re last post: "...it is fair and safe", does that refer to the game, or the organization that you have entrusted w/ your money? how about precise and strict regulations on cashouts? isn't this a part of "fairness" when it comes to a site? BTW, i think a site could come up w/ games designated for 1-4 tablers, and "open play" games; that would let the site know what the players prefer.................bear

Please read the proposed regs in the OP. Cashout procedures are covered.

In reference to only 2 - 4 tables maximum:
This is absurd. WIll people STOP trying to 'protect' Adults from making their OWN choices?

Playing more tables can actually help lower your variance, and if someone wants to go and play high stakes they can lose MUCH more than playing more tables at lower limits.

You do NOT know how much money someone has or is willing to wager. It is NOT your choice what I do or how many tables I want to play. If someone is a gambling adict they can gamble MANY ways. Having a site in the state of nevada only letting someone play 4 tables is NOT going to cure it. STOP trying to impose your restrictions under a false sentiment of concern, it is transparent and self serving.

This should definitely be up to the site to determine what they think is best for them in terms of hands/hour tables running etc. The market and the site should choose their OWN business plan NOT the government!

(I'm not an angry person by nature)

In practice, many recreational players are playing 1-2 tables anyway. So limiting the # tables serves no purpose in that regard. And I agree with MellowYellow above me, if anything, the recreational player should go down in stakes and play 2-4 tables to reduce variance.

The max # of tables one can play should be determined by the sites.

I agree. I think if this is known to the recreational player, they'll trust the system a bit more and would be more willing to play.

I think multi-table restriction should be left up to the sites, and as far as HUDs go, they should only not be allowed if the sites can 100% stop anyone from using them, as you obv don't want any loopholes for computer wiz-s or botters to gain an even bigger edge

This is a very poor and ineffective way to controlling gambling addiction. The addict can simply play multiple sites at the same time to get all the tables open they want, or simply play higher to get a greater thrill (and lose more money).

The best way to control addiction, which I was told is in the regs (and is already done by the existing internet sites) is to provide for self-exclusion. Someone who recognizes they have a problem can exclude themselves to make it impossible to play, and solve the problem (at least for the period of the exclusion). This is esp. good if the exclusion is done at the NGC level, or communicated between sites, so they can exclude themselves from all licensed sites at once.

But if someone doesn't recognize the negative effects gambling is having on their lives and families, making the games worse for everyone to slow down the few with problems is a very poor solution.

I think the problems/benefits of multi-tabling can be worked out in the competitive market place. The move towards using contributed rake schemes for VIP programs has the direct benefit of making mass multi-tabling by nits less profitable as one example, and I think it was driven by sites awareness the mass-tabling nits were bad for their games.

OK, here it is, sounds like only on a per site basis.

I think it would be good for the industry if the NGC can maintain a central list, or more likely given the NGC probably doesn't/shouldn't have resources dedicated to that, to require all of the licensed sites share their lists and provide a single shared web site where a player can exclude himself from all NGC licensed online gambling sites in a single application.

This is a tangible area where online poker proponents can use to show how online poker can be run as safe or safer than B&M poker.

I can't imagine an effective way to stop everyone from using a hud. As a guy with a four monitor/2 computer setup, as long as there's more then 2-3 sites I could care less what the table limit is.

that and i really don't want career criminals repeatedly stealing from me and the customers. as well as the prominent point of potentially ruining, in the mind of the rec player, the site's reputation and the entire online game's reputation.

harsh criminal penalties and an immediate permanent blacklist would be a fine deterrent imo. hopefully that would keep the brightest cheating poker minds from using their powers for evil.

i mean it's already at least fraud across state lines, right? they're defrauding me and the site in order to gain an "illegal" edge for a BUNCH of people's money.

This is absurd. Why should it matter the amount of tables the player you are losing to is playing? if anything, you want to play against a 24 table more than vs a 1 tabler, for obv reasons, unless you were some kind of poker table attention whore.

HUDs are unstoppable.

As long as you allow players to have hand histories, then there will be software to managed databases of hand histories. They can still use that database even without a HUD, and the DB will be able to display live stats on current players at current tables in in it's own windows, and automatically keep it's display windows alongside the table windows.

The HUD is just a tiny piece of software that puts relevant stats on top of the poker tables themselves to make it a bit quicker and easier to read.

The only way to stop HUDs would be to stop the collection of hand histories. That itself is almost impossible, because anything that can be displayed on your computer screen can be recorded and saved in a database, etc.

But not allowing players to easily access hand histories also would promote fraud, theft and a lack of trust in the integrity of the sites. You wouldn't have guys on 2p2 being able to statistically analyze the behavior of cheaters to prove they were cheating, you could only hope that the NGC's audits and staff were so super smart they couldn't be fooled by the UBs and APs of the world, let alone rings of colluders, bots, etc.

Poker sites have a lot of tools at their disposal to change how their games play, and how profitable it is for nits to mass multi-table. First among them is their VIP programs. The FPP/VPP accelerators built into PokerStars programs is one of the big incentives for the mass multitablers, but PS can turn these incentives down or off any time they think they are bad for games.

If there is a ton of competition from licensed sites and players prefer to play on the sites that have VIP programs and game features that don't give extra benefits to mass multitablers, then PS will be forced to tweak their VIP benefits to compete.

But PS may actually have the business model right. In reality is their VIP program is an excellent replacement for Props, both because it's cheaper for them and creates more games. In live poker, Props often make way over 100% rake back in exchange for being forced to start games and work certain shifts, etc. With their VIP program, PS essentially created a cadre of independent contractors who could make a fine living, earning up to almost 100% rake back, by simply playing a ton of tables at once, ensuring that PS always has a huge selection of games running to attract casual players.

This is why "rake free" poker never makes sense as a business model. Casual players rarely care about the rake, they mostly care about being able to get action and play games whenever they want to log in. Professionals care about the rake, but in a rake free type of environment the house doesn't have any incentives to get professionals to play often, so it's really difficult to get games started. So they have the chicken/egg problem. Lots of pros would love to play "rake free" if there were games, but there are no games so no one plays. At PS there are always games, even now.

But you can reduce the effectiveness of them, such as through anonymous tables. Anonymous tables also eliminates bum hunting.

Better yet, just release hand histories after you leave the table.

don't need HHs for a HUD...all you need is to see a table and scrape the actions. You CAN reduce effectiveness as you mentioned w/ anonymous tables. Bum hunting has more than one meaning. Anonymous tables wouldn't stop me from only sitting at soft games. Anonymous tables would prevent me from chasing Player XYZ.

Again, HUDs should be up to the site, we do NOT need government telling the business how to run them. It should be up to them what they can or can't allow.

The #1 biggest reason for this is: If there is an error or something that needs to be changed... A business can implement the change as soon as they want. Government regulations?? LOL It will take FOREVER!! Don't put things like this in the hands of the government let the free market figure it out, please!