Multi-Tabling and HUDs re USA & NV Gaming regulations - Poker News Headlines

**Professionalpoker** · 12-26-2011, 01:25 PM

Do you think a muti-tabling restriction should be part of the regulations or left up to the site? How about the use of HUDS?

girahy · 12-29-2011, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LT22

I don't want to derail this thread as it pertains to the regulations, but 6max cash online poker is already 5-6 multitabling regs with 0-1 recreational player

True but if its going mainstream its more for people who want to relax play some poker and chat at the table. The idea that they are playing against people with statistical HUD's tiling 12 tables isnt the image that people want imo.

DesertCat · 12-29-2011, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girahy

True but if its going mainstream its more for people who want to relax play some poker and chat at the table. The idea that they are playing against people with statistical HUD's tiling 12 tables isnt the image that people want imo.

You and I don't work in marketing at Stars. We don't really know what casual players want. And neither do regulators.

The last thing we want is regulators to think they have to put in a bunch of whacky regulations about HUDs and limiting number of tables played just to placate people on this thread. The Pros will still 12 table, just use 3 sites to do it. They'll still use HUDs. Little will change but every site will have more regs and costs and players will have to have more accounts on more sites.

Every site has the option of limiting multi-tablers and HUDs if they feel it will get them more players, esp. more casual players. On Bodog and Cake you can play anonymously or change your screen names. The end result is that collusion is much harder to detect by the regulars, and players are more reliant on two of the worst security departments in the business. But at least we have choices to play elsewhere, imagine if every site had to allow features that made collusion difficult to detect by regulation, just because regulators thought they had to cut down on multi-tabling ?

Let's not derail this thread any more with discussions of HUDs/multiabling and focus on the regs that have been proposed.

Rusemandingo · 12-29-2011, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girahy

True but if its going mainstream its more for people who want to relax play some poker and chat at the table. The idea that they are playing against people with statistical HUD's tiling 12 tables isnt the image that people want imo.

Rec players dont know theyre playing against people 12 tabling with HUDs because they dont know what a HUD is or that people play multiple tables (at least i didnt). They may not like that not more people talk but if theyre like i was theyre engrossed enough in the action that it wont matter.

The government is designing these sites to generate revenue not spread a fun game for the population. They will put things in place to make sure the casual player is protected but theyre not gonna make decisions that will drastically cut into the rake unless its necessary for the safety of the games.

jaakkang · 12-29-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DesertCat

HUDs are unstoppable.

As long as you allow players to have hand histories, then there will be software to managed databases of hand histories. They can still use that database even without a HUD, and the DB will be able to display live stats on current players at current tables in in it's own windows, and automatically keep it's display windows alongside the table windows.

The HUD is just a tiny piece of software that puts relevant stats on top of the poker tables themselves to make it a bit quicker and easier to read.

The only way to stop HUDs would be to stop the collection of hand histories. That itself is almost impossible, because anything that can be displayed on your computer screen can be recorded and saved in a database, etc.

But not allowing players to easily access hand histories also would promote fraud, theft and a lack of trust in the integrity of the sites. You wouldn't have guys on 2p2 being able to statistically analyze the behavior of cheaters to prove they were cheating, you could only hope that the NGC's audits and staff were so super smart they couldn't be fooled by the UBs and APs of the world, let alone rings of colluders, bots, etc.

Poker sites have a lot of tools at their disposal to change how their games play, and how profitable it is for nits to mass multi-table. First among them is their VIP programs. The FPP/VPP accelerators built into PokerStars programs is one of the big incentives for the mass multitablers, but PS can turn these incentives down or off any time they think they are bad for games.

If there is a ton of competition from licensed sites and players prefer to play on the sites that have VIP programs and game features that don't give extra benefits to mass multitablers, then PS will be forced to tweak their VIP benefits to compete.

But PS may actually have the business model right. In reality is their VIP program is an excellent replacement for Props, both because it's cheaper for them and creates more games. In live poker, Props often make way over 100% rake back in exchange for being forced to start games and work certain shifts, etc. With their VIP program, PS essentially created a cadre of independent contractors who could make a fine living, earning up to almost 100% rake back, by simply playing a ton of tables at once, ensuring that PS always has a huge selection of games running to attract casual players.

This is why "rake free" poker never makes sense as a business model. Casual players rarely care about the rake, they mostly care about being able to get action and play games whenever they want to log in. Professionals care about the rake, but in a rake free type of environment the house doesn't have any incentives to get professionals to play often, so it's really difficult to get games started. So they have the chicken/egg problem. Lots of pros would love to play "rake free" if there were games, but there are no games so no one plays. At PS there are always games, even now.

Ty for this part the most!
It is tremendously useful to me at the moment, and although being kind of obvious, it was so spot on, that i got a grip over an idea, i have had for a long time.

Maybe an obvious question also, but what to the mature readers and posters in here think?
If there would be an extra option to pay more rake, but to get more fish, who maybe even do not pay any attention to the rake being taken from the pots, would the better players/grinders, nits and sharks follow?

also, I still have no idea, how one should use the commas in English language.

DonkeyQuixote · 12-29-2011, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DesertCat

You and I don't work in marketing at Stars. We don't really know what casual players want. And neither do regulators.

The last thing we want is regulators to think they have to put in a bunch of whacky regulations about HUDs and limiting number of tables played just to placate people on this thread. The Pros will still 12 table, just use 3 sites to do it. They'll still use HUDs. Little will change but every site will have more regs and costs and players will have to have more accounts on more sites.

Every site has the option of limiting multi-tablers and HUDs if they feel it will get them more players, esp. more casual players. On Bodog and Cake you can play anonymously or change your screen names. The end result is that collusion is much harder to detect by the regulars, and players are more reliant on two of the worst security departments in the business. But at least we have choices to play elsewhere, imagine if every site had to allow features that made collusion difficult to detect by regulation, just because regulators thought they had to cut down on multi-tabling ?

Let's not derail this thread any more with discussions of HUDs/multiabling and focus on the regs that have been proposed.

Such a discussion of whehter regs address player concerns like those voiced here is NOT derailing the thread. It points up a need to make sure your points are heard at the Nevada Gaming Control Board. These new regs WILL be tweaked going forward, this evolving process was discussed at the Gaming Commission meeting last week.

While discussing who might step up and provide input to the NGCB is considered derailing this thread, I've been told; it might make a good thread in another forum.

DonkeyQuixote · 12-29-2011, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusemandingo

Rec players dont know theyre playing against people 12 tabling with HUDs because they dont know what a HUD is or that people play multiple tables (at least i didnt). They may not like that not more people talk but if theyre like i was theyre engrossed enough in the action that it wont matter.

The government is designing these sites to generate revenue not spread a fun game for the population. They will put things in place to make sure the casual player is protected but theyre not gonna make decisions that will drastically cut into the rake unless its necessary for the safety of the games.

In my opinion, there is a good chance that HUDs and rakeback/revenue sharing in any form other than comps might be barred as regulations progress.

I also think that multi-tabling will be an issue for discussion, but is less likely to be banned.

Generally, your analysis is spot on. However, there is one point you make is incorrect in my view. I believe is that the industry believes that the best way to maximize revenue IS to "spread a fun game for the population". There are a variety of reasons I believe that, based upon years of discussions with both online and B&M operators. The casual player WANTS a "fun game" experience, shaping that experience is the key to retaining happy casual customers.

On the revenue analysis side, the longer a casual player survives on his deposit, the more rake he generates. An analysis of relative player value may prompt a scale back on historic catering to "casual player bankroll killers" in the name of liquidity. The relative value of casual players and sharks to a business can be argued about, but it is a tradeoff that might develop. I think sites will want to determine the best way to maximize deposits and the hold rate on such deposits.

Keep in mind also that there is a major goal of cross-selling other gaming opportunities.

DesertCat · 12-29-2011, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkeyQuixote

In my opinion, there is a good chance that HUDs and rakeback/revenue sharing in any form other than comps might be barred as regulations progress.

This could almost certainly hobble the U.S. based poker market severely.

Not the HUDs, obviously sites and regulators don't have the technical ability to ban HUDs, and no matter what changes they make to break HUDs, a clever software engineer will be able to provide real-time data to players within weeks.

But the model that has been shown to work overwhelmingly best, uses rake back to generate variable pricing based on usage. If regulators ban rake back, and don't allow sites to reward volume players for playing more (or in reality, charge lower rake for volume play), volume players will certainly play less. And if they play less, there will be fewer games and less rake. That means less marketing, fewer recreational players, etc.

If this happens, PokerStars will dominate the rest of world market, and U.S. players will still work to find ways to play on it. It will have by far the largest player pool, the most games, the most selection, and by far the largest tournaments, etc.

Quote:

Generally, your analysis is spot on. However, there is one point you make is incorrect in my view. I believe is that the industry believes that the best way to maximize revenue IS to "spread a fun game for the population". There are a variety of reasons I believe that, based upon years of discussions with both online and B&M operators. The casual player WANTS a "fun game" experience, shaping that experience is the key to retaining happy casual customers.

On the revenue analysis side, the longer a casual player survives on his deposit, the more rake he generates. An analysis of relative player value may prompt a scale back on historic catering to "casual player bankroll killers" in the name of liquidity. The relative value of casual players and sharks to a business can be argued about, but it is a tradeoff that might develop. I think sites will want to determine the best way to maximize deposits and the hold rate on such deposits.

Keep in mind also that there is a major goal of cross-selling other gaming opportunities.

I don't disagree with any of this. When licensing is available, hopefully a flood of new competitors experiment with new approaches, and maybe find a better business model. But if regulators try to push the industry in a certain direction by rule, forcing them to give up affiliate payments or rake back for example, there is a huge risk of unintended consequences and the U.S. market becoming a market of midget sites with small player pools.

I'm just cautioning people who post on this thread that want the NGC to solve every minor issue by regulation to be very careful what you ask for, because you might not like the results if you get it. If the NGC bans standard industry practices by reg, you won't have any choice (other than to play overseas) , you'll be forced to accept any unforeseen negative consequences if you want to play on any site.

If they avoid regulating business models/marketing approaches and focus on fairness/safety, we should have many sites to choose from and to play on the ones that cater to our specific preferences and needs.

Rant · 12-29-2011, 03:24 PM

I don't understand some of the discussion on multi-tabling limits.

Without table limits:
Hero plays 12 tables on WSOP.com

With table limits:
Hero plays 4 tables on WSOP.com
Hero plays 4 tables on Wynn.com
Hero plays 4 tables on Party.com

1) Why in the world would WSOP.com willingly limit players to 4 tables?

2) How would government-regulated mutli-tabling limits help anything in a broad sense? WITH table limits Hero is still playing 12 tables. The government doesn't/shouldn't care that they're now spread across multiple sites aside from monopoly/competition issues (which clearly isn't the point of table limits).

DonkeyQuixote · 12-29-2011, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DesertCat

This could almost certainly hobble the U.S. based poker market severely.

Not the HUDs, obviously sites and regulators don't have the technical ability to ban HUDs, and no matter what changes they make to break HUDs, a clever software engineer will be able to provide real-time data to players within weeks.

But the model that has been shown to work overwhelmingly best, uses rake back to generate variable pricing based on usage. If regulators ban rake back, and don't allow sites to reward volume players for playing more (or in reality, charge lower rake for volume play), volume players will certainly play less. And if they play less, there will be fewer games and less rake. That means less marketing, fewer recreational players, etc.

If this happens, PokerStars will dominate the rest of world market, and U.S. players will still work to find ways to play on it. It will have by far the largest player pool, the most games, the most selection, and by far the largest tournaments, etc.

I don't disagree with any of this. When licensing is available, hopefully a flood of new competitors experiment with new approaches, and maybe find a better business model. But if regulators try to push the industry in a certain direction by rule, forcing them to give up affiliate payments or rake back for example, there is a huge risk of unintended consequences and the U.S. market becoming a market of midget sites with small player pools.

I'm just cautioning people who post on this thread that want the NGC to solve every minor issue by regulation to be very careful what you ask for, because you might not like the results if you get it. If the NGC bans standard industry practices by reg, you won't have any choice (other than to play overseas) , you'll be forced to accept any unforeseen negative consequences if you want to play on any site.

If they avoid regulating business models/marketing approaches and focus on fairness/safety, we should have many sites to choose from and to play on the ones that cater to our specific preferences and needs.

Fair enough discussion and warning ....

FWIW, one certain competitor will have a tremendous built-in advantage already, without resort to adffiliates. Interestingly, the regs already provide that marketing partners must be licensed as a class three service provider.

:::grimReaper::: · 12-30-2011, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rant

I don't understand some of the discussion on multi-tabling limits.

Without table limits:
Hero plays 12 tables on WSOP.com

With table limits:
Hero plays 4 tables on WSOP.com
Hero plays 4 tables on Wynn.com
Hero plays 4 tables on Party.com

1) Why in the world would WSOP.com willingly limit players to 4 tables?

2) How would government-regulated mutli-tabling limits help anything in a broad sense? WITH table limits Hero is still playing 12 tables. The government doesn't/shouldn't care that they're now spread across multiple sites aside from monopoly/competition issues (which clearly isn't the point of table limits).

And also,

Without table limits:
Villain1 plays 12 tables on Wynn.com.
Villain2 plays 12 tables on Party.com

With table limits:
Villain1 plays 4 tables on WSOP.com
Villain1 plays 4 tables on Wynn.com
Villain1 plays 4 tables on Party.com
Villain2 plays 4 tables on WSOP.com
Villain2 plays 4 tables on Wynn.com
Villain2 plays 4 tables on Party.com

In the end, you still get a 12:1 reg:table ratio at each site. But the problem is that it makes the sites less competitive. They don't have to fight for the regs or have to work their ass off to attract fish.

What we should consider are HUDs. By restricting the total number of tables, the quality of the game is unchanged and we're left with less competitive sites. But by restricting HUDs, sites are still competitive (they're still fighting for regs, regs have a choice unlike the scenario generated by restricting # tables), AND the quality and long term sustainability of the game increases. It also improves the perception of the game in fish's eyes, as they feel less intimidated and stupid.

I'm generally for free market solutions, but the market is likely going to select for HUDs if they have the choice. Both, too less and too much liquidity can be a problem.

DesertCat · 12-30-2011, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by :::grimReaper:::

I'm generally for free market solutions, but the market is likely going to select for HUDs if they have the choice.

But you realize that sites and regulators have no ability to ban HUDs, don't you?

I'm a software engineer, as soon as your poker software makes a hand history available to a player, I can write software that will run on any operating system to stuff the hand in a database and display statistics from that database on screen.

If the sites stop making hand histories available, that becomes problematic for players, because they will have little to no ability to detect many types of fraud and collusion. But I can STILL write a HUD, simply by "screen scraping", I can detect what actions are occurring on your tables and write my own hand histories to my database, and displaying that data on screen is trivial.

HUDs are unstoppable. People need to get over the idea that by regulation or site efforts they can be banned..

Cliffs? · 12-30-2011, 03:42 PM

^^^
Given this, how about making the playing field level by having the sites integrate and offer HUD stats to everyone and make it a table display option. Those that want to learn about and use it will, the casual player will ignore it.

:::grimReaper::: · 12-30-2011, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DesertCat

If the sites stop making hand histories available, that becomes problematic for players, because they will have little to no ability to detect many types of fraud and collusion.

As I said earlier, release HH to the player once he leaves the table. It will reduce the effectiveness of HUDs, legal or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DesertCat

But I can STILL write a HUD, simply by "screen scraping", I can detect what actions are occurring on your tables and write my own hand histories to my database, and displaying that data on screen is trivial.

HUDs are unstoppable. People need to get over the idea that by regulation or site efforts they can be banned..

You can make the same argument for botters, cheaters and colluders. Should we allow them as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cliffs?

^^^
Given this, how about making the playing field level by having the sites integrate and offer HUD stats to everyone and make it a table display option. Those that want to learn about and use it will, the casual player will ignore it.

It makes poker feel more business-like and technical, which may be a plus for the overall stigma against it, but something that may turn off recreational players/gamblers and encourage them to play live to avoid squinting at tiny numbers. Also, do you really want a fish to transform his stats from 40/5 to 24/20?

DesertCat · 12-30-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by :::grimReaper:::

As I said earlier, release HH to the player once he leaves the table. It will reduce the effectiveness of HUDs, legal or not.

That won't work and would be a huge annoyance for casual players.

You want to play poker without being able to see what won at showdown in the last hand or the hand before? If so, almost every one else will disagree with you.

And for the brief time it's effective, it would only reduce HUD effectiveness by the tiniest of margins, my DB already has tens of thousands of hands on regulars I play against, and I can buy almost every single hand played in my limits every month if I want so virtually no one will be unknown to me.

And someone will quickly write a screen scraper to provide instant Hand Histories, so it will have zero effect, other than to waste the time of sites and regulators so players have to wait longer for new features they actually value.

Quote:

You can make the same argument for botters, cheaters and colluders. Should we allow them as well?

Keeping track of your opponents tendencies isn't cheating. You can do it live with a database on your iPhone or a pad an paper.

In fact HUDs are beneficial for online poker in general, even for casual players. I play 3-4 tables at once because of a HUD, without it I will certainly play fewer. There will be fewer games to choose from, and less rake for the sites, and it will be harder to make a living as full time professional, which will reduce the number of games further.

Banning something that isn't cheating, isn't causing any significant problem, and is beneficial in some ways is a waste of time and resources, and comes with unintended consequences that will probably be far worse.