Multi-Tabling and HUDs re USA & NV Gaming regulations - Page 9 - Poker News Headlines

zippyflounder · 01-12-2012, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

You are very strongly opinionated, and yet you have very limited experience. That is a problem, DUCY?

OK. My turn. Why? And how about a link to something written to support your speculation.

As different as rubber bridge and duplicate bridge? How about backgammon for cash vs tournament play? Or action chess vs traditional chess?

In the first two pairs of game formats, the form of scoring is completely different, and has a pronounced effect on what determines correct play. The play of online poker is not anywhere near as different as live poker as any of the three examples I gave. (If you disagree, give me an example of a scenario where a player has the correct odds to call live, but not online, or something like that.)

When it comes down to it, poker comes down to figuring out your opponent's weaknesses and exploiting them:

Does he bet too much? or too little?
Does he call too much? or too frequently?
If my opponent asked these same questions of me, what would his answers be?

For the most part, the only players that will be able to make a living at poker will be players who can excel in this (my cats can do the freaking math, seriously, it is NOT hard).

Of course there are exceptions. The first few years of online poker were like candy. When US regulated online poker makes it's return, the games will be awesome for a year or two. But that won't last. And ultimately, the consequences of the increasing regular-to-recreational ratio combined with higher rake and/or small comps will result in an end to this second boom as well.

Bottom line: the poker economy can't afford to feed thousands of players who only skill is that they are able to pass remedial math.

Awesome, let's take another skill (table selection) out of the game.

Cliffs: anonymous tables take a huge element of skill out of poker, and make it far more difficult for players to protect themselves from colluders. That is two big negatives. And the amazing thing is that none of the people arguing with me ITT have even suggested a single positive!

I think this all comes down to what you play, tourney or ring. If your a ring grinder then the hud, ptr, is your banana, if your a tourney person then they are not. I am a tourney donk, don't even like ring games except for horse. Table selection as a skill, yea, well make it a skill that requires some effort such as sitting and watching a table for a while rather than just pulling up some numbers and going out searching for the suckers. Its funny you all think it's going to be milk and honey time again, get a clue what fueled a lot of the poker boom was the illusion that money was cheap and houses never lost value. Your "fish" are broke, so you had better figure out a way to get blood out of a stone.

TheDarkElf · 01-12-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zippyflounder

I think this all comes down to what you play, tourney or ring. If your a ring grinder then the hud, ptr, is your banana, if your a tourney person then they are not. I am a tourney donk, don't even like ring games except for horse. Table selection as a skill, yea, well make it a skill that requires some effort such as sitting and watching a table for a while rather than just pulling up some numbers and going out searching for the suckers. Its funny you all think it's going to be milk and honey time again, get a clue what fueled a lot of the poker boom was the illusion that money was cheap and houses never lost value. Your "fish" are broke, so you had better figure out a way to get blood out of a stone.

You are making several incorrect assumptions:

I am a better tournament player than ring game player.
I have never used a HUD for online poker (played around with the free one, but it was pretty non functional on a Mac, and I was too busy to fix it myself).
By all means, do everything possible to eliminate PTR.
I'm not particularly interested in beating up on the fish. I play about 10 times bigger live than online. Yea, I took advantage of a good situation when it was there (easy games, low rake/fees, no BR worries, no travel, ...), but I'm not beholden to it.
I'm very aware that our economy has been up a creek without a paddle for about 6+ years now. I agree, there is less loose money out there. That has been factored in.

:::grimReaper::: · 01-12-2012, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

You are very strongly opinionated, and yet you have very limited experience. That is a problem, DUCY?

Again, remember, this discussion started when you said poker is more read-dependent than mathematical, and I disagreed. You can play a good, sound game or a near GTO game against unknowns and come out ahead, by allowing weak players make mistakes against you. And not sure what you mean by very limited experience, I have hundreds of thousands of hands for the stakes I've played.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

OK. My turn. Why? And how about a link to something written to support your speculation.

Because from a regulator's POV, a gambler tilting off 5 buyins at a 1000NL table is something of higher concern than a gambler titling off 5 buyins at 10NL table.

I'm pretty sure I read on FT's site that in order to play HS, the player has to verify his identity through email before playing, and must do so before in a small timeframe.

And if you open a brokerage account, the broker takes all of sorts of details - net worth, income, employers etc. HS players will likely have to do the same.

But in any case, that was a very minor point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

For the most part, the only players that will be able to make a living at poker will be players who can excel in this (my cats can do the freaking math, seriously, it is NOT hard).

Pot odds etc are barely the surface. Poker math is much deeper when you analyze it from a GTO perspective, in fact all of that math and analysis is done off the tables.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

When it comes down to it, poker comes down to figuring out your opponent's weaknesses and exploiting them:

Does he bet too much? or too little?
Does he call too much? or too frequently?
If my opponent asked these same questions of me, what would his answers be?
...
Bottom line: the poker economy can't afford to feed thousands of players who only skill is that they are able to pass remedial math.

I'm not saying you can't take notes or color code your opponents.

The poker economy can't afford to let the games dry up via bumhunting techniques.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

Awesome, let's take another skill (table selection) out of the game.

Cliffs: anonymous tables take a huge element of skill out of poker,

Table selection is much less of a skill when you have fish finding software and PTR telling you where to hunt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

and make it far more difficult for players to protect themselves from colluders.

Auto-assign players to tables.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

And the amazing thing is that none of the people arguing with me ITT have even suggested a single positive!

I have.

1) Anonymity makes new players feel more comfortable and less dumb. They're less conscious what other players may think of them based on their play.

2) They're not worried about HUDs or tracking software.

3) Prevents bumhunters. New and rec players stay in the game longer, perhaps even injecting more money in the poker economy if they lose slower and feel they have a chance to win. Promotes sustainability.

And actually, my main aim is to prove anonymous tables aren't as bad as you may think. That's really how I got dragged into this conversation about them.

LT22 · 01-12-2012, 09:58 PM

Quote:

The poker economy can't afford to let the games dry up via bumhunting techniques.

bumhunting doesn't dry up the games, the losing player will lose his money

Quote:

3) Prevents bumhunters. New and rec players stay in the game longer, perhaps even injecting more money in the poker economy if they lose slower and feel they have a chance to win. Promotes sustainability.

again, I don't think you understand what effect bumhunting has on the games

FWIW: I love Rush Poker and I think it's the future of poker. No table selection, no waitlists, it's "fair" to everybody.

TheDarkElf · 01-13-2012, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by :::grimReaper:::

1) Anonymity makes new players feel more comfortable and less dumb. They're less conscious what other players may think of them based on their play.

2) They're not worried about HUDs or tracking software.

3) Prevents bumhunters. New and rec players stay in the game longer, perhaps even injecting more money in the poker economy if they lose slower and feel they have a chance to win. Promotes sustainability.

1) Totally inconsequential. Online players are already hidden. The only thing that is known about them is a screen name, and maybe a city location. They aren't face to face with their opponents. They can't be embarrassed in public.

2) Totally inconsequential. New players don't even know what HUDs are. And you do not need to make the players totally anonymous in order to take away HUDs.

3) Actually has some value. FWIW, I would do everything possible to get rid of PTR. But promoting collusion in order to prevent bum hunting is dubious.

LT22 · 01-15-2012, 06:24 PM

I suggest you all read Phil Galfond's latest blog regarding changes to the game

TheDarkElf · 01-15-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LT22

I suggest you all read Phil Galfond's latest blog regarding changes to the game

Interesting.

On the East Coast, HS games are almost all regs, and arranged in advance. IOW, a bunch of randoms don't just show up at the Borgata and play 400-800; it's a bunch of guys who all agreed to play at a certain time for at least a certain amount of time.

The kind of stuff Galford is talking about just wouldn't be tolerated in their game. But online, it is harder to curtail.

Yet another problem for online poker.

123454321888 · 01-16-2012, 06:09 AM

If people dont like playing against people with HUDs and multi tablers and just want to play to pass time and enjoyment then why not play for play money? No one whether your trying to make a living or play to pass time puts money on to lose. If the options are there to help your game then why not use them.

TheDarkElf · 01-16-2012, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 123454321888

If people dont like playing against people with HUDs and multi tablers and just want to play to pass time and enjoyment then why not play for play money? No one whether your trying to make a living or play to pass time puts money on to lose. If the options are there to help your game then why not use them.

I honestly don't know what % of players even care about playing against players who multi-table and/or use HUDs.

But if I were a poker operator, I would be interested in the answer, and I certainly wouldn't simply accept your solution.

123454321888 · 01-16-2012, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

I honestly don't know what % of players even care about playing against players who multi-table and/or use HUDs.

But if I were a poker operator, I would be interested in the answer, and I certainly wouldn't simply accept your solution.

People who dont like playing against multi tables or use huds and play to pass time clearly dont play poker much. So why would you take it away from people who do use them and play a lot. Yes i would be interested in how many people use huds also and i bet many do from all range of buy ins and games. I can bet the people who dont like it or want rid of it are losing players, havent took the time to learn the basics of it or just dont want to purchase it.

Michael DeMichele · 01-16-2012, 10:55 AM

I think you have to leave the HUDs because otherwise some people will be using separate windows/computers for stat tracking, so its best to allow everyone access rather than those who go around the system.

As long as people aren't taking a long time to make decisions, I think that multitabling is fine. I'd try to go with more of a time bank style so that you can allow time for decisions here and there without players using up their whole clock every action.

:::grimReaper::: · 01-16-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDarkElf

2) Totally inconsequential. New players don't even know what HUDs are. And you do not need to make the players totally anonymous in order to take away HUDs.

I don't think this is true. New players have google. They google strategies, whether on websites, forums, or browse HEM/PT's site, inevitably leading to the discovery of HUDs.

I knew about HUDs via forums before I started playing for real money a while back, and vehemently opposed them as "not poker" or "unfair." I have memories playing Rush fearing that everyone was better than me and knew what I was doing b/c they had HUDs. It wasn't until I actually used one myself that I realized what it actually is.

QFT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AAmbass

People may not know the acronym "HUD" or have heard of any of the software, but they have an idea that some players are tracking behaviors (based on popular articles in major publications) to their advantage, and the public does not want to devote time/energy to competing against that. They don't think "HUD"; instead, they think "disadvantage."

Quote:

Originally Posted by LT22

bumhunting doesn't dry up the games, the losing player will lose his money

Yes, and a losing player will lose more over the long run if he feels he has a chance. If he loses his bankroll at say 10% per week, rather than 50% week (just #s I'm throwing out there), he'll deposit more in the former case. And imo many weak players keep playing b/c of overconfidence* in their losing game, and we don't want to shatter that confidence. Losing players keep other losing players in the game, that's the model I see. The # of rec/hobby players this year is a function of the # of rec/hobby players last year.

I want poker to be a hobby for the recreational players, not an experiment.

QFT*:

Quote:

Originally Posted by zippyflounder

Belief by the masses is a funny thing, a LOT of them think a particular slot machine is "going to give" even though you can prove to them mathematically that is not the case. People "feel" like they are going to get lucky at craps, and some times do but in general the Casio wins. The point being is that the person believes that they have a chance... When a newbie learns that there is math involved in poker, that's OK, they may or may not decide to do the sums in their head You tell them that there is software out there that tracks every hand they ever played AND can give the math guys guidance on how to play against you and you get a far different reaction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LT22

again, I don't think you understand what effect bumhunting has on the games

What effect is that?

LT22 · 01-16-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by :::grimReaper:::

What effect is that?

you said earlier preventing bumhunting was somehow going to keep fish afloat longer. Please explain to me how you think preventing bumhunting would keep fish afloat for longer (hint: it is my opinion that it wouldn't)

:::grimReaper::: · 01-16-2012, 08:21 PM

I covered that in the paragraph that starts and ends with: "Yes, and a losing player will lose more over...I want poker to be a hobby for the recreational players, not an experiment. "

LT22 · 01-16-2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by :::grimReaper:::

I covered that in the paragraph that starts and ends with: "Yes, and a losing player will lose more over...I want poker to be a hobby for the recreational players, not an experiment. "

As I said however long ago you quoted me, you don't understand the question/concept being discussed.

I'll try one more time

If you prevent me from bumhunting, HOW does that make RecPlayer1234 lose at a slower rate?