I think implying that Sky Poker players operate on a higher moral compass to players on other sites is unjustifiable and most likely not true. I'm assuming your reasining is Tikay that sky maybe have a higher recreational:pro ratio and you think recs will be less likely to steal. I actually think recreationals are more likely to steal blinds due to a) not knowing poker etiquette b) less likely to be active forum member and therefore don't know anyone and c) the money probably means more to them than a pro. I do think Sky Poker forum regulars are more likely not to steal the blinds, especially if playing another forum regular, due to the community aspect. But, as we know, the vast majority of Sky Poker players have never even been on the forum, so I can't see how the figure can be anything higher than 5%.
If we're talking about forum reg vs forum reg, then I think we could see that figure rise to the dizzying heights of 50% due to the fact people are less likely to "take" from their friends since they know full well that they'll know it happened, and most people, rightly or wrongly, operate on a different moral compass when facing this kind of situation with a friend rather than a random. They don't want to upset their friends feelings and have it told to them that that wasn't fair, whereas vs a random they might think they can just get away with it.
regarding the actual situation, I think it's such a grey area that I wouldn't mind if it happened to me at all.
How long is villain supposed to wait for you?
Is he supposed to wait forever and take a flip situation?
What happens if stacks are close and villain doesn't steal the blinds, and Lyonsbob ends up winning the tournament. Surely Lyons should then be obliged to send villain half of the extra money? Sky Poker don't allow transfers so that'd be difficult.
I think implying that Sky Poker players operate on a higher moral compass to players on other sites is unjustifiable and most likely not true. I do think Sky Poker forum regulars are more likely not to steal the blinds, especially if playing another forum regular, due to the community aspect. But, as we know, the vast majority of Sky Poker players have never even been on the forum, so I can't see how the figure can be anything higher than 5%. If we're talking about forum reg vs forum reg, then I think we could see that figure rise to the dizzying heights of 50% due to the fact people are less likely to "take" from their friends since they know full well that they'll know it happened, and most people, rightly or wrongly, operate on a different moral compass when facing this kind of situation with a friend rather than a random. They don't want to upset their friends feelings and have it told to them that that wasn't fair, whereas vs a random they might think they can just get away with it. regarding the actual situation, I think it's such a grey area that I wouldn't mind if it happened to me at all. How long is villain supposed to wait for you? Is he supposed to wait forever and take a flip situation? What happens if stacks are close and villain doesn't steal the blinds, and Lyonsbob ends up winning the tournament. Surely Lyons should then be obliged to send villain half of the extra money? Sky Poker don't allow transfers so that'd be difficult. Posted by percival09
You may be right, but I disagree.
I can't begin to have it that the hardcore sorts on, say, PokerStars, with their seating scripts, HUD's & assorted third party software operate on an identical moral compass to players on what still is a recreationally dominated site.
All IMO, of course. We are talking degrees, of course, nobody knows, but I'd bet good money that 1% was a very long way out indeed. I tend to see the best in people, it's a default setting, whereas the more cynical see the downsides easier.
Incidentally, as to the OP, I do feel for him, of course I do, but for balance (fancy a poker player seeing things in a balanced way, eh?) the other guy never broke any rules & I'm certainly not condemning him at all. I'd not do it, not in a million years, but it's just a personal choice.
HUDs and Scripts are available to every poker player on the market.
HUDs provide minimal advantage over a recreational player due the fact that it's only effective after thousands of hands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of hands, and vs a recreational you'll rarely get over 1,000 hands. I think people who don't really know about HUDs, or who haven't used HUDs, often exaggerate this issue. HUDs are used primarily against other regulars, and I guarentee if huds were allowed on Sky and one regular bought one, then every other regular would follow. I don't think it's a moral issue. I also think it's worth nothing that this isn't just a pro thing, plenty of recreationals also use HUDS. I used one when I was playing for fun, and I know many others do too.
It's the same kind of thing with scripts, if 15 of the 20 regulars on NL400 are using scripts, then it's going to be close to impossible for the other 5 regulars to even get a seat in most games that run. So, what can they do? Get a script.
The majority of poker players who use HUDs and scripts would not even care if they got banned, in fact I know a lot want it to happen. The problem arises when 1 person is using them to gain an advantage, then another will use it, and another etc.
I don't think HUDs and scripts should even be held in same bracket since they're completely different things. HUD for the reasons above, i.e. not being effective vs recreationals. Scripts are predatory and make recreationals feel preyed on and they lose their money slightly quicker due to regulars getting an instant seat. However, it would be a mistake to think there would be a big effect if they were indeed banned. Regulars will quickly join the game when a fish sits script or not, perhaps 4-5 seconds slower.
there isn't really any other third party software that's permitted to be open at the same time as Pokerstars - they are used for off the table studying. Again, open to anyone.
edit, realise I went on a bit of a rant there. I'm getting at your point about huds and scripts, believe it or not, and saying the exact same thing would happen on ANY site that would allow it. Just because pokerstars regulars use them, doesn't mean they're immoral - it simply means it's the only way they can do their job. and for my reasons listed in post 1, I think a recreational would be more likely to take the blinds, even more than a script using hud using 3rd party software using awful regular.
HUDs and Scripts are available to every poker player on the market. HUDs provide minimal advantage over a recreational player due the fact that it's only effective after thousands of hands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of hands, and vs a recreational you'll rarely get over 1,000 hands. I think people who don't really know about HUDs, or who haven't used HUDs, often exaggerate this issue. HUDs are used primarily against other regulars, and I guarentee if huds were allowed on Sky and one regular bought one, then every other regular would follow. I don't think it's a moral issue. I also think it's worth nothing that this isn't just a pro thing, plenty of recreationals also use HUDS. I used one when I was playing for fun, and I know many others do too. It's the same kind of thing with scripts, if 15 of the 20 regulars on NL400 are using scripts, then it's going to be close to impossible for the other 5 regulars to even get a seat in most games that run. So, what can they do? Get a script. The majority of poker players who use HUDs and scripts would not even care if they got banned, in fact I know a lot want it to happen. The problem arises when 1 person is using them to gain an advantage, then another will use it, and another etc. I don't think HUDs and scripts should even be held in same bracket since they're completely different things. HUD for the reasons above, i.e. not being effective vs recreationals. Scripts are predatory and make recreationals feel preyed on and they lose their money slightly quicker due to regulars getting an instant seat. However, it would be a mistake to think it would be a big effect to ban them. Regulars will quickly join the game when a fish sits script or not, perhaps 4-5 seconds slower. there isn't really any other third party software that's permitted to be open at the same time as Pokerstars - they are used for off the table studying. Again, open to anyone. Posted by percival09
Ha, I'm fully au fait with the pros & cons of third party software, seating scripts & HUD's Percy, (& all of the 133 Third Party Software aids permitted on 'Stars) & I 100% understand their functions, & that players perceptions are not all accurate. I even know the difference between HUD's & seating scripts.....
I believe my point remains valid. Anyway, let's not argue, it's impossible to prove either way.
made an edit - realised I went on a rant about software Posted by percival09
Ha, yes you did. I appreciated the sermon though......
With respect, we are talking apples & pears.
Yes yes yes, if all those artificial aids were allowed on other sites, lots of players would use them, & it would NOT make those players any less "moral". It WOULD, however, mean they were operating on a different moral compass.
and how would it differ? How does the use of huds and scripts make a regular on pokerstars more likely to "steal"? You say you've made a valid point, but I'm yet to even see a point Posted by percival09
You may not see the point, but that does not mean it is invalid.
I remain wedded to the view that to suggest 99% of the players on Sky Poker would take advantage of an away player in that scenario is incorrect.
no, I can't. I have asked you to explain it but to no avail. Anyway, thanks for the GL message, good luck to you too if you decide to play some more. Posted by percival09
I can't play on Sky Poker at present, as I'm in Punta Cana, but I'll be back next Tuesday & it will be business as usual, I love poker too much not to play regularly.
I played some PLO cash here, yikes, what a game that was.
In Response to Re: Gutted with the Etiquette shown Heads up in the UKOPS 5 Main evenT : You may be right, but I disagree. I can't begin to have it that the hardcore sorts on, say, PokerStars, with their seating scripts, HUD's & assorted third party software operate on an identical moral compass to players on what still is a recreationally dominated site. All IMO, of course. We are talking degrees, of course, nobody knows, but I'd bet good money that 1% was a very long way out indeed. I tend to see the best in people, it's a default setting, whereas the more cynical see the downsides easier. Incidentally, as to the OP, I do feel for him, of course I do, but for balance (fancy a poker player seeing things in a balanced way, eh?) the other guy never broke any rules & I'm certainly not condemning him at all. I'd not do it, not in a million years, but it's just a personal choice. Posted by Tikay10
it's refreshing to hear a sky representative talk like this about poker sofeware that basically cheats recreational players, yes recs can get the same sofeware but not all of them are aware of it, have a limited bank roll so can't afford it, do not feel they play enough to have it.
I disagree with percival if u need 1000s of hands on someone u are using it wrong, a pro massing mtt's with a hud might come across a rec 2-3 times a mouth all that pro needs is 100 plus hands to make a basic assumption eg if someone opens 1/10 btns vs someone who opens 5/10 btn's are u going to play the same in the blinds? yes it's not conclusive after just 10 btn hands but u get a far more likly idea of their ranges which unless that pro had a memory like doyle brunson they would have zero information on a rec player(unless a hand of significance came up and they noted it, noting how a player plays is odviously ok as it's there for everyone to use straight away it's not a hidden cost)
No, it's not "basically cheating" because it's not against terms and conditions, the software isn't banned by Pokerstars and it's available to every single one of their customers. Correct, not everyone is aware of it, just like some people aren't aware of 3rd party software that can be purchased for studying purposes off the table. Is that cheating too? No. I could get offended at being called a cheat when I'm not, but since you maybe exaggerated a little, I'll forgive you
For what it's worth, like I've mentioned so many times, I would prefer it if huds were banned because they're not needed. If they were banned then it'd show people that players who are very good players do not need a hud at all, they will still be very good players without a hud and a recreationals money will go just as quickly. It sounds harsh, but it's true, and I'm not here to make recreationals falsely feel better about things - a good pro has a SIGNIFICANT advantage vs you with or without in-game software.
Regarding the second part of your post, do you realise how many stats are available in a HUD? Hundreds. You named one. Yes, the one you named doesn't take that long for the stats to converge, which means perhaps even <100 hands could be sufficient. However, the vast majority of stats DO require thousands of hands to converge meaning they're not effective vs recreationals, unless they play many many hours/week. If they do play many hours/week, then I'd say it's much more likely that they use a hud themselves. Like I said in one of my previous posts, using a hud isn't just a thing that pro's use. PLENTY of recreationals also use them too.
No, it's not "basically cheating" because it's not against terms and conditions, the software isn't banned by Pokerstars and it's available to every single one of their customers. Correct, not everyone is aware of it, just like some people aren't aware of 3rd party software that can be purchased for studying purposes off the table. Is that cheating too? No. I could get offended at being called a cheat when I'm not, but since you maybe exaggerated a little, I'll forgive you For what it's worth, like I've mentioned so many times, I would prefer it if huds were banned because they're not needed. If they were banned then it'd show people that players who are very good players do not need a hud at all, they will still be very good players without a hud and a recreationals money will go just as quickly. It sounds harsh, but it's true, and I'm not here to make recreationals falsely feel better about things - a good pro has a SIGNIFICANT advantage vs you with or without in-game software. Regarding the second part of your post, do you realise how many stats are available in a HUD? Hundreds. You named one. Yes, the one you named doesn't take that long for the stats to converge, which means perhaps even <100 hands could be sufficient. However, the vast majority of stats DO require thousands of hands to converge meaning they're not effective vs recreationals, unless they play many many hours/week. If they do play many hours/week, then I'd say it's much more likely that they use a hud themselves. Like I said in one of my previous posts, using a hud isn't just a thing that pro's use. PLENTY of recreationals also use them too. Posted by percival09
i agree with most of what u have said here of cause a pro who stops using a hud will still beat a rec over time it will just take a longer time which will vary in length.
getting back to the topic of this post i mentioned HUD's as i saw it mentioned in this post and i actually thought at the time is there really any differants to this scenario compaired to someone gaining a advantage from using a hud on other sites, both are within the rules ( u was right percival i was harsh to call it cheating)
My question to OP is u are clearly a good solid player so i imagine u might play on stars at times do u use a HUD there? if so what is the real differants between that and what happened to u ? (ps i do not have a personal problem with u i have always thought u a nice pleasent person when i been on your table i am just very cynical about stuff like this in the poker world)
Comments
If we're talking about forum reg vs forum reg, then I think we could see that figure rise to the dizzying heights of 50% due to the fact people are less likely to "take" from their friends since they know full well that they'll know it happened, and most people, rightly or wrongly, operate on a different moral compass when facing this kind of situation with a friend rather than a random. They don't want to upset their friends feelings and have it told to them that that wasn't fair, whereas vs a random they might think they can just get away with it.
regarding the actual situation, I think it's such a grey area that I wouldn't mind if it happened to me at all.
How long is villain supposed to wait for you?
Is he supposed to wait forever and take a flip situation?
What happens if stacks are close and villain doesn't steal the blinds, and Lyonsbob ends up winning the tournament. Surely Lyons should then be obliged to send villain half of the extra money? Sky Poker don't allow transfers so that'd be difficult.
I can't begin to have it that the hardcore sorts on, say, PokerStars, with their seating scripts, HUD's & assorted third party software operate on an identical moral compass to players on what still is a recreationally dominated site.
All IMO, of course. We are talking degrees, of course, nobody knows, but I'd bet good money that 1% was a very long way out indeed. I tend to see the best in people, it's a default setting, whereas the more cynical see the downsides easier.
Incidentally, as to the OP, I do feel for him, of course I do, but for balance (fancy a poker player seeing things in a balanced way, eh?) the other guy never broke any rules & I'm certainly not condemning him at all. I'd not do it, not in a million years, but it's just a personal choice.
HUDs provide minimal advantage over a recreational player due the fact that it's only effective after thousands of hands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of hands, and vs a recreational you'll rarely get over 1,000 hands. I think people who don't really know about HUDs, or who haven't used HUDs, often exaggerate this issue. HUDs are used primarily against other regulars, and I guarentee if huds were allowed on Sky and one regular bought one, then every other regular would follow. I don't think it's a moral issue. I also think it's worth nothing that this isn't just a pro thing, plenty of recreationals also use HUDS. I used one when I was playing for fun, and I know many others do too.
It's the same kind of thing with scripts, if 15 of the 20 regulars on NL400 are using scripts, then it's going to be close to impossible for the other 5 regulars to even get a seat in most games that run. So, what can they do? Get a script.
The majority of poker players who use HUDs and scripts would not even care if they got banned, in fact I know a lot want it to happen. The problem arises when 1 person is using them to gain an advantage, then another will use it, and another etc.
I don't think HUDs and scripts should even be held in same bracket since they're completely different things. HUD for the reasons above, i.e. not being effective vs recreationals. Scripts are predatory and make recreationals feel preyed on and they lose their money slightly quicker due to regulars getting an instant seat. However, it would be a mistake to think there would be a big effect if they were indeed banned. Regulars will quickly join the game when a fish sits script or not, perhaps 4-5 seconds slower.
there isn't really any other third party software that's permitted to be open at the same time as Pokerstars - they are used for off the table studying. Again, open to anyone.
edit, realise I went on a bit of a rant there. I'm getting at your point about huds and scripts, believe it or not, and saying the exact same thing would happen on ANY site that would allow it. Just because pokerstars regulars use them, doesn't mean they're immoral - it simply means it's the only way they can do their job. and for my reasons listed in post 1, I think a recreational would be more likely to take the blinds, even more than a script using hud using 3rd party software using awful regular.
I believe my point remains valid. Anyway, let's not argue, it's impossible to prove either way.
Hope you have a good UKOPS.
With respect, we are talking apples & pears.
Yes yes yes, if all those artificial aids were allowed on other sites, lots of players would use them, & it would NOT make those players any less "moral". It WOULD, however, mean they were operating on a different moral compass.
You say you've made a valid point, but I'm yet to even see a point
I remain wedded to the view that to suggest 99% of the players on Sky Poker would take advantage of an away player in that scenario is incorrect.
i have been holding both your jackets for far too long. have them back and be on your way home, boys.
I played some PLO cash here, yikes, what a game that was.
I disagree with percival if u need 1000s of hands on someone u are using it wrong, a pro massing mtt's with a hud might come across a rec 2-3 times a mouth all that pro needs is 100 plus hands to make a basic assumption eg if someone opens 1/10 btns vs someone who opens 5/10 btn's are u going to play the same in the blinds? yes it's not conclusive after just 10 btn hands but u get a far more likly idea of their ranges which unless that pro had a memory like doyle brunson they would have zero information on a rec player(unless a hand of significance came up and they noted it, noting how a player plays is odviously ok as it's there for everyone to use straight away it's not a hidden cost)
For what it's worth, like I've mentioned so many times, I would prefer it if huds were banned because they're not needed. If they were banned then it'd show people that players who are very good players do not need a hud at all, they will still be very good players without a hud and a recreationals money will go just as quickly. It sounds harsh, but it's true, and I'm not here to make recreationals falsely feel better about things - a good pro has a SIGNIFICANT advantage vs you with or without in-game software.
Regarding the second part of your post, do you realise how many stats are available in a HUD? Hundreds. You named one. Yes, the one you named doesn't take that long for the stats to converge, which means perhaps even <100 hands could be sufficient. However, the vast majority of stats DO require thousands of hands to converge meaning they're not effective vs recreationals, unless they play many many hours/week. If they do play many hours/week, then I'd say it's much more likely that they use a hud themselves. Like I said in one of my previous posts, using a hud isn't just a thing that pro's use. PLENTY of recreationals also use them too.
getting back to the topic of this post i mentioned HUD's as i saw it mentioned in this post and i actually thought at the time is there really any differants to this scenario compaired to someone gaining a advantage from using a hud on other sites, both are within the rules ( u was right percival i was harsh to call it cheating)
My question to OP is u are clearly a good solid player so i imagine u might play on stars at times do u use a HUD there? if so what is the real differants between that and what happened to u ? (ps i do not have a personal problem with u i have always thought u a nice pleasent person when i been on your table i am just very cynical about stuff like this in the poker world)