I can deal with losing HUDs, it's still easy enough to divide players into types (loose fish, tight fish, spazzy fish, etc.) and most regs have pretty similar stats anyway. Not being able to multitable would be a huge pain in the ass though, since I don't want to have to play on six sites simultaneously. That said, I have no idea why sites would ban multitabling; if players want to feed them rake faster, why would they say no?

Have you thought about with table limit hero does not want to play anymore?

Actually, the less information the site gives out, the more difficult it would be for the colluders. Behind the scenes, the site's AI could monitor patterns of activity and usage in very sophisticated ways that would paint a very clear picture of where and how collusion was occurring; eventually, the colluders will have to invent a far more sophisticated strategy to have any chance.

Eliminating multi-tabling makes it more difficult also, and makes it more difficult for using bots and that sort of thing. Also, it gives normal players a bit more of a chance, which is probably positive for the sport. Say if someone is a decent player, if they want to make X number of dollars a day, they'll have to go up to that stakes and compete at that level, or at the very least have say four different accounts going at once (that could be regulated too, as the cloud gets increasingly transparent) which would necessitate playing at a higher level. Rather than playing at 1/8th or 1/16th of normal stakes, and 8 or 16 tabling in a robotic fashion to just "super grind" or whatever.

That is why people say "$1-$2 no limit online is like playing $5-$10 or $10-$20 live" or whatever because instead of the players get better and move up, many of them just spread out their variance into massive multi-tabling, with the sophisticated use of huds, stats, etc, which by its very nature is a strategy designed to get an edge on other players and decrease risk.

There's no reason why such strategies shouldn't be legal, but by the same token there's no reason why poker sites can't just make them impossible or very difficult in the interest of making their product better or more attractive.

Especially I predict you will eventually see "premium" poker sites, that offer this kind of one-on-one real poker experience, and maybe charge membership fees and higher rake or something, which milllions of casual online players or live players would gladly pay, rather than getting into an IT technology war with massive hordes of aspiring netgamers trying to grind out 2.5 BBH or whatever via 16 tables.

Like, I think about what it costs for a few drinks in a bar or casino, or the tips I give out to dealers and floor people. If I could sit into a really decent online $2-$5 game and maybe it costs me $20 up front to sit down or whatever, ****, I have no problem with that at all. I just want to play.

That is probably like 90% of potential customers, they just want fun and action and ready to pay for it.

They should also create a national ban list. If a player is caught cheating/fraud, then they get banned at all sites

yeah. I was reading that thread about AKD or whatever, Hammi and Sammy or whoever those guys were... the implication of some of the stuff I was reading in that thread is simultaneously astonishing, scary and depressing.

I don't know how much of it is real, or if those guys are the true perpetrators or whatever or got framed, but just reading between the lines, I do not like what I am reading about in that thread at all.

Eventually if the market for online poker gets so huge... let's say the amount of dollars in play globally outstrips drug dealing and small arms sales, just as an example. Say, $100B or $200B going around in online poker accounts.

Simultaneously, let's say the security of the sites gets uber strong, eliminating ALL collusion, spy apps, fraud and cheating of every stripe.

The stronger the security of the sites become, the more valuable and affluent the small percentage of truly elite poker players will become. The one's who can actually beat the games, without grinding 24 tables and a ton of stats, but just playing high stakes, single table, 6 max or nine handed or whatever. The amount of money will be such that, if the cheater types can't get a hold of it electronically, it is natural that they might start to lean on the players and threaten them physically, or force them into protection or loan sharking schemes, especially in less civilized places like (LoL) Sweden.

I guess it is largely unspoken, but the penchant among high stakes players to go for 1 on 1 matches is proabably due at least in part to a fear of collusion. If you play 1 on 1, or play 6 max against known opponents, then the risk of collusion is eliminated.

Ironically, as cheating and collusion and robotic tactics and exploits are scrubbed from the online poker systems, the amount of global revenue pouring through the sites will SKYROCKET, creating a goldmine for the truly good players, while locking out the criminal element. This is of course bound to create ancillary conflicts of some kind.

I've used a HUD ever since PT1 came out and I'm for banning them.

With how tough games are, we don't need grinders compiling stats on their opponents. True, everyone has access to them but HUDs eliminate a TON of the work in analysis. I.e. we know what is included in a 5% 3b stat, 16% PFR stat UTG, etc. This allows grinders to exploit fish to the max down to mathematical probabilities and imo probably dries the game up faster than if HUDs weren't allowed. I'm also pretty sure recreational fish don't like the fact that their every move is being tracked at a table. That said, HH history should definitely be importable as actually studying your game requires work and time. Opening your HUD and clicking "start HUD" doesn't require work or time compared to raw HH analysis.

Multitabling...I don't really see the point in banning. I think setting a reasonable cap on tables makes sense, but doing away with even 2 tabling is just ridiculous. Yeah, multitabling enables pros to get more volume but I don't think this has as much of an impact as HUDs do on the game. I also think we would see a lot less mass multitablers if HUDs were done away with.

multi-tabling has a huge impact on the games. just think about why you (?) are doing it and why sites reward it so heavily. but this is not really interesting in the context of government regulations. it is mostly a thing between sites and players. instead government regulators could be more interested in why money gets tunneled into a parallel monetary system called "VIP programs". for example many millions of $$ just disappeared here:

http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...ashout-policy&

Sites make more money of people that multi-table. If a player can beat a game playing one table at 5bbs but can play six tables and win at 2bbs, the site will make more money. The player will have to generate more rake to win money and cash out.

Having more players (same but playing on many tables) at a smaller win rate, probably doesn't have a huge effect on recreational players staying a live for much longer. Money is gonna move of the site reguardless so it is probably more profitable to have winning players take it off slower

HUDs are a great tool for multitabling. Because of what I posted, I'd think that is the reason why no sites really oppose hud.

Table limits are in place generally to keep the games moving faster. Faster games means more rake and a more enjoyable experience for the player.

I'm not in the industry but I think these are fairly accurate facts.

Men, you really think the gov't needs to regulate VIP systems? I do not want to derail this thread (it won't be tolerated in this forum, so don't try), but I read some of that article and there's a reason why nobody knows about it.

Getting back to multi tabling vs HUD. Multi tabling is far more detrimental to the quality of the game, assuming there are at least some fish playing. If there's hardly any fish, it doesn't really matter, let the pros battle on 24 tables. Now, multi tabling increases as a direct result of HUDs. If you want to see game quality increase and only get one option, you should choose max # of tables rather than eliminate HUD

Well, already we've more or less gotten to a place where amateur recreational players are drawing dead in most online games, and even very good players who are proficient with the higher level technology (multi-multi tabling, HUDs, data-mining, auto-pilot SNG strategy systems, statistical table selection, etc) post long threads whining about how the games are becoming too tough, too unbeatable, and that eventually online poker will just consume itself.

A huge, even VAST part of what makes online poker so difficult for amateurs (and pros) is the use of HUDs and statistics; the ability to track and identify players online, etc. Philosophically, multi-tabling is absolutely intrinsic to this process, which is predicated on A. playing a level that is not really challenging B. spreading out variance C. playing on stat driven auto-pilot, and this is not to mention the threat of collusion. How many pictures of Internet players have you seen, several of them all sitting together with their laptops or whatever? That in itself doesn't prove anything, but it just shows how trivially easy such collusion in fact is, when the protection from it is based on the idea that the players are somehow separated. The fact that one player can play 32 tables singlehandedly, and is able to identify and track opponents, just makes it that much easier.

Think about it: when online poker started, it was supposed to be an approximation of live poker, except online. It's clearly morphed into something monstrously different, in a way that only internet pros or wannabees are really into or concerned about.

If I walk into a live casino somewhere new, I will very likely sit down with 8 players I've never seen or played with before, or at least that I don't remember.

I feel that amateur or live players would LOVE to have that kind of anonymous experience online. You sit down at a table; everyone has a fictional identity and name "cowboy Bob" or "mustang Sally" or whatever. It could even rotate, so that you are not seeing me the way that I am seeing you, and vice versa. Like, to you I am "Joe cool" but the next player over sees me as "mustang sally" or whatever. Like it's all mixed up, but the purity of the game is held to.

Like I'm not talking about "Rush" poker, which was somewhat fun however, but just a playing environment where you could play secure in the knowledge that you're tendencies aren't being statistically mapped out and analyzed to be used against you, and also that collusion isn't taking place.

That opens up a HUGE market for potential players, and a huge profit opportunity for good players who are willing to play a single table for what they consider meaningful stakes.

Like if there was one site that everyone knows is just a jungle of data-mining, HUDs, stats, tracking, shark scoping, table scoping, SNG scoping, whatever, overrun by multi-tabling pros and bots and everything, and there is another site that is as I have described... CLEARLY the enlightened consumer will choose the anonymous protected table.

If there is strong resistance at the higher levels to this kind of thinking, honestly it makes me wonder if there is not some element of organized grift involved.

Ok, well, nobody is asking me about this, but I am somewhat of a software expert and I am going to give one further opinion/suggestion on this topic.

The future online poker sites could actually go THE OPPOSITE direction of what I have already described and suggested (strong protection of anonymity and prevention of HUD and stat use).

The HUDs, stats, scopes, analysis, everything that the most sophisticated online players use, could be BUILT IN to the sites.

Imagine sites with interactive capability and extensibility similar to Facebook. So, instead of Poker Tracker or Poker Office being a piece of **** standalone program that tries to sync up with the Full Tilt or Poker Stars client app, or a client app that links to some shady server somewhere, and has total **** interface that is overlayed on top of the screen... instead of all that bull****, the HUD and analysis software could just be a Fulltilt "App" or extension.

It could all be built in. Advanced stats, HUD settings, statistical table selection, bum hunting, SNG optimal strategy mapping, every kind of scoping, everything you can imagine, could just easily be built right into the new "Zynga - Facebook - MGM - Wynn" mega online poker site. EVERYBODY would have it. Right outta the box. Plug and play.

Having bought several iterations of Poker Tracker and Poker Office my self, as well as some various other HUD softwares and so forth, I can dispel the mystery for the unitiated and tell you that most of that software is complete crap. Yes, the core functionality is good, but the interface and all that is very, very unwieldy. I am quite sure that the ones who are able to use these softwares successfully are doing A LOT of configuration work on them, or having it done for them, and the ones who dig deeper into the analysis and so forth are likely doing so much work with these programs that they might as well just be writing the programs themselves. I'm not sure if there is a "Poker Tracker" SDK or something like that available to users, or some more advanced ways to customize it, but I would not be surprised if there were. As more of a live player myself, I was always astonished everytime I would pay $150 or whatever for "the super deluxe package version" of whatever Tracker software seemed best, expecting to install it and start playing with my screen looking like the example/youtube/cardrunner screens, only to find one problem after another, always starting with getting the damn thing to connect to Full Tilt. I mean, it was just one problem after another.

Then in desperation I would come to a poker forum, where I would find a Poker Tracker thread with thousands of posts, and one or two support posters posting incomplete and confusing answers to questions, which quickly descend into operating system configuration issues and so forth. Within one or two questions the answer is usually "you will just have to figure it out for yourself, do the work, or if you want you can get a refund." Boom. End of story.

So, people like me that don't have the patience to spend (literally) 100 hours configuring HUD and tracker software, and don't play that much online anyway, are not the ones that are using the sophisticated technologies on the online poker sites. Clearly, this starts to become less of a game of POKER, and more of a tech/IT arms race, that requires a significant amount of support work. Honestly, I can only imagine the workarounds and hacks that somebody using a HUD on 32 tables simultaneously and able to play at that speed is using. I can tell you that it is not trivial, and I am a pretty decent programmer.

Anyway /rant. The point is that this functionality could EASILY and much more smoothly be built into the social networking / casino / online poker site itself. Which would eliminate all the software hassles, and would also allow everyone, even some Gramma in North Carolina playing online for the first time, to have access to advanced stats etc. More advanced apps and plugins could easily translate advanced stats into handy labels "maniac" / "pro" / "loose aggressive" / "tight" etc, maybe even with an easy to interpret icon or picture next to it.

Sadly, then, poker becomes less about trying to harvest and crunch mountains of advanced stats from across multiple sites and various user accounts and 1,000s of playing sessions. But taking the position of the humble poker-consumer, why again is that my problem or concern?

Certainly sites could build HUDs into their software. Letting Grandma see stats, however, does no good as she won't be able to interpret.

There is a problem with anonymity that has not yet been addressed. In poker, money is how we keep score. A lot of retired athletes, who have the money for coaching and big buy-ins, play at the WSOP because they want to compete.

Just as there is a WPT and WSOP player of the year, there are battles for online supremacy as well. Players like Isuldur take on all comers to prove they are the best. This happens both live and online, which is why pokertableratings.com and other such sites exist. We don't want players to be anonymous. We want to know who will win the most money this year, both live and online.

People aren't fascinated by Eric Seidel because of his charisma--it's because he has a lot of bracelets and wins a lot of money. Poker podcasts talk about players winning 6-figure pots in cash games.

Anonymous poker might be more "fair", however you define that. But it wouldn't be as much fun, for the players or the fans.

Fine, if she can't interpret it, then that's fair game. Just like, if she walks into a casino, and sits down to play $5-$10 NLHE, she won't be able to interpret what's going on. Or maybe she will, I don't know. Maybe she is Doyle Brunson's aunt or something. I don't know.

But you can easily see that in online poker, basically it's like NASCAR, right? Like two players/drivers of equal talent and poker knowledge, but if one is driving a super power car with no restrictor plate, and the other is driving a retail Chevy Malibu right off the lot, one will have a huge advantage.

Like when some poker consumer ("gramma") sees Tom Dwan on PAD and sees the Fulltilt commercial, and decides to drop a few grand into the Fulltilt because she thinks Tom Dwan is really clever and sexy, and would like to start playing online poker, she is probably not aware that as much as, what, say 80%? More? Has nothing to do with poker whatsoever, it only has to do with how good you are at setting up your HUDs, data-mining, analyzing statistics, etc.

Like, you can see them ("oh, he's a tight fish who folds to continuation bet X% of the time and blah blah on the turn etc" but he can't see you.

At least if we had the Zynga-Facebook universal HUDs and stats, gramma sits into the game, if she has any commonsense at all, she will be able to see "UH OH!!! That guy's played 700,000 hands, has a winrate of xyz, and plays as high as $25-$50 NL. This is a 6-max $1-$2 game so I better be careful. And oooh, this stat says that when he raises my bet preflop, %66 of the time he doesn't have a good hand. Oooh, my, that's interesting dearie."

ETC