Comments on: RE: ShuffleTech (2) http://pokerati.com/2008/09/07/re-shuffletech-2/ Texas Hold'em and Las Vegas WSOP Poker Blog, now with PLO too! Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:03:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Karridy http://pokerati.com/2008/09/07/re-shuffletech-2/comment-page-1/#comment-157449 Karridy Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:51:17 +0000 http://pokerati.com/?p=4402#comment-157449 Wow... I took it totally as intended. Then I started wondering what language I would have to write in to create such deck stacking code. Honestly, if you want to shoot holes in their response, I'd just say that they could have said, "The hardware, software, and testing and inherent certifications requirements associated with such a feature would have increased production cost to a point which we feel would be cost-prohibitive for our target customers." :* <- That's not an emoticon. It's me talking out of my ass. Wow… I took it totally as intended. Then I started wondering what language I would have to write in to create such deck stacking code.

Honestly, if you want to shoot holes in their response, I’d just say that they could have said, “The hardware, software, and testing and inherent certifications requirements associated with such a feature would have increased production cost to a point which we feel would be cost-prohibitive for our target customers.” :* <- That’s not an emoticon. It’s me talking out of my ass.

]]> By: ItsOverJonny http://pokerati.com/2008/09/07/re-shuffletech-2/comment-page-1/#comment-157393 ItsOverJonny Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:34:20 +0000 http://pokerati.com/?p=4402#comment-157393 Ummmm, Huh? A simple "No" would have been a much better answer. I would have gladly accepted "No - at this price point, we cannot implement this advanced feature into our product." - that would be perfectly fair. But to say that they excluded this feature because it could lead to cheating/abuse is like saying, "No, your new car does not have seatbelts because the seatbelts might come to life and strangle you like a serpent. hey - it could happen! It's for your own good." I guess this really has nothing to do with what seems to be a great product, but I hate sales/sales support people who speak from their asses. Ummmm, Huh? A simple “No” would have been a much better answer. I would have gladly accepted “No – at this price point, we cannot implement this advanced feature into our product.” – that would be perfectly fair.

But to say that they excluded this feature because it could lead to cheating/abuse is like saying, “No, your new car does not have seatbelts because the seatbelts might come to life and strangle you like a serpent. hey – it could happen! It’s for your own good.”

I guess this really has nothing to do with what seems to be a great product, but I hate sales/sales support people who speak from their asses.

]]>