4 ms·

> How do you falsify his claim that he can read his opponent's faces and tell what cards they have? This would be super easy to test. Since the cards are RFID

> How do you falsify his claim that he can read his opponent's faces and tell what cards they have? This would be super easy to test. Since the cards are RFID spied-upon by the House, a player simply has to pretend to look at their cards while never actually seeing them. The RFID chips are still active and the likely source of the leak. So just don't look at your cards, he'll still know what your cards are even though you don't! Personally, that's not poker to me. Removing my ability to control the information about my cards - specifically letting the House know my cards before I do! - seems to violate the basic tenets of what makes poker poker. Shouldn't a player be allowed to fold and drop that information into a black hole? It's not poker if you can't do that! Key player strategies have always included selecting which information to reveal to other players. Removing this ability from the players changes the game, dramatically, as seen here. The control of information has been wrestled from the player and forced into the hands of the House. Any amount of cheating should be expected in such a weird system of convoluted rules and specific data leaks planted into the system on purpose.

ddingus 7y ago
RFID on the cards? You are right. That is not poker. There is no reason for the house, or anyone, but the player to have the data on the cards. I just caught wind of this here on a lark. The house knowing the cards is extremely, highly suspect. Great comment. I agree across the board.
- Mtinie 7y ago
  This isn’t the case of a casino tagging cards without the players knowing it’s happening. RFID’d cards are used because these are publicly streamed games. To provide a high-quality experience for the viewer requires someone (or something, in the case of a piece of software) to know the table state to build display graphics and compute in-hand odds. I haven’t seen a copy of the video and audio usage release form _Stones Live_ uses but I find it extremely unlikely a player would be unaware their game is being streamed. A properly locked down network vastly reduces the potential for external actors using the game state information maliciously. It does not prevent insiders from abusing their legitimately granted credentials but that’s a separate consideration.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    I don't care. The games can be streamed without the cards data also being public. No self respecting player should agree to that. There is no real security that way. Everybody knows that. What we can get is good, but never perfect. Poker has been plagued by bots already. Prior to that, a family member, who can play at top ranks, made insane money online. Bill Frist made that difficult where I live, so we transitioned to table play. Medical issues made that tough... I put that there because we have played this game. (I am solid, by their teaching and do play on occasion today) There is the player choice to tell. Sometimes it makes sense not to, and nobody else needs to know. Publishing card data devalues the game. Makes it less. A game streamed old school tells anyone watching all they really need to know. From there, start to play. That tells them more. I do not like the card data being published. Yes, players consent. They shouldn't, but their call. Same as I get to talk it down. I wonder what Brunson would think about this. I bet not much. We all have our reasons.
    - Mtinie 7y ago
      In theory there is a thirty minute delay between live play and streamed play...except in cases of manipulation and an insider shares the information in real-time. Edit: Ah, missed the comment about not liking sharing of cards in any case. I will need to think about it more but it’s an interesting position if you want purity in the game.
      - ddingus 7y ago
        It is about our agency as players. Being forced to show all bluffs and or body language as cards received, depending, means being more transparent than likely intended. There are things a player would rather others have to work for, or at best, infer at a coarse level, that RFID card play make known. And that data is out there for future players to benefit from too. This may impact you as a player.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    After thinking some, I realize streaming card data actually forces a player to share high value information whether they like it or not. That is definitely not poker. Bluff data is extremely high value! It is common to see a killer bluff shared as a sign of respect, for example. But, not sharing it is also common. Others can profile a successful player and reduce the advantage they have in future games. Doing this old school, by reading people and deduction from known card data is an important skill. Those who can do that, sans card data, are very potent players. By streaming card data, players are forced to allow profiling with a precision and accessibility well beyond what would otherwise be possible, and all of it is accessible to any interested player! And archived (you all know it will be) for all time! All of this not only devalues the game, makes it something not POKER in the most basic sense, even though the mechanics are the same, but devalues players too! Just putting this here to augment my earlier comment. And none of it is a slam against the tech. I do not mean that. But, like bots, this is definitely one of those "just because we can, does not mean we should" type innovations.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ddingus 7y ago

RFID on the cards? You are right. That is not poker. There is no reason for the house, or anyone, but the player to have the data on the cards. I just caught wind of this here on a lark. The house knowing the cards is extremely, highly suspect. Great comment. I agree across the board.

Mtinie 7y ago
This isn’t the case of a casino tagging cards without the players knowing it’s happening. RFID’d cards are used because these are publicly streamed games. To provide a high-quality experience for the viewer requires someone (or something, in the case of a piece of software) to know the table state to build display graphics and compute in-hand odds. I haven’t seen a copy of the video and audio usage release form _Stones Live_ uses but I find it extremely unlikely a player would be unaware their game is being streamed. A properly locked down network vastly reduces the potential for external actors using the game state information maliciously. It does not prevent insiders from abusing their legitimately granted credentials but that’s a separate consideration.
- ddingus 7y ago
  I don't care. The games can be streamed without the cards data also being public. No self respecting player should agree to that. There is no real security that way. Everybody knows that. What we can get is good, but never perfect. Poker has been plagued by bots already. Prior to that, a family member, who can play at top ranks, made insane money online. Bill Frist made that difficult where I live, so we transitioned to table play. Medical issues made that tough... I put that there because we have played this game. (I am solid, by their teaching and do play on occasion today) There is the player choice to tell. Sometimes it makes sense not to, and nobody else needs to know. Publishing card data devalues the game. Makes it less. A game streamed old school tells anyone watching all they really need to know. From there, start to play. That tells them more. I do not like the card data being published. Yes, players consent. They shouldn't, but their call. Same as I get to talk it down. I wonder what Brunson would think about this. I bet not much. We all have our reasons.
  - Mtinie 7y ago
    In theory there is a thirty minute delay between live play and streamed play...except in cases of manipulation and an insider shares the information in real-time. Edit: Ah, missed the comment about not liking sharing of cards in any case. I will need to think about it more but it’s an interesting position if you want purity in the game.
    - ddingus 7y ago
      It is about our agency as players. Being forced to show all bluffs and or body language as cards received, depending, means being more transparent than likely intended. There are things a player would rather others have to work for, or at best, infer at a coarse level, that RFID card play make known. And that data is out there for future players to benefit from too. This may impact you as a player.
- ddingus 7y ago
  After thinking some, I realize streaming card data actually forces a player to share high value information whether they like it or not. That is definitely not poker. Bluff data is extremely high value! It is common to see a killer bluff shared as a sign of respect, for example. But, not sharing it is also common. Others can profile a successful player and reduce the advantage they have in future games. Doing this old school, by reading people and deduction from known card data is an important skill. Those who can do that, sans card data, are very potent players. By streaming card data, players are forced to allow profiling with a precision and accessibility well beyond what would otherwise be possible, and all of it is accessible to any interested player! And archived (you all know it will be) for all time! All of this not only devalues the game, makes it something not POKER in the most basic sense, even though the mechanics are the same, but devalues players too! Just putting this here to augment my earlier comment. And none of it is a slam against the tech. I do not mean that. But, like bots, this is definitely one of those "just because we can, does not mean we should" type innovations.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]