What do we think to this question:


I am not sure that we should allow any answers to this question as I am pretty sure the only reason people would want to know, is so that they could figure out how to cheat.

3 Answers 3


Doesn't even seem to be about poker from a playing perspective. Would be more suited to a computer-science/security site, no?

Off-Topic? That's how I'm leaning. What do you think?

  • 1
    Yeah that's the way I was going as well. I will close it as that
    – Gaz Winter
    Commented Sep 6, 2014 at 21:20
  • 1
    poker.stackexchange.com/questions/1469/… Why is this question not deleted then?
    – ch-pub
    Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 10:56
  • @nsw The question you mention relates to psychological bias and how incorrect conclusions can be drawn from such opaque reasoning. The question in focus here asked for specific info on security measures wholly unrelated to a players ability to play poker.
    – Toby Booth
    Commented Oct 3, 2014 at 12:22

Why do you assume that someone wants that info just in order to cheat? Why can't it be in order to protect themselves from cheaters? There are far more players that are concerned about "cheaters" or "rigged" online sites than there are players cheating themselves.

  • Maybe it was just the way the question was worded, but to me it seemed like it was fishing for ways to get around security.
    – Gaz Winter
    Commented Sep 8, 2014 at 8:20

I agree with nsw's thoughts.

I think this kind of question could be a great source of info about analytical thinking about poker and not just security in general. I can't see the original linked question because it's been deleted and my rep is insufficient here, but I think this is a fascinating topic and quite poker-centric.

Is sounds like Toby Booth's thoughts were that the answers would focus more on topics like IP addresses and logon patterns. I agree that this is not poker-specific and shouldn't be here. But there are also other patterns that are relevant which would be poker-specific:

  • General betting patterns compared across different accounts
  • Game selection and table composition
  • Tendencies to enter hands more or less frequently when specific other players are in the hand
  • Elements of collusion that become clear only when you have knowledge of hole cards from multiple players

This sounds sort of like a fun big data problem, but where the descriptor set is specific to analytical poker. I think this type of question could be fun here and interesting to the thinking poker crowd.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .