Also: Anyone else messing with poker these days?

[RCC: Act II]

Globalpoker is interesting. Both it's legal stance and that the play reminds me of pokerstars in 2006.

ACR is depressing. I'd rather do play money on Stars than play on ACR at this point. I only have money on it because trying to wade the money back in through bitcoin sounds like a thing right now.

Live poker around here is just sad dead. My local casino has some decent demand, but can't/won't hire dealers so they have enough players for six or seven games and wind up with three games and a lot of pissed off people...

Anyway... it was interesting to see how thinking about the game developed. It makes me feel old.

[Rob Lister]

https://globalpoker.com/page/faq
That's quite the business model.

They are couching the rules in such strict legalese that I'm having a hard time following.

First thing in the FAQ

Is Global Poker legal?

We are pleased to announce that Global Poker is the first social poker site that offers a safe and secure cash out of winnings to players in the US. We are a leading poker site that offers a unique Sweepstakes model which has been approved by high profile companies such as Facebook and PayPal. These companies have conducted their own due diligence on our $weepstakes Model.

Somewhere in there is the answer to the question, but damned if I can find it.

[Anaxagoras]

They're not claiming that it's legal, only "safe and secure".

[Rob Lister]

I haven't played poker since Full Tilt when tits up.

[RCC: Act II]

They're not claiming that it's legal, only "safe and secure".

They do, that is what the due diligence is referring to. Their big thing is that they've convinced PayPal and Facebook that it does not violate any gambling laws, and PayPal is pretty hardcore about that.

They base it on sweepstakes laws. This is why it is confusing. The short summary is that you aren't "depositing," you are purchasing their coins that are functionally internet play money. This part is clearly legal. As a "sweepstakes promotion" they also give the sweeps cash or whatever they call it. This makes the poker essentially a sweepstakes contest, and the prize is that they allow you to exchange this sweeps stuff for cash. That is the getting a bit cute part.

This model requires them to give entries (sweeps cash) to people that send them a letter asking for it, just like any other sweepstakes giveaway "no purchase required" provision. Which you can do.

It sounds absurd, but I can't spot the leak here. Apparently neither could PayPal.

[Mentat]

I'm waiting for the legal fustercluck when poker sites let you gamble their own cryptocurrency.

[gnome]

The poker I've been playing has been from Telltale Games. All computer play which is possibly useless for a real player, but very entertaining as they have licensed several characters from other games or media as opponent personalities.

The latest version pits you against Brock from Venture Brothers, Claptrap from Borderlands, Ash from Evil Dead series, and Sam from Sam & Max. GlaDos is the dealer and insults you and everyone else the whole time. They have lots of recorded dialog and animation to the point where it doesn't start feeling repetitive until you are several hours in. Each seems to have their own play style and they even are experimenting with "tells". Better yet, through three different versions they've improved the pacing to where you can play even while the chatter's going on and it all seems very smooth and natural. Again, for someone that regularly plays against people it's probably too easy. As I am not a very good player and haven't often played against real people, for me it's nicely challenging.

"Tight Aggressive" as I understand the tactic seems to work well enough for winning, and usually when I lose it's because I got impatient. The most annoying thing is the computer goes all in a LOT, and often before the flop. Especially Ash, that fucker.

Speaking of, any thoughts of resurrecting the forum poker games?

[RCC: Act II]

I'm waiting for the legal fustercluck when poker sites let you gamble their own cryptocurrency.

I doubt that will happen. Using crypto to fund/withdraw from accounts is already going on. The US law that largely shut down US facing poker sites dealt with banking transactions, so a site that just used crypto would seem to avoid that.

[Mentat]

The poker I've been playing has been from Telltale Games. All computer play which is possibly useless for a real player, but very entertaining as they have licensed several characters from other games or media as opponent personalities.

The latest version pits you against Brock from Venture Brothers, Claptrap from Borderlands, Ash from Evil Dead series, and Sam from Sam & Max. GlaDos is the dealer and insults you and everyone else the whole time. They have lots of recorded dialog and animation to the point where it doesn't start feeling repetitive until you are several hours in. Each seems to have their own play style and they even are experimenting with "tells". Better yet, through three different versions they've improved the pacing to where you can play even while the chatter's going on and it all seems very smooth and natural. Again, for someone that regularly plays against people it's probably too easy. As I am not a very good player and haven't often played against real people, for me it's nicely challenging.

"Tight Aggressive" as I understand the tactic seems to work well enough for winning, and usually when I lose it's because I got impatient. The most annoying thing is the computer goes all in a LOT, and often before the flop. Especially Ash, that fucker.

Speaking of, any thoughts of resurrecting the forum poker games?

My strategy is "aggressive but don't be stupid", and it works well until I inevitably forget the last part.

[shemp]

I played for awhile at WPT. You pay for a membership, and they give you points you can use to enter tournaments to win cash and prizes. There are no cash deposits or cash games. They had some games where you could win thousands of dollars or an entry into a WPT event. But mostly it was playing for hours trying to win pin money or even just trying to win some points so you could enter a tournament.

[RCC: Act II]

I am sometimes curious just how well the AI is in poker games these days. It probably isn't that hard to get a somewhat competent bot depending on the nature of the game now that there is a lot of work being done in botting. I'd want to try massively unbalanced strategies just to test it though.

The last time I played a poker computer game it was a WSOP game back when the WSOP had like 300 people in it. If you tried to play tight, it was tough. If you folded every time the computer showed any aggression but otherwise raised every hand preflop and then bet 1/4 pot every street you could just run it over. I won the WSOP like 20 times in a row before I quit.

The Red Dead Redemption poker AI as I recall it liked to pay off big bets really, really light. Poker was a small part of that game but the AI would have run circles around the WSOP game.

[Anaxagoras]

They're not claiming that it's legal, only "safe and secure".

They do, that is what the due diligence is referring to. Their big thing is that they've convinced PayPal and Facebook that it does not violate any gambling laws, and PayPal is pretty hardcore about that.

They base it on sweepstakes laws. This is why it is confusing. The short summary is that you aren't "depositing," you are purchasing their coins that are functionally internet play money. This part is clearly legal. As a "sweepstakes promotion" they also give the sweeps cash or whatever they call it. This makes the poker essentially a sweepstakes contest, and the prize is that they allow you to exchange this sweeps stuff for cash. That is the getting a bit cute part.

This model requires them to give entries (sweeps cash) to people that send them a letter asking for it, just like any other sweepstakes giveaway "no purchase required" provision. Which you can do.

It sounds absurd, but I can't spot the leak here. Apparently neither could PayPal.

oK, but that's not a straight answer to a yes or no question

[RCC: Act II]

They're not claiming that it's legal, only "safe and secure".

They do, that is what the due diligence is referring to. Their big thing is that they've convinced PayPal and Facebook that it does not violate any gambling laws, and PayPal is pretty hardcore about that.

They base it on sweepstakes laws. This is why it is confusing. The short summary is that you aren't "depositing," you are purchasing their coins that are functionally internet play money. This part is clearly legal. As a "sweepstakes promotion" they also give the sweeps cash or whatever they call it. This makes the poker essentially a sweepstakes contest, and the prize is that they allow you to exchange this sweeps stuff for cash. That is the getting a bit cute part.

This model requires them to give entries (sweeps cash) to people that send them a letter asking for it, just like any other sweepstakes giveaway "no purchase required" provision. Which you can do.

It sounds absurd, but I can't spot the leak here. Apparently neither could PayPal.

oK, but that's not a straight answer to a yes or no question

Do they claim it is legal? Yes. They do.

[Rob Lister]

I am sometimes curious just how well the AI is in poker games these days. It probably isn't that hard to get a somewhat competent bot depending on the nature of the game now that there is a lot of work being done in botting. I'd want to try massively unbalanced strategies just to test it though.

I think a year or so ago a bot was winning consistently against pros in limit hold-em but only head-to-head. No-limit was thought to be out of the limits of AI's for ages to come.

But 'ages' may have already arrived with the newer strategies of machine learning; they don't tell it how to win, they just tell it the rules and let it figure that out for itself; re alphazero

I do know this: even a simple bot will beat me easily enough. I did well enough at tables of real humans simply by staying away from big money tables.

[Anaxagoras]

They're not claiming that it's legal, only "safe and secure".

They do, that is what the due diligence is referring to. Their big thing is that they've convinced PayPal and Facebook that it does not violate any gambling laws, and PayPal is pretty hardcore about that.

They base it on sweepstakes laws. This is why it is confusing. The short summary is that you aren't "depositing," you are purchasing their coins that are functionally internet play money. This part is clearly legal. As a "sweepstakes promotion" they also give the sweeps cash or whatever they call it. This makes the poker essentially a sweepstakes contest, and the prize is that they allow you to exchange this sweeps stuff for cash. That is the getting a bit cute part.

This model requires them to give entries (sweeps cash) to people that send them a letter asking for it, just like any other sweepstakes giveaway "no purchase required" provision. Which you can do.

It sounds absurd, but I can't spot the leak here. Apparently neither could PayPal.

oK, but that's not a straight answer to a yes or no question

Do they claim it is legal? Yes. They do.

Maybe, but not in the part quoted by Rob.

If it were legal there would be a one-word answer: Yes.

[gnome]

I'm all but certain TTG focused more on immersion than hard core AI. That fits their style of game creation.

[RCC: Act II]

If it were legal there would be a one-word answer: Yes.

Given how heavily it is implied by everything they say, it is probably just poor writing that they didn't. They'd never be able to claim "but we never said it was legal" given what is written there.

[gnome]

Would such a claim do them any good even if they could plausibly say so?

[Anaxagoras]

Well, in Japan there is a longstanding way of gambling used by Pachinko parlors. The pachinko parlor itself does not give you any cash if you win. Only prizes. However, they give you some sort of medal in a little plastic case or something like that which you can take to a little window near the pachinko parlor, usually just a few steps away from the back exit, and they will give you cash for these.

It is very clearly gambling, yet this little ruse makes it legal. A bit like how casinos use chips instead of cash.

[gnome]

Interesting--so that little window is ostensibly a separate business willing to buy the medals?

[Anaxagoras]

Interesting--so that little window is ostensibly a separate business willing to buy the medals?

I think that's the legal fiction. It's legally a separate business entity.

I don't know the legal details, but that's what I assume. And I guess they just "sell" the little prizes back to the pachinko parlor.

[Rob Lister]

Thinking about this I was sort of rereading what was said about AlphaZero.

Some folks think that google cheated by limiting the amount of 'think' space former programs had. Wiki sez that google may be a little political in that it did not give other versions a fair set of resources.

That's possible. I'd like to think they 'do no evil' but I'd be pretty retro in thinking that. They're now competing against themselves. I'm pretty sure they're going to win. Other than IBM, nobody is playing this game. And they are not playing GO. Or poker. Or even Chess, anymore.

Thunking, I is. It doesn't change my opinion about poker bots though. Even a simple one can beat me. Maybe if I figure out it is a bot I might, maybe, be able to beat it. But by that time I'm out of chips.

That *online* game is done.

I would like to sit in front of RCC. With Coolhand (rip) at his left. Playing small stakes and no-holdem', I'd do okay. Maybe not every night, but at least one night in four. Those are the nights I'm sober. And if they take me for all 20 of my dollars ... I'm good with that.

[RCC: Act II]

The chess thing did involve some serious conditions that weakened stockfish, but as I understand it stockfish was still running at a level where it would have beaten any human being. Chess programs are way, way beyond humans at this point. Improving a chess engine at this point is an engineering challenge. As a resource for humans to improve at chess the ceiling has already been hit.

The poker bot thing is interesting. The main use of a bot to this point in most of the games is that it allows for insane volume, and if the side has a substantial bonus program, a bot can be useful. The downside is that using a bot isn't that awfully hard to detect and it will result in the site taking your money and banning you. That is assuming the site gives a shit. Bots pay rake.

Computers have solved limit holdem and do really well at heads up no-limit, but as far as I know not all that awesome at anything else. Well enough to do OK in the smaller games, but it isn't like chess where you get blown off the board. Really, the only functional difference between a reasonably skilled human that plays 24 tables and a bot is that one of them is made out of meat.

Unlike chess, poker is a game of limited information, and probably more important, a game where a, and I hate this phrase, "game theory optimal" approach is usually less effective than an exploitative strategy in a multiplayer game with weak players in it.

The idea of GTO is a balanced strategy that, even if the opponents know what it is, they can't exploit it. An exploitative player deviates from the balanced strategy when doing so creates a greater advantage over a specific opponent. Since that opponent has a finite amount of chips to lose (especially in a tournament), being exploitative can be a great advantage.

Of course, one can exploit the exploiter, which is why doing that stuff is insanely complicated. Moreso in some tournament conditions where the value of the chips is itself variable.

I'm sure at some point a computer will do all this better than any human. I wasn't so sure it would be anytime soon, but if this is a totally different approach, maybe sooner than I thought.

[Rob Lister]

https://techxplore.com/news/2017-12-tea ... ratus.html

Interesting read on how Libratus beat the pros.

[RCC: Act II]

https://techxplore.com/news/2017-12-tea ... ratus.html

Interesting read on how Libratus beat the pros.

In the scheme of things, it just meant a team of nerds with a supercomputer developed a strategy that beat an assorted number of nerds that developed a strategy with lesser computers at heads up NLHE w/ fixed stack levels. To be fair, the stacks were fixed at 200 big blinds, which is pretty deep and far more impressive than had the stacks been something like 50bbs.

Elite heads up NLHE is barely more than meat robots analyzing data trying to find an optimal solution. The best at it generally wind up having to quit because they can't get action, so progress as to developing strategy gets slowed down a bit.

[RCC: Act II]

It just occurred to me that ICM is a good basis for an argument for progressive taxation. The idea that context can make the value of currency variable by expressing it in terms of practical utility.

[gnome]

Game theory and politics make interesting reading.

[RCC: Act II]

It is too bad poker is tied up with the idea that it has to be gambling. Learning to play the game at anywhere near a high level involves so many skills and concepts applicable to other areas of life that it would make an excellent game to teach children.

[Beleth]

I've been feeding my poker jones by watching clips on Youtube. Which is not at all satisfying, but it has had an upside: I now know the name Stu Unger, and am kind of in awe of him.

Too bad he was one of those flame-that-burns-twice-as-bright people.

[RCC: Act II]

I've been feeding my poker jones by watching clips on Youtube. Which is not at all satisfying, but it has had an upside: I now know the name Stu Unger, and am kind of in awe of him.

Too bad he was one of those flame-that-burns-twice-as-bright people.

He had the fortune of living in an era when talent mattered more because there was little or no good theory as to tournament no-limit holdem. People were really banging rocks together back then, in part because those tournaments were rare. He figured out the value of selective aggression against people who were a bit too concerned with survival, and had the card instincts to pull it off. As a result his win % in big no-limit tournaments was absurd even before considering the effects of his drug problems.

These days the understanding of the game at the elite level is such that nobody is going to dominate it with those talents. This would be a really bad era for him. The skills he used in tournaments didn't translate into other forms of poker (he was considered a donor in the big cash games back then), so it would be unlikely he would take the time to plug the leaks he's have to plug to be viable today...

It would have been very interesting had he lived to see how the poker boom would have effected his life and legacy. I doubt it would have went well.

[Rob Lister]

Poker Players Sue Stones Gambling Hall, Mike Postle for $30 Million in Alleged Cheating Case

Stones Gambling Hall, the California cardroom at the center of a possible poker cheating scandal, has been named in a $30 million lawsuit brought by 24 players who believe they have been financially harmed by the alleged scam. Also named is Mike Postle, the player who plaintiffs believe was relayed information about their hole cards during a series of Stone Live Poker cash game streams by person or persons unnamed.

https://www.casino.org/news/poker-playe ... 30-million

They're not sure exactly how he cheated but they know he cheated. And so do I.

Here's the short-long of it. These games use cards that have RFID chips that relay the face and suit of the hole cards to RFID readers at each seat at the table. This data, in turn, is relayed to a control room that shows the hands to the audience, but on time delay. The theory is that Mike Postle had someone inside the control room relaying the hole cards to his phone. But how to prove it?



potripper is the notorious cheat that worked as a consultant for Absolute Poker back in 2007. He was a superuser that could see the hole cards. Mike is even better than him. The chances of Make not cheating are zero.

[ed]

Why couldn't the chip be read across the room?

[Rob Lister]

Why couldn't the chip be read across the room?

Very limited range, on the order of millimeters. At each seat position at the table, hidden under the felt, there is a reader about the size of a sheet of paper. The readers are connected to a hub and the hub unloads to a server. All encrypted.

Spoiler:

[ed]

Encryption ensnipchon.

But the range. The tag is passive probably. So zap it and pick up the result with a sensitive directional antenna? why mm?

Seems eminently hackable. Even to a non-russian like me.

[Rob Lister]

Encryption ensnipchon.

But the range. The tag is passive probably. So zap it and pick up the result with a sensitive directional antenna? why mm?

Seems eminently hackable. Even to a non-russian like me.

That may be possible but this appears to be an inside job with the guy in the control room as well as the company president, maybe.