O'Neill wrote:- Multi-accounting (playing on someone else's account against somebody who doesn't know it so you have information about the way they play but they don't about you, giving you an unfair advantage)
- Data-mining (buying hand history files from tracking sites like PTR to get a similar advantage)
Again easily detectable, so it can't be that.- "Superusing" (Being someone in the company who has access to the other person's hole cards and abusing that information to win money) - main example of this being the UltimateBet scandal a few years ago. They tried to sweep it under the carpet but got exposed by the poker community. They're knobs.
He didn't write in to the newspaper, he contacted me privately through the playstation network message system. I suspected the software he said he was using was just information gathering stuff on other players hand history which I personally wouldn't count as cheating. Although he did also mention collusion with his friends, sharing hand information and that.Charlie Reams wrote: How would you cheat?
Edit: I know that sounds trite but you can't just use "some kind of software". It would have to involve a pretty serious attack on the PokerStars site and, given the amount of skill required and money available, I doubt you'd be writing into a newspaper website to boast about it.
In Limit Hold'Em, there is a bot that can beat like 98% of players. There are rake-free heads-up limit hold'em machines in some Vegas casinos, which play very well according to top limit players.Charlie Reams wrote:I was under the impression that bots are pretty bad at poker. Otherwise it's pretty foolish to play for money. You wouldn't play online Scrabble for cash.Jon O'Neill wrote:- Bots (as above).'Charlie Reams wrote:How would you cheat?
I guess this comes down to the definition of cheating. Poker is a game of information. Having information about an opponent that you've gained from bought hand histories could be as useful as knowing one of their hole cards.Charlie Reams wrote:How is that cheating? You might as well say bluffing is cheating.Jon O'Neill wrote:- Multi-accounting (playing on someone else's account against somebody who doesn't know it so you have information about the way they play but they don't about you, giving you an unfair advantage)
- Data-mining (buying hand history files from tracking sites like PTR to get a similar advantage)
Yeah the cheating isn't as obvious as that. Most people who think the deck is "loaded" online are morons.Charlie Reams wrote:Again easily detectable, so it can't be that.- "Superusing" (Being someone in the company who has access to the other person's hole cards and abusing that information to win money) - main example of this being the UltimateBet scandal a few years ago. They tried to sweep it under the carpet but got exposed by the poker community. They're knobs.
I think when people talk about "cheating" they usually mean something like a loaded deck. I've never seen any evidence of that.
Not sure what software would do that, unless he's talking about things like PokerTracker, which track your own Hand Histories. That's not cheating.Mark James wrote:He didn't write in to the newspaper, he contacted me privately through the playstation network message system. I suspected the software he said he was using was just information gathering stuff on other players hand history which I personally wouldn't count as cheating. Although he did also mention collusion with his friends, sharing hand information and that.Charlie Reams wrote: How would you cheat?
Edit: I know that sounds trite but you can't just use "some kind of software". It would have to involve a pretty serious attack on the PokerStars site and, given the amount of skill required and money available, I doubt you'd be writing into a newspaper website to boast about it.
It uses their own data-mined hands:Mark James wrote:Just re-read the message he sent, he said he uses pokeredge 5. It is indeed tracking software.
So it is "cheating". Also I think this is botting and wouldn't be allowed on PokerStars:"Billions of Hands
Instant power. No need to purchase hands and wait around importing them."
So that's "cheating" too. I guess what I mean by "cheating" is just what has come to be accepted in the community as cheating, and therefore what is in the sites' Terms and Conditions. PokerTracker is perfectly legal, PokerEdge is not, and that's just the way it is. Multi-accounting was commonplace in 2005 but over time became considered unethical and ultimately was explicitly banned in the Terms and Conditions. But now that it is, to undertake such activities is definitely cheating."Notifications
Receive custom alerts, such as a good blind steal opportunity. Perfect for multi-tabling!"
It didn't play like other machines he'd played, which is exactly what you'd expect given that it wasn't like other machines. And it is nebulous because there's no way you can ever prove or disprove it, so he was just casting aspersions.David O'Donnell wrote:His claims weren't nebulous: in several instances the machine did not play like a machine: he had a valid argument.
What does this mean?David O'Donnell wrote:It instructs you to use it to open your client software so the site cannot identify that you are using proscribed software yet still tries to cling to claims of being ethical.
Computer chess has come such a long way that Deep Blue, which is effectively a brute force calculator, must be regarded as a relic. The computer played a few moves which displayed a sense of horizon rather than using actual calculation. For instance say I sacrifice a pawn in a difficult position because I know there will result a series of exchanges that will result in an opposite colour bishop ending where I am one (even two) pawns down. Now, most computers will still accept the material because it seems so overwhelming but a human player will understand the resultant ending is drawn without calculation. Deep Blue displayed this human sense in a few moves. Kasparov wanted to put the moves played through the computer to see what it suggested, in the presence of an independent adjudicator, but the Deep Blue team did not acquiesce.Charlie Reams wrote:
It didn't play like other machines he'd played, which is exactly what you'd expect given that it wasn't like other machines. And it is nebulous because there's no way you can ever prove or disprove it, so he was just casting aspersions.
David O'Donnell wrote: It instructs you to use it to open your client software so the site cannot identify that you are using proscribed software yet still tries to cling to claims of being ethical.
Not very clear. Most poker sites are designed to detect users who have HUDs. In order to fool the sites these products recommend you open their software first and use it to open your poker site. You'll understand better than me how that can sidestep whatever defences the poker sites possess.These poker products are marketed as training aids yet they deliberately try to undermine the security of the site where you play.Charlie Reams wrote: What does this mean?