> > What do you mean by "bogus"?
On 28 Aug 2004 at 18:27, vp_nbi replied:
> Lot of evidence to suggest that AI characters are playing,
Don't understand this.
AI = Artificial Intelligence, aka a program.
> not to mention collusion between players.
I'm sure collusion happens, but I believe that most colluders
don't know how to collude, and would probably be better
off if they devoted all of their energy to playing their own
hand better. The major sites can, and do, monitor collusion
and other cheating far more effectively than BM cardrooms,
which also have colluders.
Colluders that are serious about taking a site down for real bucks
aren't going to be the garden variety that conceives the idea after a
few beers. These are coherent intelligent folks with a plan.
> Most of my results have been statistical outliers (like only
> 3 high hands in Omaha HiLo over 3 solid weeks of play).
Limited anecdotal evidence that could suffer from selective
memory. The major sites make their money from the rake, and
would suffer greatly if players suspected they didn't offer a
fair game, which I believe they do.
Limited anecdotal evidence that could suffer from selective memory.
> The level of bizarre play is quite high.
This is a plus.
No, when it consistently wins by defying the odds it's known by
another name - cheating.
> There are players that go in with complete garbage yet consistently
> win, it's as if they know in advance how the board will flop.
Limited anecdotal evidence that could suffer from selective
memory.
> Not coincidentally these players don't participate in table talk and
> always play very fast regardless of the situation.
So? Also, Limited anecdotal evidence that could suffer from selective
memory.
Do you think an AI would be programmed to interact with other playes?
Not too likely. But since you don't know what AI is I'm likely to be
barking up the wrong tree in trying to explain this.
> I've never seen play like this in casino games even at lower limits.
So? Also, Limited anecdotal evidence that could suffer from selective
memory.
The point is that even poor players at casino poker games know better
than to make the outrageous moves that occur online. There is no basis
for believing that the caliber of play should be significantly
different in online vs. casino at the same limits.
> The rather obvious evidence of cheating aside
I don't know of any evidence that documents any current online
cheating at any of the major sites.
It's difficult to prove as a player. Most players when finding
themselves in a fishy poker game will simply quit. Of course no site
is going to publicize having caught cheaters because it would be an
admission of having a site that allowed it to occur in the first
place. Definitely not good for business.
> many sites have poor support, some having no live support
> whatsoever. No phone support for cash
> transactions is an absolute no-no in my book. Some sites also have
> annoying software bugs. The lesser sites don't have enough visitors,
> even if none of these other problems existed there simply isn't enough
> activity to be able to play any game at any time.
I only patronize the larger sites, where the problems you cite
are minimal or don't exist.
They most definitely exist at Ultimate Bet and PartyPoker.
> All these things just added up to a very negative experience one
> which I can't recommend to others.
I enthusiastically recommend Poker Stars, Paradise, Party Poker,
and Ultimate Bet as legitimate, fair sites with good games. There
are risks in playing (government intervention, bankruptcy etc) but
they're risks that I readily accept.
At online sites I can find good, full games and tournaments at all
limits
24/7, no tipping, lower rakes, no smoking, dress as I like, as close as
my computer, and I can do other things while playing as many as four
games at a time.
> And I'm not alone in this, other poker players I
> know have had similar issues with online play.
Limited anecdotal evidence that could suffer from selective
memory.
Not quite sure whether you're actually trying to provoke me with this
babble or are someone who simply isn't a very good player and doesn't
have any expectations as a result. I can assure you there's nothing
wrong with my memory or my poker ability. I'm a competent enough
player to realize when something isn't right. That probably sets me
apart from the hoards of thousands that swooped down on sites like
PartyPoker thanks to the recent poker hype in the media. I saw the
table talk all the time "lost another $200 this morning, must not be
my lucky day. Oh well.". With prevailing attitudes like that cheating
can flourish.
> I think the best way to
> go right now is to play in casino tournaments which have a fixed fee.
> This way your ROI is much better than in cash games which are
> subjected to a 10% rake.
Your ROI is going to depend on how well you play ring games as
opposed to tournaments, and many different concepts apply to each
of these animals. Also, most online rakes are 5% to a maximum of $3.
Most BM tournament fees are more than 10%. And, IMO, online
tournaments are far superior to BM tournaments, in terms of rake,
variety,
availability and caliber of opponents.
Not sure what the casino tournament fees are as I've played in
strictly cash games. But the point I'm trying to make is that the fee
is bound to be proportionately much less of your winnings in a
tournament as opposed to being raked 10% on every pot. That advantage
along with the absence of the online problems I cited above would make
casino tournaments attractive to me, especially since I'm apt to be at
the casino for vp reasons anyway. If you can keep winning online more
power to you, but it won't come at my expense.
···
--- In vpFREE_Chicago@yahoogroups.com, "vpFREE" <vpFREE@C...> wrote:
vpFREE Administrator