Why won't they? People in this thread are making HUDS out to be a bigger deal then they really are. I know a lot of casual poker players both personally and from playing in the casino and during all those conversations I have never heard people stop playing the game because of HUD's.

The average player doesn't even know people are using HUD's and when I told about them about it or they asked they either go oh ok with a disinterested look (since they are just playing for fun and winning is just a bonus to them) or they ask where they can get one (thinking it will make them a winning player).

Most people playing poker have the same mind set of someone playing slots. That mindset is that they are playing for fun but might win some money while doing it. Of course you are going to have the people who play who think that they are gods gift to poker and have to justify to themselves why they are losing. They are the same ones that go on for hours about action flop theory and would also blame HUD's but they are going to be the same people that quit playing the game anyways since they are not getting the results they expected (even on a site that has no HUD's).

Another thing to consider is how sites are going to make money. If the feds go with a tax on all deposits and also cap the rake this will most likely have a major on their decision regarding HUD's. With a deposit tax and rake cap(which will also be driven down by the free market) sites are going to need to have grinders on the sites to generate revenue. The sites won't be making any money by having people throw $100 on a Saturday night playing for a few hours then cashing out. Sites will depend more so on grinders to turn on profit since they are the ones that turn in volume. I basically think that with the tax deposit it will force sites to be more grinder friendly.

Along similar lines, I also think there's an ongoing presumption that everyone who isn't in the "let's ban the evil HUDs" camp is some kind of 24-tabling mmter with a piss bottle hanging off his grind station.

Me, personally: I've never tried to play more than 4 tables at once and usually prefer to play just one. And my results on Cake aren't any different than my results elsewhere, so it's not like I don't think I can beat the games without a HUD.

It makes some very simple things like keeping track of someone's c-betting frequency a lot easier but I don't especially think I derive a huge edge in the games I play by running a HUD. As I noted earlier, raw numbers aren't really that helpful in HU and short-handed games. Understanding range composition and having a feel for the the constant game of adjustment and re-adjustment become a lot more important against all but the most robotic opponents.

TBH, even though I'm a long term winner and have at times put in some decent volume, I'm probably a recreational player by most people's standards. So it's also incorrect to frame this as an argument between regs and recs, or, at least, it's fallacious to assume everyone in each of those camps shares the same opinions wrt HUDs.

I don't really care what anyone's reason is for being in the camp that believes casinos should allow cyborgs to compete against humans, whatever their reason, I completely disagree.

The cyborg thing is cute but HUDs are more like infrared goggles than robotic arms.

If you realize most of the guys in your weekly paintball war are wearing the goggles and you think they gain an advantage by it, nothing's stopping you from buying a pair of your own. It definitely won't make you any less human if you do.

Of course, once you have them, you may come to realize that while they are helpful at times, there's a lot more involved when it comes down to a question of who gets shot or not.

It's possible you can find a league where they just don't allow the goggles, and if that suits you, there's nothing wrong with it. But for the most part, the people who take the games seriously will want to be able to wear them, and the ones who don't won't really care, except that it might give them an excuse when they lose: "Damn those kids and their infrared goggles!" Of course, it is far more likely they will opt for the ever-popular, "These paintball wars are rigged!"

There's just not a lot of incentive for the new sites to ban them, and regardless it's beyond the scope of what should be legislated.

People don't generally play for cash in paintball and even paintball has rules about unfair (or perceived to be) equipment. The vegas casinos income was short expenses by 4 billion dollars this year, so I think the Casino's will look at who as the biggest and most profitable of all the sites world wide and do that but more so. I also think that they are only going to push poker as long as other more profitable games are not allowed. When online table games are legit then watch the goodies for poker dry up, because a 4 billion shortfall is a huge sum to cover by the rake alone.

Come on, now. I think it's pretty clear I wasn't suggesting we use paintball as a guide for making decisions about poker regulations. The point was that HUDs are just a tool and leave plenty of room for human fallibility.

As far as I recall, no one in this thread has argued that there shouldn't be rules about unfair equipment. I'm sure there's a lot of agreement (or, at least, a lot more agreement) on prohibiting such things as bots or HUDs that incorporate any kind of shared db.

If I could have my own wishlist item, it would be for the sites to find a way to prevent sites like Sharkscope and PTR from tracking and sharing player information. I think if it could be done, it would be way better than preventing the use of HUDs. But yeah, I realize it's a pretty big wish.

I pretty much agree with this, and it basically explains the thinking behind some of my previous comments. I think the "but more so" will have a lot more to do with stuff like developing methods for keeping underage players out of the games or creating policies that prevent behaviors associated with problem gambling, however.

Ok, it matters little what we think after all as the market research money alone that the Casino's are dumping into this is at least 5 million bucks and that will drive their decisions. The gov will take their bit, some disguises in the form of contributions to treat problem gamblers (now that is a profitable industry) and bit more to provide over site. In the end I think you will see a mutant of poker stars and Zinga poker where the grinder is not even a factor, new recreational players and rock stars at all levels will be the norm. High rake tournament's I think will be common, with big non cash prizes (a week in our Vegas Villas and 1k in cash) will be common. How do you come up with 4 BILLION bucks via on line gaming, its not by poker alone.

Multiple posters have said "casual players complain about rigged games not HUDs" but that's because the casual player has never even heard of HUDs. If you explained what they are, then asked them how they would feel about playing on a site where players used them, I'd be surprised if the vast majority wouldn't be opposed to it.

I also think sites developed by B&M casinos/corporations could very well bring a B&M mentality to the project. They may think "well we would not allow someone to wear sunglasses with a HUD at our live tables, so we're not gonna allow the equivalent on our virtual tables.

That would depend on who was explaining it to them. If I explained to someone who had no clue of HUDs that there is a way to track their every action and improve their game, they may be interested in buying such a thing. If I further explained there is no inherent edge for those that use HUDs because it's just random information unless you have the skill set to decipher and use that information to gain an edge, they might further understand that HUDs aren't cheating or unfair. If I also explained that the info they gather is available to ayone without a HUD if they had a memory from out of this world (that it isn't tracking anything not universally available to all players), they might further understand the issue. If lastly I explained HUDs are available to anyone who wants them and are willing to pay for them, they might fully grasp why they might like HUDs.

And again I mention, although some disagree, that as population has risen over the last 100 years, so has the poker community's numbers steadily (with ebbs and flows, booms and busts, that lean heavily toward an overall trend of MORE players). You have to lose more players because of HUDs and multi-tabling than you gain by way of population increase (and for those not understanding, as population increases steadily over a 18-21 year period, or more, so to do the number of people turning the legal age to play poker...making for a group newly eligible for poker annually correlated to population). If there is no decline in population growth or serious increase in deterents (statist interferences, massive frauds, etc.), then there won't be a finite pie or shrinking pie NEEDED for the "Tragedy of the Commons" argument being made.

Also, even this is not fully accurate. Why?

It's hours played that matter, not players in total. Although players in total are usually causal to hours played, it's not necessarily the case. You can have 10 players play 2 hours a week each, or 2 players play 14 hours a week each. If all are of even skill (losing players) then you'd rather have 2 players play 28 hours a week than 10 players play 20 hours week. My point is simple...in order to have a shrinking poker community (pie) you have to have LESS hours logged by losing players than before. And although this ebbs and flows, the overall trend is upward, not downward. This is due to population increases which directly correlate over time to increases in the poker community population, and the amount of players logging more hours due to the easy access the internet provides. Hours played are what we're worried about when speaking of the "finite pie" fallacy we see so often in ecomnomics and here in this discussion.

And for those who support the banning of HUDs or multi-tabling NOT by regulation, but by companies on their own...that's totally fine by me. I'm all for companies offering diverse products to their customers. I have no issue at all with company X having them banned while company Y not having them banned. Many losing players LOVE multi-tabling even if they never heard of HUDs...so I suspect such a situation would lead to diverse set of sites, some with one banned, not the other, both, neither, or some combination of the bunch. This would be GREAT for poker. I'd just wager the more suscessful sites would keep multi-tabling, and maybe even keep HUDs at least in part (available for some games and not others, or some stakes and not others, etc.).

I can't fathom any beginning or recreational player ever choosing to play other than anonymously when playing online, if given that choice (except if they were specifically joining some sort of private table with friends).

it's pretty easy to fathom...poker is inherently a game of competition. I played on anonymous tables and they took away all sense of competition for me.

This point kind of reminds of this little gem from the NVG forum:

Not sure I understand what you mean, so please explain. How does playing anonymously take away the sense of competition?

I guess that's a good point. Perhaps a corollary is that I can very easily fathom pros and players with established reputations always choosing to play without anonymity, if given that choice.

When I sit down at a poker table and Tebow316 beats me, I get a lot of joy in playing pots with him. Having an identity to play against is fun.