No no no no no no no. Let the sites decide if they want to allow HUDs or not. That way the consumer has the choice to play on a site that allows HUDs or one that doesn't.

I think HUDS are unfair. If you are good you shouldnt need one

I'm glad to see that some posters thought to bring up some issues I wanted to address in the past but didn't have the time.

Any money that is made (or raked) from poker comes from players. The more that is raked, the less there is available to the players. The more that is won by winning players, the less is available to losing players. Raise the rake or allow winning players to win at higher rates, the more losing players will lose, and the more losers there will be. In order for poker to survive, there must be balance between the three. Winning players must win enough to make it worth their time, losing players must not lose too much or they will either run out of money too fast, or be scared away from the games. The house must make enough money to make spreading the games profitable.

In online poker there is little overhead compared with brick and mortar card-rooms--especially after initial start-up expenses. There is no need for $3 max rake, imo. There is plenty of money to be made with a lower max rake. I think many online players, initially used to b&m rakes, tolerated similar rakes online--especially since online poker was of dubious legality, and good players were making a lot of money anyway. If it were legal, online poker sites could probably make a great income with a 5%-to-$1 max rake, and even have great give-aways like Stars.

Since so many more hands can be dealt per hour online than in a b&m card-room, there is plenty of opportunity for good players to make a lot of money playing poker online without additional advantages such as poker tracker and HUDs. And if such things are allowed to continue and evolve further, it won't be long before you must use such tools to just break even. And when some outfit like 60 minutes does an expose' on that, the end of online poker will be upon us. What new player is going to want to play and lose to "machines?" Eventually online poker will evolve towards a competition of game-theory bots, with no winners except the poker sites, if nothing is done to prevent it.

I think the following steps should be considered to insure the game of online poker is competitive and sustainable.

1. Limit rake to 5%-to-$X max (I don't know if $1 is too high, just right, or too low. It's probably high enough for sites to make a great profit).

2. Make it illegal to use, advertise or sell software, firmware or hardware that's used in real time to provide an advantage to a player during a game. That would include things like HUDs and Bots but exclude things such as books, software and other aids generally used to improve your game while not playing. If it's illegal to use, sell and advertise HUDs and Bots (and whatever), there will less incentive to create such things.

3. Require sites to provide an "anonymous" option where a players name is simply something like "Big Joe", "Slim", etc. This must be the mandatory default setting that must be changed by the player, if so desired. Players could pick their table name from a menu (similar to Full Tilt icons) and the same name could appear more than once on a table. This would frustrate any attempt at data mining and render software like poker tracker useless. An exception could be made for "high stakes" where cheating is more of a concern or for promotional events (where "celebrity" players could use their real names). Possibly also an exception for the final few tables in a tournament.

4. Anyone caught cheating (including #2 above and proven beyond a doubt) confiscates any money in their account and is subject to criminal charges and fines. This money would be taken by the government (not kept by the site) and used for gambling addiction issues, etc.

5. Some sort of positive ID be required to play, verified through the sites or banking institutions. This is necessary for verifying age (and location if relevant because of state restrictions), tax purposes (reporting winnings), and enforcing #4 above.

6. Sites be required to take an active role in maintaining a fair game and reporting cheaters to the appropriate authorities. Sites should be required to post a bond and protect players funds.

7. Allow hand histories to be provided to only players at the table. Hole cards only provided to players alive for the showdown.

I was originally leaning against allowing multi-tabling, since it allows the better players to take even more money out of the poker economy. And it should be addressed and possibly limited. But I think the threat caused by it is far less than allowing software to be used to gain an advantage. More importantly, I think online poker can survive with multi-tabling.

Really cant see why people say HUDs are unfair to players. HUDs can be used by anyone so no one is at a disadvantage, if a player does not wish to use them thats there own problem and there own loss. Also people using HUDs are generally playing more tables, more tables being played by players = more rake being taken by the site = more profit for the big money men.

1. Having some automated method to define players is not historically poker.

2. Adding more complexity to the game increases profits for the better players, which in turn makes lesser players lose faster. This is turn will turn small winners and break even players into losers. This will eventually kill the games.

3. The software will continue evolving and eventually will recommend how to play and then evolve into making the recommended play for you (bots).

4. Letting players chose for themselves is only fair if all players know and understand how not using the software will put them at a large disadvantage. And knowing that other players might be using software to play against them will scare many of them away, or limit their playing time.

5. The "letting players chose for themselves" argument can be applied to being anonymous, which would render HUDs nearly useless.

Are you kidding!? People who use HUDs have an advantage of people who don't. People who don't have a ton of time to devote to learning how to use HUD's won't use HUDs. Recreational players generally don't have that kind of time. Therefore, recreational players, if aware of HUDs, generally don't play online.

An analogy....the great game of Scrabble. Some people know all those useful tiny words (Qi, Qat, Suq, Taq, Za, etc.). People who don't know those words don't want to play with people who do. They don't want to lose all the time, and they don't have time or interest to learn how to compete.

If you arent good enough to win without a HUD its unfair to use the HUD for an advantage. Its not poker and it violates the one player to a hand rule

But then again, neither is playing poker online. And for that matter perhaps the new sites should not allow anyone to play on more than one table since "historically" speaking that isn't poker either. Historically speaking, poker games in the old days weren't regulated at all, were often corrupt and the notion of a max rake didn't even exist. But the game evolved and it is what we know it to be today. Thus arguments that appeal to any form of "historical" poker are flawed in that it fails to recognize that online poker, while a form of poker, is different and has evolved along different lines then the traditional b&m version that many know. For better or worse, HUD's are a part of the online game and to disallow them now would be an evolution of the game that is wholly unnatural. Whatever equilibrium that has to be reached between winning players, losing players and the house has to come naturally. It makes sense to allow each site to decide on their own whether or not they want to allow HUD's and this way people can choose for themselves where they want to play. If the model of allowing 3rd party software proves to be unpopular then the sites will need no help in changing their business model. It makes more sense that sites be left to their own devices to decide what they do and do not allow so everyone has a place to play of their own choosing.

And neither is having anonymous players.

Really? When I go to a b&m I rarely know any other players. And if I do, it's only if they're regulars. And I hardly know how they played hands against other players in other games at other times. And I don't have a computer with me to remind me how they play every time I play a hand.

This argument is absurd. Using your logic, people should be allowed to cheat, since poker, and any other endeavor involving money, will naturally encourage cheating to occur. And it is also true that allowing HUDs has "naturally" created players who are against them. So this process we are engaging in here is just as "natural." Just like card-rooms "naturally" made rules against certain behavior because players complained about that behavior. Most recently, think of some of the changes in the rules at tournaments that evolved. This is because it's desirable to encourage certain behavior and competition, especially when the spotlight is on you.

Online poker already evolved unnaturally, because it wasn't really legal, and was squashed by the government. While there are many reasons for this, how we try to move the game forward will be scrutinized by government officials and the general public. Whether it's allowed to exist is subject to the opinions of many who have no interest in playing the game. If online poker is viewed only as a scheme for some to bilk as much money as possible from "suckers", even if it's made legal, it may not last long. The government may overreact and close it down or change the rules so much that it's no better than a house game.

HUDs are not a natural evolution of poker. It's a tool used to exploit unknowing players. It's about a good for the game as marked cards.

I know people have an advantage to those who don't but its not cheating and its not unfair because it stil available to everyone. For people who don't have enough time or dont play enough to be bothered to learn them, why must you ruin it for the people who do play a lot or have put in the time in.

I think HUD's would be against the law in NV, HUD's would be considered a gaming device. It would be like allowing you to use a camera to count cards at a Blackjack table and give you a instant count on the deck. So it can be said that you are breaking rule 3, don't you think?
AS for multi-tabling that would be like playing 6 hands at a Blackjack table or placing multiple bets on craps so it should be allowed.

you just pointed out the fatal flaw in your argument

HUDs do NOT belong in the law. If they're as evil as you suggest, they will be banned by the poker sites

I won't be at a licensed gaming establishment and it will be impossible to prevent people from calculating the odds of their flush draw against a pair

this might need to be clarified by the commission