I have a dumb idea for the tech folk here, if the computer randomly assigned to you a "name" (alphanumerical id) for each time you play as apposed to your log in name would that not make a HUD worthless. The site would know who you are (they assigned you the name for that session of xtr1221 for example) but to anybody else your a complete unknown.

It would not prevent a HUD from tracking you during that session. It would prevent a long-term HUD imo.

That's OK, then it is no different than live play and still allow multi table play.

Not trying to conflate anything. All of your pro-HUD arguments can be applied to legalizing bots, so it's strange how you're against bots but pro HUDs.

Like?

I never said players shouldn't be allowed to multi-table.

lol

I never said ban HEM/PT.

If you want to break the law and be a cheater, that's your choice.

Not a dumb idea at all, I brought this up earlier, and it's something I believe Bodog is doing (though not well).

HUDs only work within the session, that too after you play enough hands to get a sample size. No bumhunting, no PTR-like sites, no waiting lists (there's a solution to the liquidity problem everyone's complaining about) and fish are comfortable and not intimated.

I wouldn't mind HUDs as much under this scenario.

me either, it would inhibit getting a "name" online unless you or the site published daily stats. It would also put the "red pro's" at a real disadvantage over us "fish".

HUDS are not necessary to playing well or profitable multi-tabling (although helpful and add EV due to the additional info). That being said, HUDs are not cheating AT ALL and should be allowed because (a) they are available to everyone (if they purchase them) and (b) they do not preclude a human being playing the actual game(s). If these HUDs were not commercial products then I can see banning them until a commercial launch, as barrier to entry can cause disruptions in an otherwise equlibrium market (I hope my terminology is right here; correct me if not, economics buffs). Once the barrier to entry is lifted equally (i.e. you buy it, you can use it) there is no "cheat" there, or even a fundamental unfairness.

It's like saying it's cheating to purchase a poker book and use the knowledge gained to gain an edge on opponents. Or even more directly, using memory exercises to increase your memory capacity and then using that skill to remember more stats of relevance to your plays. It's just not cheating or unfair.

The multi-tabling is even more obvious to me. How is that harmful to the opponents? Your edge per table diminishes as your tables increase...so they actually gain EV on individual tables because you're playing more than one. How does that hurt them? It helps them. If you only had to concentrate on one table at a time you'd be SMASHING that table and maxing out your EV by using a vast aray of skills unavailable when 12 tabling or more. It strikes me as silly for anyone to be upset someone they are playing is multi-tabling. That should be an advantage for you; once you're aware of it simply adjust your strategy as the opponent in question is playing robo-style poker (a very systematic way of playing).

Besides, you take away multi-tabling, you force people to play higher stakes to reap similar profits (increasing variance in BR MGMT). With multi-tabling you can play smaller buy-ins on a smaller BR and still make the same money as higher buy-ins on more tables. This ruins the game for pros or aspiring pros who are not mega-rolled to play high enough stakes (especially in higher variance games like MTTs and larger MTTSNGs).

I'd say let sites determine this...but I'm against almost any regulation to begin with. Sure, stop fraud (non-segregated accounts, etc.) to protect the consumer...but all this talk of more taxes, more rake, more rule and regulations is bad news for poker longterm. If we let sites determine this the sites that refuse HUDs, and especially multi-tabling, will simply make less money by having less players, and the industry default will be more tables and universally available technology.

I am for stopping fraud, like I mentioned, and this includes bots. Those are bad for the game for obvious reasons (if a game is unbeatable almost no one will play it). True, the best bots are still beatable at this point, but that won't be the case for many more years. But the main point is it fraud...it's not human play. HUDs are still a human making plays based on gathered info. Bots, even if self programmed, are not humans making decisions in the heat of the moment based on accumulated info, but a machine making those decisions based on preset parameters. This is fraud, as you are fundamentally expecting to play humans when you sit at a poker table. If I wanted to play a computer I'd buy a WSOP game for Playstation and call it a day.

The idea sharks shouldn't be hunting fish, and the biggest and worst fish at that, is antithetical to the whole point of poker; to make money. I mean why else call them sharks? This neutering of advantages like this are not good, imho. Fish being comfortable isn't a main concern, as before BF there was no shortage of them. Some worry about "unfair" advantages, but the explanation is simple: give any fish out there my HUD, and they wouldn't know what to do with most of the info. This alone proves that HUDs aren't the issue, it's just naked information. It's the ability to do something with it that makes you any good.

Sure, that would defeat HUDs, but it also undermines a key reason that poker is a skill game - poker is, amongst other things, a test of human memory and strategy, and skillful players identify their opponents, how they play, and then make game adjustments correctly as a result.

Adjusting your play to the play of your opponents is a core skill of poker, and preventing players from doing so consequently undermines a core attribute of the game that is poker.

I agree strongly with this post. You could go a step further and say that it's just a tool and one that not everyone uses equally well. Even intelligent players will admit to having made mistakes because of misinterpretation of HUD stats (especially those gathered over small samples) and there are tons of people who don't understand statistics well enough to profit much at all. In fact, I know of at least one 2p2er who (while using a HUD himself) used to make most of his students play without a HUD because he found they were generally prone to making too many mistakes with regard to HUD interpretation.

Also, with the increasing popularity of heads-up and short-handed games, the value of HUDs has decreased somewhat as there are a lot of key factors that aren't captured very easily as simple statistics (for ex., how an opponent plays certain types of hands on specific board textures, etc).

I have never really understood the argument against the use of HUDs. The closest I can come is to realize that it's a sort of gateway to the data-mined HH market. I don't really have the answer to that (how to prevent data mining) but it seems to me the fact that a tool can be misused isn't a good justification for attempting to eliminate the tool itself. Perhaps the HUDs could be programmed in such a way that they will only recognize data from tables where Hero was actually seated? I can see work-arounds for this but it seems like they would be kind of a pita to implement.

The key point it this "a test of human memory and strategy," I guess at its core is online poker a game unto it's self or a emulation of the real world game played face to face. If it is a thing unto it's self then bot's, hud's, sniffer programs and multi accounting could be allowed. If it is a emulation of the real world game then they should not be.

I agree with this.

I'm not really for HUD's overall, but I think that players should be able to at least have the type of information that they might have in a live setting. For example, if you play regularly in a given B&M card room you can gather a lot of info over time on people. It doesn't take long to get enough info on weak regs to be able to table select well, and then to sit down with confidence in your edge over at least a portion of the players at the table.

If online names are randomized to the point that you sit with a clean slate on the table every time, that is a big difference from playing live. Online, I think you should at least be able to take notes on players and have those notes stay with the player regardless of whether or not their display name changes. Now, how do you do this without HUD-like tracking also being available? I'm not sure, but it seams feasible.

My answer to the question in the OP: I think it should be left up to the sites.

I can see your point, however it is primarily a cash game vs tourney thing. In cash games you might see more "regulars" whom you know well and like in the movies the "regs" just wait for a known fish to show up or a unknown. The unknown may be a pudgy guy, a old guy or a drunk. You would then have to figure out if the drunk is Scotty Nguyen, the pudgy guy is Ben Lamb or the old guy is Mike Sexton. The point being with randomized player names and hence with out HUD data base everybody is a unknown, so you must use your own gray matter to determine what and who they are. Show your skills and with out a database to use as a crutch. Will it make it harder for some, yes it will, will it make it more enjoyable for some (many) yes it will. Will your ability to earn go down? It might as you will have to observe the players at your table or hang around until your HUD has a database on that players style. On the up side, fish will still make bone headed plays, chase draws when not getting the right price and some times suck out however they will know that at least for a while the playing field is level.
The HUD issue In my opinion is no different than the old time players getting all pissy about sunglasses, hoodies, and such at the table, it removes one of their skills (and it is a skill) of reading tells. The rules allow sunglasses, hoodies and now in tournaments limiting the conversation allowed. So in the end, is online it's own game where your ability to handle databases and software is a equal part of the game or is it a remote version of the classic that is a face to face battle of guts and brains?

lol thats just terrible noone will play if its 2-4 table max i 12 table plo ad 24 table nlh id probably shoot myself before 2 tabling cash games

You've never seen any player at a live game more than once?

I generally play tournaments and do see some of the same faces at the final table. I learned not to play cash, due in large part I suck at cash games and the "regs" seem to soft play each other and go after the "fish" with relish. I did find out that (due to the economy perhaps) the games were starving, with few fish and only reg's passing their chips around to each other.