Hooligans Sportsbook

Bodog poker changes

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    17 Replies •
  • Views 1,441 Views
Follow
mcbaseball10

mcbaseball10

Outnumbered
Since
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
7,608
Score
1,057
Tokens
0
Decided to play some mid-day poker today and when I enter the site, there is an update to the software. An update to the software happens frequently, but this was an update to the layout of the game. They have moved to an anonymous site without User Names. You are listed as Player 1, Player 2, and so on. You can never use previous play to identify your opponents and can not even keep notes on the player for that single game you are in. Many players have voiced concerns about the detection of bots and collusion. The software is awful as well. It reminds me of the partypoker software when it first came out.

Not sure how this will effect my play or if I will continue to use the software or move to a new site. In one way it will keep professionals from having an advantage, but it also could help a novice player like myself by playing disciplined poker and picking up quickly on players from hand one of that game. One thing is for certain, I will have to pay more attention to the games (keeping me from posting here and playing simultaneously) and not be able to rely on previous play notes. I will report back with the results. If anybody wants to watch me play, I am Player 2 on table 1.

Here is the link to the announcement.
http://calvinayre.com/2011/11/30/pr...r-network-launches-all-site-anonymous-tables/
Click to expand...
 
Played 2 games so far with a loser and a 2nd place finish.

Have resorted to paper and pen to keep track of in game play. Going to give it a shot as it is more tedious and therefore could keep out the pro players for now. Anytime there is change, it is always difficult to accept.
 
I like that idea actually. As far as detecting collusion, it's really no different than previously. Bodog surely knows who is at each table and what they're doing. As a player, if you notice strange behavior between players at a table, you can certainly still report it. I doubt many reports of collusion come from other players outside of their own games.

I've always been of the mind that player tracking helps the amateur player far more than the professional. Most players have tendencies that they often resort to. Player tracking allows other players to know those tendencies without ever playing a hand against them. That's simply not realistic. Professional players are typically better capable of adapting to the type of table play on the fly. What Bodog has done makes the game more akin to sitting at a table full of strangers much like playing in a brick and mortar poker room. That's the way it should be.
 
MonkeyFocker, what if the site itself is involved in the collusion?

If that were the case they can certainly make an anonymous Player 3 be anyone they choose it to be when it could in fact be a bot. I'm sure if this were the case if the investigation were deep enough it could still be discovered but it absolutely would make it more difficult.

I know I am taking it to the extreme conspiracy level but certainly plausible.
 
MF'r
LOL. What stopped them from doing that before? Or do you think they would have been dumb enough to keep the same name?

Come on.
Click to expand...

But that is how it was caught before. It's been a number of years since I read it but several guys notice this one players name winning some large sessions with totally inferior hands both at their table ond others and they started tracking the players name.

I don't think we are arguing that it can't or hasn't happened already. I think we just disagree that without actual names to track it makes it much easier.
 
You would still notice the odd play regardless of knowing the person's name. That's how the cheating was caught at Absolute Poker (the case you're probably referring to). The cheating account made a crazy call and the other player requested a hand history of the calling player, finding a ton of anamolies. Nothing changes with "anonymous" play.
 
Maybe I should let it go but I will try one more time.

You are a logical person so maybe I can make my case this way.

A guy robs a bank but wears a disguise with no indentifiable markings. Another bank gets robbed and again the guy is wearing a disguise but different than the other robbery and again there are no identifiable markings. This pattern continues, the robbers movements appear to be the same but there is no other indentifiable indicators that it is the same person. The suspicion is it is but all you have is the similar patterns. Had that robber not worn a diguise or had an exposed tattoo or some other identifiable marking it would be much easier to track them down or prove it was him if and when caught.

Yes, Player 1 at this table might be Player 5 at a different table but you have to randomly search for all hands played instead of narrowing your search to a players name in order to indetify the potential cheating.
 
Apparently, you don't understand that the players who were previously caught cheating were able to change their usernames (at UB) and that reported suspicion from single table play anomalies was the reason that they were caught in both instances (UB and Absolute).

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.