mjostar
2004-09-20 17:49:54 UTC
I have the latest version of Wilson Turbo Texas Hold'em software and like it
very much. I've been using Wilson "ring game" software for many years and
have no complaints. I also have the latest Wilson Texas Hold'em Tournament
software which is good but I don't like it as well as their ring game
software.
I've thought about buying the Acespade Texas Hold'em Pro 2002 ring game
software as well as their Texas Hold'em tournament software. However,
before I spend the money, I was wondering if anyone has tried the Acespade
software recently. I know their earlier edition software got some bad
reviews on RGP but they say the newest version is better.
I went to the Acespade website and copied their "product review" information
which is shown below. No surprise it gives itself better marks than Wilson
software. They identify the first comparison review comment as being from
David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. However, all of the other comparison
review comments are listed as being from "from other poker players and
professionals".
I would appreciate any comments or suggestions from any one who is familiar
with both kinds of software. The following is from the Acespade web site,
product review section:
"The followings are the recent comments from poker players and
professionals:
Comment 1:
The most famous poker authors David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth have just
finished a review of Acespade software and Turbo:
"David and I (Mason) have just finished a review of both Wilson Turbo Texas
Hold'em and Acespade's Texas Hold'em Pro 2002. We were mainly looking at how
well each program played and how good the advice is. Our conclusion is that
there is no question that the Acespade software is much better from both of
these perspectives."
The followings are the comments from other poker players and professionals.
Comment 2:
Software review of Turbo and Acespade
Experiment overview: The experiment is done on Turbo Texas Hold'em version 5
and Acespade Texas Hold'em pro 2002.
Experiment methodology: Review is done on 1) Easy of use; 2) Features; 3)
Quality of play. Rating is from 1 to 10 in which 1 is the worst and 10 is
the best.
Experiment conclusion:
1) Easy of use: Both software can be installed easily. Acespade's computer
player definition is easy while Turbo's computer player definition is
difficult and time consuming. The rating is 7 for Acespade and 6 for Turbo.
2) Features: Both software have features such as simulation, challenge play,
skip garbage hands, and hand replay, etc. Acespade provides more playing
modes such as watch-play, case-play and Internet-play modes. In the
challenge play Acespade allows users to see how the computer plays in the
background by repeating Roy's play, while how Turbo plays the current hand
in the background is unknown. I'm not saying Turbo is untrustworthy, but it
will be more trusty if the background play is revealed like Acespade. The
rating is 8 for Acespade and 6 for Turbo.
3) Quality of play: Acespade plays better on the Flop, Turn, and River while
Turbo does not play as well after the Flop. Turbo's play is more
predictable. The rating is 9 for Acespade and 6 for Turbo.
Comment 3:
I have the latest Turbo and Acespade software too. From my point of view,
Turbo has many questionable plays. Acespade's play seems more realistic.
I've tested the plays of Acespade using its case-play and the examples given
by the expert authors from poker magazines, in most cases they agree with
the experts' play. For the quality of play, I choose Acespade.
Comment 4:
I have the Acespade HE software and have tested Turbo and find Acespade has
more features, is easier to work with and seems very accurate.
More comments on Turbo software from poker players and professionals.
Our comments:
We thank all poker players for recognizing Acespade software as a far
superior product than Turbo. We will continue to improve our software and
provide our customers with the best poker software for the lowest price.
The followings are the detailed reasons of why Acespade is better than
Turbo:
Because Turbo makes decisions based on a finite set of predefined decision
tables, its capability is limited and its moves are predictable. And because
it does not consider some important information such as "what hand could my
opponents have", its advice is poor, especially after the opening street.
In contrast, Acespade software uses artificial intelligence, fuzzy thinking,
and expert systems in addition to mathematical modeling and statistical
analysis in real time. It considers all the situations and possibilities,
including opponents' possible hands and how likely they are, all the
up-cards and the possibilities of the final hands each player may make,
players' position, opponents' playing style, their actions in the current
street and all previous streets, and even their actions in the previous
hands, their possible actions, pot size, bet size in current street and the
coming streets, and much more. Therefore, Acespade poker software plays well
in all situations, on all streets, in full-table games, short-handed games,
or head-up games.
Comparing to Turbo, Acespade software is more intelligent and has better
advice, is more realistic and plays better, is easier to use and has more
features, is good not only as a learning and analysis tool, but also remains
as an excellent practice tool even if you've reached a high skill level."
Thanks for your assistance,
Irish Mike
very much. I've been using Wilson "ring game" software for many years and
have no complaints. I also have the latest Wilson Texas Hold'em Tournament
software which is good but I don't like it as well as their ring game
software.
I've thought about buying the Acespade Texas Hold'em Pro 2002 ring game
software as well as their Texas Hold'em tournament software. However,
before I spend the money, I was wondering if anyone has tried the Acespade
software recently. I know their earlier edition software got some bad
reviews on RGP but they say the newest version is better.
I went to the Acespade website and copied their "product review" information
which is shown below. No surprise it gives itself better marks than Wilson
software. They identify the first comparison review comment as being from
David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth. However, all of the other comparison
review comments are listed as being from "from other poker players and
professionals".
I would appreciate any comments or suggestions from any one who is familiar
with both kinds of software. The following is from the Acespade web site,
product review section:
"The followings are the recent comments from poker players and
professionals:
Comment 1:
The most famous poker authors David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth have just
finished a review of Acespade software and Turbo:
"David and I (Mason) have just finished a review of both Wilson Turbo Texas
Hold'em and Acespade's Texas Hold'em Pro 2002. We were mainly looking at how
well each program played and how good the advice is. Our conclusion is that
there is no question that the Acespade software is much better from both of
these perspectives."
The followings are the comments from other poker players and professionals.
Comment 2:
Software review of Turbo and Acespade
Experiment overview: The experiment is done on Turbo Texas Hold'em version 5
and Acespade Texas Hold'em pro 2002.
Experiment methodology: Review is done on 1) Easy of use; 2) Features; 3)
Quality of play. Rating is from 1 to 10 in which 1 is the worst and 10 is
the best.
Experiment conclusion:
1) Easy of use: Both software can be installed easily. Acespade's computer
player definition is easy while Turbo's computer player definition is
difficult and time consuming. The rating is 7 for Acespade and 6 for Turbo.
2) Features: Both software have features such as simulation, challenge play,
skip garbage hands, and hand replay, etc. Acespade provides more playing
modes such as watch-play, case-play and Internet-play modes. In the
challenge play Acespade allows users to see how the computer plays in the
background by repeating Roy's play, while how Turbo plays the current hand
in the background is unknown. I'm not saying Turbo is untrustworthy, but it
will be more trusty if the background play is revealed like Acespade. The
rating is 8 for Acespade and 6 for Turbo.
3) Quality of play: Acespade plays better on the Flop, Turn, and River while
Turbo does not play as well after the Flop. Turbo's play is more
predictable. The rating is 9 for Acespade and 6 for Turbo.
Comment 3:
I have the latest Turbo and Acespade software too. From my point of view,
Turbo has many questionable plays. Acespade's play seems more realistic.
I've tested the plays of Acespade using its case-play and the examples given
by the expert authors from poker magazines, in most cases they agree with
the experts' play. For the quality of play, I choose Acespade.
Comment 4:
I have the Acespade HE software and have tested Turbo and find Acespade has
more features, is easier to work with and seems very accurate.
More comments on Turbo software from poker players and professionals.
Our comments:
We thank all poker players for recognizing Acespade software as a far
superior product than Turbo. We will continue to improve our software and
provide our customers with the best poker software for the lowest price.
The followings are the detailed reasons of why Acespade is better than
Turbo:
Because Turbo makes decisions based on a finite set of predefined decision
tables, its capability is limited and its moves are predictable. And because
it does not consider some important information such as "what hand could my
opponents have", its advice is poor, especially after the opening street.
In contrast, Acespade software uses artificial intelligence, fuzzy thinking,
and expert systems in addition to mathematical modeling and statistical
analysis in real time. It considers all the situations and possibilities,
including opponents' possible hands and how likely they are, all the
up-cards and the possibilities of the final hands each player may make,
players' position, opponents' playing style, their actions in the current
street and all previous streets, and even their actions in the previous
hands, their possible actions, pot size, bet size in current street and the
coming streets, and much more. Therefore, Acespade poker software plays well
in all situations, on all streets, in full-table games, short-handed games,
or head-up games.
Comparing to Turbo, Acespade software is more intelligent and has better
advice, is more realistic and plays better, is easier to use and has more
features, is good not only as a learning and analysis tool, but also remains
as an excellent practice tool even if you've reached a high skill level."
Thanks for your assistance,
Irish Mike