Promoting poker discussions.
|
|
pokerfied.com Promoting poker discussions. |
alledgedly occurs there and I have a comment. I've played on Paradise Poker and I believe there is cheating there. In fact, I believe there is cheating in most online rooms. I don't blame Paradise, or any other online Poker Room because I don't think they have anything to do with the cheating that I believe is occurring. I don't think there are "loaded flops" or visible hole cards or any of the other stuff being claimed. These things may be happening but I've seen no proof of it and don't believe it would make good business sense for the online casinos to do them. In that light, I don't think there is a conspiracy of cheaters outside of the individuals/groups that are doing the cheating. Before the flame wars begin, I must state that I have NO proof of cheating and that after the reader has finished with this post they are encouraged to draw thier own conclusions. Let me tell you why I believe cheating occurs in the online casinos; because they can. I'm going to show you the easiest way to cheat. The very existence of this method is why I will not play online. Before you ask "Didn't you say you played at Paradise?", yes I did and I knew better but only played low limit and quit after a short period of time. :) OK. Here's what scares me away from online casinos. If I were inclined to cheat I would log into a target casino as multiple personalities and sit at the same table. The advantage of being 3-4 different people at the same table is obvious. I wouldn't need an accomplice as all 3 or 4 identities would be on my PC at the same time. So the question is "How do I log in as three different people simultaneously and so that nobody is the wiser??" I think I can help you there. The trick here is "nobody is the wiser" and to accomplish that you need to be three or four different "Internet identities". The thing to understand is that the online casinos have no way to trace you. They only track your Neteller/Firepay account and your IP address. I'm going to let you figure out how to create multiple Neteller/Firepay accounts. Hint: seperate dedicated bank accounts from friends/family?? I'm going to instead focus on the identification of a player by IP address. Almost all of you know that your system has an IP address associated with it to facilitate communications between your computers and the rest of the Internet and I won't bore you with a geeky breakdown that would be off- topic anyway. I'm instead going to show you how to use multiple IP addresses so that your online casino believes you are different people. This is accomplished using a class of software known as "remote desktop" software. Examples of this software are Microsoft's Terminal Server client and Symantec's (I think) PCAnywhere. Here's what you do. You get a friend/family member to allow you to install the server side of this software, remember it's native to Microsoft's WinXP so you don't have to buy anything. Anyway your friend or family member doesn't need to be more involved than allowing you to setup the software. Oops, Almost forgot; your friend NEEDS to have broadband (cable/DSL) while this isn't ABSOLUTELY necessary it is required for all but the most technically savvy. Where were we... Oh yeah. You get a friend with broadband to allow you to install a remote desktop service compatible with the remote desktop client you will be using and you rinse and repeat with as many friends as you think you need say three or four. Then you go home and fire up the remote desktop and log into your three other friends and form the remote desktop window install/launch the poker room client software. Once this is done all communications between the client software and the casino will be between the casino's servers and your friends' systems. As far as the casino is concerned there are four seperate individuals logged in and even if they are trapping TCP packets they wouldn't find dick. The reason they wouldn't find dick is because the communication between the client software and thier servers is legit and coming from seperate sources. You on the other hand have seperate connections to the slave systems and of course get to see everything the client system sees. So you see four sets of hole cards and make four different actions when it's your turn(s) to act. I don't know if anyone is doing this, I certainly have not, but because it can be done I won't play online. Thx for reading. Flame on. :) |
news:Xns94481DD63FCAclocksclockscom@198.164.200.20: > I agree with you. There's other ways to do this, even easier if you > have multiple computers and your ISP allows multiple IP's. This is > why i don't play online. > All true. One thing though, most ISP's dont offer multiple IP's. Some do so your statement isn't being challenged by me. Of the ISP's that do offer multiple IP addresses they do this in the form of a subnetted class C block of adresses. What that means is you will most likely a block of addresses with 29 bits in the subnet mask which is pretty easy to detect from the server end. My method which would span multiple class C or B addresses and be absolutely impossible to track. |
> > My method which would span multiple class C or B addresses and > be absolutely impossible to track. Perhaps the current casino software running on the client machines would not be able to determine that multiple machines are being controlled by a single player using remote access software. However, I doubt that it would be difficult to update that software to include rather simple detection code. After all, each of those remotely-controlled machines has a "session" established with the controlling machine. That means that software (such as the casino's client software) running on those remotely controlled machines could, using NetBIOS, access information in the network control blocks such as the IP addresses of all network nodes and transmit that back to the casino server, where it wouldn't be difficult to determine that n-players at TABLE-A all are in session with the machine at IP-ADDRESS-X. Perhaps it wouldn't even be necessary to determine that all are in session with a machine at IP-ADDRESS-X. The casino simply would need to detect a session with ANY machine at ANY other IP address. In other words, require players, while they are playing, NOT to be in session with another computer. Of course, that 1) assumes the online casinos would have the motivation to do the above and 2) doesn't prevent multiple, independent, unconnected machines from being used by 1 person or more than 1 person to collude. |
In order for your scheme to work, you'd have to take at least two seats at a table. The more the better, and to get a lock, you'd have to get 5 of 6 seats (at a short handed table). But, at least at PokerStars, they're constantly monitoring this type of behavior. How would you avoid being deteted by patterns? I.E., Sally, Joe, and Jim always play at the same table, and always come out, collectively, ahead. |
Now just use your brain for one second! Now think harder.:) Anyone with an IQ over 140 can get this one in their sleep. On Dec 5 2003 12:58AM, Scott Crabtree wrote: > OK, but what about software and manual detection of cheating patterns? > > In order for your scheme to work, you'd have to take at least two seats at a > table. The more the better, and to get a lock, you'd have to get 5 of 6 > seats (at a short handed table). > > But, at least at PokerStars, they're constantly monitoring this type of > behavior. How would you avoid being deteted by patterns? I.E., Sally, Joe, > and Jim always play at the same table, and always come out, collectively, > ahead. |
news:gUWzb.775$uq1.23343@news3.news.adelphia.net: > OK, but what about software and manual detection of cheating patterns? > > In order for your scheme to work, you'd have to take at least two > seats at a table. The more the better, and to get a lock, you'd have > to get 5 of 6 seats (at a short handed table). > > But, at least at PokerStars, they're constantly monitoring this type > of behavior. How would you avoid being deteted by patterns? I.E., > Sally, Joe, and Jim always play at the same table, and always come > out, collectively, ahead. > > > Manual detection?? Not likely. Software?? I doubt it as well. Software can do nothing more than pattern matching which would be completely ineffective. Furthermore, who says you can only have three ID's?? Why not six with three on line at a time. That would make it MUCH harder since the online casino has no way of cross-referencing userid's to IP addresses. Like I said in my post, I haven't done this but I think I've illustrated that it CAN be done and as long as that's true you guys can have all the online fun without me. :) Thx for the reply you brought up a valid point. I just think you may have too much faith in the casino's ability to stop this from happening. |
"DoubtingT" <Anon@not.net > wrote in message news:Xns94486755F8B9Anonnotnet@216.40.30.67... > "Scott Crabtree" <scottcrab@SPAMFREEpobox.com> wrote in > news:gUWzb.775$uq1.23343@news3.news.adelphia.net: > > > OK, but what about software and manual detection of cheating patterns? > > > > In order for your scheme to work, you'd have to take at least two > > seats at a table. The more the better, and to get a lock, you'd have > > to get 5 of 6 seats (at a short handed table). > > > > But, at least at PokerStars, they're constantly monitoring this type > > of behavior. How would you avoid being deteted by patterns? I.E., > > Sally, Joe, and Jim always play at the same table, and always come > > out, collectively, ahead. > > > > > > > Manual detection?? Not likely. Software?? I doubt it as well. Software > can do nothing more than pattern matching which would be completely > ineffective. Furthermore, who says you can only have three ID's?? Why not > six with three on line at a time. That would make it MUCH harder since the > online casino has no way of cross-referencing userid's to IP addresses. > > Like I said in my post, I haven't done this but I think I've illustrated > that it CAN be done and as long as that's true you guys can have all the > online fun without me. :) > > Thx for the reply you brought up a valid point. I just think you may have > too much faith in the casino's ability to stop this from happening. So your logic is as long as it's possible for someone to cheat you won't play? Do you realize it's also very easy to cheat in live poker? I'm sure that cheating exists online just like it does in live poker, but if I'm still winning week in and out why would I not just consider it a cost of doing business? We know that cheating isn't rampant online simply because almost all good players report winning at rates comparable to their adjusted B&M rates. The vast majority of people are honest and will always overwhelm the number of cheaters, thus having a minimal impact on your long term results. |
host of algorithms to figure this out - not just players sitting at the same table and always coming out ahead, but HOW they play their hands. If Sally has a pair of aces and Jim has a 7-3 offsuit, and Jim continues to re-raise to trap a player in the middle, something fishy is going on. I agree with you that this sort of thing is possible, but from everything I've read, they won't be able to get away with it more than once at any given site. Also, as far as I know, most sites place limits on how much you can deposit until you've been there for a while, preventing them from doing any real damage at the higher limit tables. As a minor detail, I think this sort of thing is much more likely to occur in the form of two separate players in collusion than one player using multiple accounts and IPs. But that's just being knitpicky. "Scott Crabtree" <scottcrab@SPAMFREEpobox.com > wrote in message news:<gUWzb.775$uq1.23343@news3.news.adelphia.net>... > OK, but what about software and manual detection of cheating patterns? > > In order for your scheme to work, you'd have to take at least two seats at a > table. The more the better, and to get a lock, you'd have to get 5 of 6 > seats (at a short handed table). > > But, at least at PokerStars, they're constantly monitoring this type of > behavior. How would you avoid being deteted by patterns? I.E., Sally, Joe, > and Jim always play at the same table, and always come out, collectively, > ahead. |
> OK, but what about software and manual detection of cheating patterns? > > In order for your scheme to work, you'd have to take at least two seats at a > table. The more the better, and to get a lock, you'd have to get 5 of 6 > seats (at a short handed table). Not sure what you mean by a lock here, but whatever you mean you don't make much sense. If you mean win every hand you play, 5 of 6 seats will not guarantee that. If you mean effectively guarantee a win over some reasonable number of hands then 5 of 6 seats would not be required or even optimal. > But, at least at PokerStars, they're constantly monitoring this type of > behavior. How would you avoid being deteted by patterns? I.E., Sally, Joe, > and Jim always play at the same table, and always come out, collectively, > ahead. The only sensible approach to dealing with cheating online is can you beat the games? If not, stop playing. That said your response seems to show an ignorance which I think is fairly pervasive and disturbing with regard to a sites ability to prevent collusion. The poker site's web pages always include a blurb which states how safe players are from collusion in all its forms while playing on their site. Most of them also raise the same red herring by talking about how much easier it is to detect online as opposed to B&M. Every time I read this I try to imagine what sort of imbecile this statement could be targeted at. Can online poker sites detect collusion? The answer to this question is absolutely not. The other answer is of course they can. It would be nice if they stated the real truth which would be something like this; No player is allowed to play on our site after we are 85% certain that he is colluding in a manner which results in a 45% higher EV than when he is not colluding. We could then decide whether or not we wanted to play there or at the site which requires a 95% certainty but has just a 20% threshold for EV boost. First of all, as a theoretical matter, there is no such thing as absolute proof of collusion, ever, period. That’s why the posters who post a single hand as proof of cheating make such fools of themselves. Maybe the disconnect was caused by a 4 year old pulling out the phone plug. Maybe the player hit fold by mistake because he clicked the wrong place on the screen after looking at porno, of course we don't actually need to be 100% certain. If someone folds 27o with no improvement after capping every street against AA the amount of certainty trends toward 100% fairly quickly. Any cheater dumb enough to do this probably can't win anyway so, when dealing with effective collusion, the trend towards 100% happens much more slowly. A program to detect collusion would have to be designed to take various actions based on passing certain thresholds of certainty. The second relevant issue here that many people seem to miss is the fact that the EV boost which collusion can provide could range anywhere from a negative percentage if done incorrectly all the way to the theoretically optimal maximum. Many people seem to think that people are either colluding or not, end of story. This is a completely ridiculous view, its like assuming everyone who is a winning player is always winning exactly 1.045 BB/hr and everyone who is a losing player is losing just enough to ensure that no winners rate will fluctuate. If all players at a table are winners the software freezes. Collusion is absolutely undetectable even after a billion hands until the EV boost it provides passes some threshold. This should become obvious if we imagine an optimal arsenal of collusive plays includes exactly 1000 actions which deviate from the non-collusive action and when they are all employed correctly a team of 3 colluders ups their EV by 250% each. What if the team only chooses to use one of them for an EV boost of .004%, would that be detectable? What about choosing a few more to play for an EV boost of 15%, how about now? Of course the more hands played the lower the threshold which can be detected, but most people massively underestimate the number of hands required. These facts taken together with the fact that a players EV without colluding can never be known in advance combine to make only collusion on the extreme end of the scale detectable at all. (In case its not obvious all numbers were pulled out of a hat to illustrate a point, any resemblance to real numbers living or dead is purely coincidental) I don't know how many posts I have read here on Rgp which state collusion is not detectable. I have read about as many which say it is easily detectable. The truth is buried deeply somewhere in the middle. |
> the games? If not, stop playing. That said your response seems to show an > ignorance which I think is fairly pervasive and disturbing with regard to > a sites ability to prevent collusion. Well, I actually agree with you. I deliberately "soft played" my response because I wanted to see what type of discussion it would provoke, and I appreciate your post. (I've done this before, here, and it's amazing how easily some of these sophisticated players jump on a poster's comment as idiotic.) That said, I must admit you've put more analysis into it than I ever have, and the nuances you outline are pretty interesting. As for me, I got to the "sensible approach" and have left it there, satisfied to date with my online earnings. I think another ignorance that people cling to is that collusion is a uniquely online phenomena. Certainly, the online game is more susceptible, but I've detected collusion in at least one B&M game, and beat it. I'm always looking for it wherever I play, and I apply the same criteria to my online play as my B&M play. So far so good. |
> OK, but what about software and manual detection of cheating patterns? > > In order for your scheme to work, you'd have to take at least two seats at a > table. The more the better, and to get a lock, you'd have to get 5 of 6 > seats (at a short handed table). > > But, at least at PokerStars, they're constantly monitoring this type of > behavior. How would you avoid being deteted by patterns? I.E., Sally, Joe, > and Jim always play at the same table, and always come out, collectively, > ahead. I would do it as follows. 1. Form a team of two, three, four, five or six people. 2. Set up a number of ISPs for each member of the team. AOL, cable, DSL and, if necessary and practical, multiple dial-up accounts. 3. Create an identity and account at the casino for each combination of team member and ISP. 4. Assign identities (i.e., combinations of team member plus ISP) to games by some random method such as rolling the dice. 5. Team members who were taking part in a game could communicate by AOL IM, Yahoo IM, etc. However, it would probably be better for all team members to take part in the same AOL or other private chatroom. A coach could be added to the chatroom to coordinate the team, make decisions based on the shared information, etc. (If there was sufficient time, perhaps the coach could have an assistant input the shared information into Wilson Turbo Hold'em to calculate odds. A better method, of course would be to write a program to simply read the information off of the sceen and input it into WTH to automate the process.) If the above was not sufficient to evade detection, simply enlarge the team to increase the number of possible identities that could be randomly assigned to a given game. _____________________________________________________________ Low self-esteem? silly self loathing song http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/597/drinkers_purgatory.html |
Yes M Hahn said it best. I have never heared of any of these algorithms actually catching someone cheating not too mention that it would have to be extremely obvious. In fact most likely the players at the table would be able to spot collusion before the algorithm did. As long as no one knows abotu collusion the casino doesn't give a damn as they still get their rake. It's not like over types of cheating which affect the casino. That being said does this mean that you should never play online? Probably not. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to suggest this is widespread. But I would suggest to keep a healthy skeptical attitude and be responsible regarding just how much money you are putting out. -- northstar5757 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Access RGP from Pokeritis.com, create a poker journal, and more. http://www.pokeritis.com/forums View this thread @ Pokeritis.com forums: http://www.pokeritis.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27680 |
Sure that method works. But why not just get the friends to play with you. Same result, collusion. I've been wary of playign online for the same reasons. -- northstar5757 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Access RGP from Pokeritis.com, create a poker journal, and more. http://www.pokeritis.com/forums View this thread @ Pokeritis.com forums: http://www.pokeritis.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27680 |
post my comments: The RDP client can be used to offer multiple sessions but you would need at least 512K pipe as RDP is more bandwidth intensive than the Citrix client for example. You would introduce many more points of failure, i.e. if your friend's DSL went down or he started surfing or using his connection you could run into problems. Also true is that a subnetted class C using a subnet mask of 255.255.255.248 would offer 6 hosts. This would cost you more from an isp and you would have to not use NAT (network address translation) and use the public addresses (seriously compromising your security). In this instance I could hijack someone's session and their strategy could bite them back. Not easy but it could be done far easier with public addressing than private. I do not know if the poker software would have an issue with 4 connections from say 199.166.33.197 through 199.166.33.197. If anyone has tried this let me know, I think there would possibly be an issue. A few last points, if two people collude online and they are poor players, they are probably going to lose anyway! B&M players, I am an IT Consultant and I do play online, I use a sonicwall firewall (ICSA certified) and my system is locked down tight (windows server 2003). I do have faith in partypoker, ultimatebet and paradise poker to an extent. I play, i make a bit and since I live in Bermuda and there are very few B&M games (those that do exist would have you rolling in the aisles from laughter at their sheer ameteurism and the dealer very often is close friends or relatives with people at the table) it is really the only option available. You pay your money, you take your choice... On Dec 5 2003 6:14AM, northstar5757 wrote: > Sure that method works. But why not just get the friends to play with > you. Same result, collusion. I've been wary of playign online for the > same reasons. > > > -- > northstar5757 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Access RGP from Pokeritis.com, create a poker journal, and more. > http://www.pokeritis.com/forums > View this thread @ Pokeritis.com forums: > http://www.pokeritis.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27680 |
> and my system is locked down tight (windows server 2003). LOL. Rich |
<snipped > > > > Thx for reading. Flame on. :) If you're unwilling to play online because you're afraid someone will have the ability and resources to go through all those hoops to cheat, why do you have a checking account or credit card at all? It is much easier and much more lucrative for people to steal your money directly, yet, you probably aren't that concerned about it. Why? Because its familiar, unlike online gambling. Anyway, its totally up to you whether you play online or not, but, I find your logic terribly flawed. Its a lot like the people that I talk to that refuse to have guns in their house because they are "dangerous", yet, they have no qualms about jumping in their car and driving like a maniac at 80mph on the freeway when, statistically, they're much more likely to die in their car than from their gun. Again, its the familiarity that makes this happen. nib |
204162.news.uni-berlin.de: > DoubtingT wrote: > <snipped> >> >> >> Thx for reading. Flame on. :) > > If you're unwilling to play online because you're afraid someone will > have the ability and resources to go through all those hoops to cheat, > why do you have a checking account or credit card at all? It is much > easier and much more lucrative for people to steal your money directly, > yet, you probably aren't that concerned about it. Why? Because its > familiar, unlike online gambling. Anyway, its totally up to you whether > you play online or not, but, I find your logic terribly flawed. Its a > lot like the people that I talk to that refuse to have guns in their > house because they are "dangerous", yet, they have no qualms about > jumping in their car and driving like a maniac at 80mph on the freeway > when, statistically, they're much more likely to die in their car than > from their gun. Again, its the familiarity that makes this happen. > > nib > My logic is flawed??? You equate online cheating with bank fraud and in fact assert that bank fraud is easier to pull off, and my logic is flawed?? You state that I won't play online because It's not familiar with it and corrolate that with the example of the freeway driving fool, and my logic is flawed?? Anything you say chief....... |
Once you get sat at the same table, you will have to find a way to profitably work together without raising any of the red flags being watched for by the server. |
lower would be able to preset or upload a magnaloader at any of the online poker rooms, provided they did not have a metamagnometer--and I doubt they do. It would be a cinch. Edward Hutchison Madison, MS Point systems for evaluating poker starting hands: http://PokerProfessor.homestead.com/links.html |
writes: >...Thx for reading. Flame on. There's nothing to flame. It's probably going on, and has been discussed here about a zillion and 16 times over the years. Peg |
> > There's nothing to flame. It's probably going on, and has been discussed here > about a zillion and 16 times over the years. > > Peg I agree with you, Peg, and I also agree with those people who said they don't play on line for that reason. See the post titled "Re: Update Our Party Poker cheating team SNG" today for further support for this position. The usual response to "I don't play on line for this reason" is something like "The money colluders take out of the pot is just a cost of doing business. As long as you can still make a profit, it doesn't matter." That makes sense for people to whom poker is a business. For recreational players like me, knowing that the game is fair is part of what makes it fun. One question for those people who do play on line: How much proof of identity do the poker sites require? If they make sure they know the real names, addresses, and taxpayer ID numbers of their players, it would be hard for one person to open multiple accounts, or for a person to play his own account plus his spouse or kids. If players are limited to one account per site, it would be a lot easier to see who plays together all the time, and prevent that. Incidentally, I still think requiring voice chat would make self-collussion harder. Video conferencing would be even better, although it would require broadband and push the technology. Peg responded to my post on this subject, so she knows what I'm talking about. For anyone else interested in the details, search for "Voice Chat" in RGP and see my Nov. 29 post. |
sflaum@flauminc.com (Steve F.) writes: >...Incidentally, I still think requiring voice chat would make >self-collussion harder. Video conferencing would be even better, >although it would require broadband and push the technology. Peg >responded to my post on this subject, so she knows what I'm talking >about... Yes, I saw it, but I don't agree that it's a remedy. For one thing, people can change their voices. I think the best remedy is to just not play if you think that collusion is too large of a factor for you to handle. Peg |
> >self-collussion harder. Video conferencing would be even better, > >although it would require broadband and push the technology. Peg > >responded to my post on this subject, so she knows what I'm talking > >about... > > Yes, I saw it, but I don't agree that it's a remedy. For one thing, people can > change their voices. > > I think the best remedy is to just not play if you think that collusion is too > large of a factor for you to handle. > > Peg Yes, that's what I'm doing, as far as on line poker goes -- but that doesn't mean the internet won't help me restart my poker playing. I used to play in college, 36 years ago, but haven't had a game since then. I've been trying to get started again for a few months, and finally found a home game by browsing the net. I'll play with them for the first time next week, $2 limit, 10 minutes from my house in Fairfield County, CT. ' just the sort of recreation I was looking for. Wish me luck. Steve |
you trust and enjoy playing against, and play heads up on any of the play money sites and settle up thru paypal. I don't know if that's against user rules or not, but I doubt any site would lose any sleep over it. "Steve F." <sflaum@flauminc.com > wrote in message news:f5fba87e.0312061425.38e9d099@posting.google.com... > > >...Incidentally, I still think requiring voice chat would make > > >self-collussion harder. Video conferencing would be even better, > > >although it would require broadband and push the technology. Peg > > >responded to my post on this subject, so she knows what I'm talking > > >about... > > > > Yes, I saw it, but I don't agree that it's a remedy. For one thing, people can > > change their voices. > > > > I think the best remedy is to just not play if you think that collusion is too > > large of a factor for you to handle. > > > > Peg > > Yes, that's what I'm doing, as far as on line poker goes -- but that > doesn't mean the internet won't help me restart my poker playing. I > used to play in college, 36 years ago, but haven't had a game since > then. I've been trying to get started again for a few months, and > finally found a home game by browsing the net. I'll play with them for > the first time next week, $2 limit, 10 minutes from my house in > Fairfield County, CT. ' just the sort of recreation I was looking for. > > Wish me luck. > > Steve |
> you trust and enjoy playing against, and play heads up on any of the > play money sites and settle up thru paypal. I don't know if that's > against user rules or not, but I doubt any site would lose any sleep > over it. Yes, that's a good idea. In fact, if you trust the other guy, you don't even need paypal; just mail a check. And, incidentally, I did just sign up at one of the play-money sites (Poker School Online) last week. Actually, my reservations about collusion are probably pretty theoretical, since I doubt many people would go to the trouble in the $1/$2 ring games I play. It seems like it would be more of an issue in a larger game, or a tournament with substantial prize money. However, even if it didn't affect me personally, I thought the issue of self collusion was an interesting question -- past tense, because this thread has answered it to my satisfaction; collusion undoubtedly happens, so you either live with it or don't play on line for significant money. Also, I figured that joining into the discussion was a good way to "meet" other poker players to find the the recreational home game I was looking for. After all, the first letter of RPG stands for "recreation." This sort of happened; as I mentioned before, I did find a home game via the net, although not via RPG. Anyway, that's the reason I put my location in my last post and include a real email in all my posts -- maybe other home players around here will respond. Thanks for the suggestion. |