Minor enhancements

[RobinHoldem]

These small things would improve the table scanners usability a lot (but aren't really critical though):

- In the datagridviews 'compress' the columns (make them smaller), they all have a default width now (and I don't have a screen a 5000 pixels wide). Compressing them like double clicking on the column header seperator would be ideal.

- Remember the auto-interval time, so I can start scanning by just thicking the checkbox.

- Start scanning right away after thicking the box. It seems it first waits for 1 interval to pass.

- Colorize the values in the scoring window a user has changed from the default. This would make it a lot easier to read the rules.

- Sorting on reads in the table datagridview is weird. It only sorts on the first character, eg: 0/1, 0/3, 0/2, where I would expect it to be 0/1, 0/2, 0/3.

Vielen Dank für Ihre harte Arbeit :)

[RobinHoldem]

- include statistics, maybe not counting them for the table scoring, from people on the waiting list

[Mr_Snood]

- In the datagridviews 'compress' the columns (make them smaller), they all have a default width now (and I don't have a screen a 5000 pixels wide). Compressing them like double clicking on the column header seperator would be ideal.

Will consider that.



- Remember the auto-interval time, so I can start scanning by just thicking the checkbox.

Will add that.



- Start scanning right away after thicking the box. It seems it first waits for 1 interval to pass.

Will add that.



- Colorize the values in the scoring window a user has changed from the default. This would make it a lot easier to read the rules.

Good idea.
Will add that.



- Sorting on reads in the table datagridview is weird. It only sorts on the first character, eg: 0/1, 0/3, 0/2, where I would expect it to be 0/1, 0/2, 0/3.

Will fix that sooner or later :)

[Mr_Snood]

- include statistics, maybe not counting them for the table scoring, from people on the waiting list
Don't like the idea right now :)
Could lead to problems and get a big hassle.

[RobinHoldem]

a couple of other suggestions;

- option to filter by table score, eg. hide tables scoring less than 100
- option to hide the 5max special tables on full tilt
- include total stack size for the whole table and allow to filter on that
- the color you have used in the scoring 'editor' is dark green, which makes the text hard to read. maybe change it to a lighter color, eg. the green used in the table view/

thanks,
keep up the good work

[RobinHoldem]

- maybe a working 'close' button on the buddies and regulars list :D

[Mr_Snood]

- option to filter by table score, eg. hide tables scoring less than 100

Added



- include total stack size for the whole table and allow to filter on that

Will add that later



- the color you have used in the scoring 'editor' is dark green, which makes the text hard to read. maybe change it to a lighter color, eg. the green used in the table view/
- maybe a working 'close' button on the buddies and regulars list :D

Fixed

[jschell]

Thought I would add this here rather than make a new thread:
- Allow scoring by number of blinds in a players stack

I play multiple different levels, so a full stack at one level would be a short stack at another. Thus, I'd rather score a player's stack relative to the level.

[Mr_Snood]

Well, you can set the "Stack min." and "Stack max." property (in BB) for each of your scoring rules.
Isn't that what you ask for?

[HPR1978]

Don't like the idea right now :)
Could lead to problems and get a big hassle.

Why dont you like that idea?
A fishy 6max table with a waiting of 5 isn`t worth much cause when you get to the table it will be full of TAGs.
On the other hand if 4 of the 5 on the list are fish too it`s still worth to get on the waiting list...

CU
HP

[jschell]

Well, you can set the "Stack min." and "Stack max." property (in BB) for each of your scoring rules.
Isn't that what you ask for?
Yes, sorry, I thought that was in dollars since the "Stack" columns from the middle and bottom sections are in dollars.

[Slimtobi]

Am I right that there is no column for "Plrs/flop"%?

This is an important info for table selection and I dont see why its not included in the scanning since the pokersite lobby shows this info.

[Taggi]

2requests from things you had in spadeye

Bold table names when table is open
Display stat: # of tables player is on

[Mr_Snood]

Am I right that there is no column for "Plrs/flop"%?

Consider it added :)

[Mr_Snood]

2requests from things you had in spadeye

Bold table names when table is open
Display stat: # of tables player is on

Sorry, not possible yet.

[Mr_Snood]

Why dont you like that idea?
A fishy 6max table with a waiting of 5 isn`t worth much cause when you get to the table it will be full of TAGs.
On the other hand if 4 of the 5 on the list are fish too it`s still worth to get on the waiting list...
CU
HP

Well, it's not 100% sure that the people from the waitlist will ever sit down at that table.
Thus it's not worth the hassle to scan and display them, too

[HenryII]

It would be nice to know which tables I am already waitlisted on, just like it shows which tables I'm on by changing the color of the Tablename cell.

[HenryII]

Also... after a scan, select the first row of the grid so I don't have to scroll to the top every time.

[royhobbstn]

Also... after a scan, select the first row of the grid so I don't have to scroll to the top every time.

This.

Also, you might want to check up on Absolute Poker scanning, at times the players you have listed for each table are incorrect. (Sometimes they are the players on the previous table in the lobby)

By the way - just so you can get some positive feedback... I have used all the different versions of SpadeEye, and would much prefer to use a product like this, that scans everything at once. I will definitely be a customer.

[JH1]

Why dont you like that idea?
A fishy 6max table with a waiting of 5 isn`t worth much cause when you get to the table it will be full of TAGs.
On the other hand if 4 of the 5 on the list are fish too it`s still worth to get on the waiting list...

CU
HP

afaik fish don't use waiting lists

[DonManuel]

I posted this some time ago for the Table Manager.


I'd like to see, besides the average VPIP, PFR and pot, the average stack*VPIP. Many times the avg VPIP of a table is high but it is only because there's a shortstacker with 30 BBs and the rest are 18/15 nits. Avg VPIP can be misleading in this case.

Let's say, the VPIP of the fish is 65%, the rest have a 18% VPIP, average is (6max) 26%, which makes a good game. However, if this guy has 30 BBs, this is not a very good table to play in. The average stack*VPIP is 1/6*(18%*100*5+30*65%)=18 BBs, but the average stack is 88 BBs.

To sum up, a table with 5 full-stacked 18% VPIP players and a fish with 30 BBs and a VPIP of 65%, would show up as a table with an average VPIP of 26% (and an average stack of 88BBs if this info is available), which may seem a good table. However, the avg. stack-VPIP is only 18 BBs, signaling a bad table.

Does this make any sense?

[kninja]

it who'd be nice to be able to combine classic scan with insta instead of choosing one
the reason is, no micro stakes
i can filter the local list for the classic scan to include the unsupported stakes
then use insta for all sported
they way it is set now i have to switch back and forth between the scans
and untick clear table and players stats on new scan otherwise i lose micro stats

TIA

K.

[ScannerSupport]

Indeed, that's a problem.
We will work out a solution for that.