I bought this and played in several of the 40-player tournaments, winning one of them and finishing second in another.  The program does a good job of making the experience fun and easy, and there are some nice features that you can turn on or off as you see fit, including what they call the "cheat mode," which lets you look at the cards of uncalled hands and see community cards not dealt when nobody calls.  When there is a showdown after somebody has gone all-in the probability of winning the pot for each hand is given as it is on TV.  You can speed up play or slow it down, and you have the option of jumping to the end of the hand after you fold--an option that one soon chooses and stays with!

There are three levels of difficulty, although I didn't play long enough to get a real feel for the differences.  I did notice a rather annoying and ultimately totally off-putting bug (or perhaps, in the spirit of some programming traditions, maybe this is a "feature" that helps the neophyte player win).  Quite simply some of the computer players called with hands that could not beat the board!

Now it is true that there are times when it is correct to call with a hand that cannot beat the board.  These are very rare however and typically occur when there is a straight on board.  Everybody has that straight (at least), and if it is the best hand, the players left at the showdown split the pot.  Clearly if the board is AKQJT, with no more than two cards of any suit, it is the nut hand and no matter what the bet is you have to call and split the pot.  However, in this program some computer players were calling with hands that made no pairs, no flushes, no straights and were undercards to the board.  For example, one board was something like A89TQ of three different suits.  One of the computer players called with something like 64.  As any hold'em player knows that call makes no sense.  It is just throwing money away.

This discovery really turned me off the program because even at the most elementary level of play, real players do not make such suicidal calls.

The package also claims that "Computer opponents learn and adapt to your style of play."  What this statement should mean is that the program does things like fold a lot when it notices that you don't bluff much or call a lot or raise if it records a lot of bluffs from you.  This "learn mode" is what makes poker-playing 'bots very difficult to beat, and would be an essential part of any program that presumed to be able to beat sophisticated human players.  My problem with their learn mode is that I didn't see any evidence of it!

I would like to note in passing that some years ago Mike Caro, the self-styled "Mad Genius of Poker," developed a poker engine that was able to beat some very good human players.  However, I am not aware of a program that can play at the highest levels of the game, a program that could beat a table of world champions, for example, a program comparable to chess-playing programs that can beat grand masters.  Maybe such a program exists and I am not aware of it.  My guess is that such a program is possible, but very difficult to write.

Anyway, I would not recommend this program and I am sorry that I bought it.
I bought this and played in several of the 40-player tournaments, winning one of them and finishing second in another. The program does a good job of making the experience fun and easy, and there are some nice features that you can turn on or off as you see fit, including what they call the "cheat mode," which lets you look at the cards of uncalled hands and see community cards not dealt when nobody calls. When there is a showdown after somebody has gone all-in the probability of winning the pot for each hand is given as it is on TV. You can speed up play or slow it down, and you have the option of jumping to the end of the hand after you fold--an option that one soon chooses and stays with! There are three levels of difficulty, although I didn't play long enough to get a real feel for the differences. I did notice a rather annoying and ultimately totally off-putting bug (or perhaps, in the spirit of some programming traditions, maybe this is a "feature" that helps the neophyte player win). Quite simply some of the computer players called with hands that could not beat the board! Now it is true that there are times when it is correct to call with a hand that cannot beat the board. These are very rare however and typically occur when there is a straight on board. Everybody has that straight (at least), and if it is the best hand, the players left at the showdown split the pot. Clearly if the board is AKQJT, with no more than two cards of any suit, it is the nut hand and no matter what the bet is you have to call and split the pot. However, in this program some computer players were calling with hands that made no pairs, no flushes, no straights and were undercards to the board. For example, one board was something like A89TQ of three different suits. One of the computer players called with something like 64. As any hold'em player knows that call makes no sense. It is just throwing money away. This discovery really turned me off the program because even at the most elementary level of play, real players do not make such suicidal calls. The package also claims that "Computer opponents learn and adapt to your style of play. "  What this statement should mean is that the program does things like fold a lot when it notices that you don't bluff much or call a lot or raise if it records a lot of bluffs from you. This "learn mode" is what makes poker-playing 'bots very difficult to beat, and would be an essential part of any program that presumed to be able to beat sophisticated human players. My problem with their learn mode is that I didn't see any evidence of it! I would like to note in passing that some years ago Mike Caro, the self-styled "Mad Genius of Poker," developed a poker engine that was able to beat some very good human players. However, I am not aware of a program that can play at the highest levels of the game, a program that could beat a table of world champions, for example, a program comparable to chess-playing programs that can beat grand masters. Maybe such a program exists and I am not aware of it. My guess is that such a program is possible, but very difficult to write. Anyway, I would not recommend this program and I am sorry that I bought it.