Poker sites need to get rid of screen names. The integrity of the game is getting worse. People have no ethics these days when it comes to online poker. All the ghosting,account sharing, swapping percentages in the same game, multi accounting, poker software. etc. etc. would not work as well if there was no screen names. We don't need online robots using poker tracker Or holdem mnager or what ever other program out there tracking people stats and then basically making the decision for them. All this bull **** has made the games harder and chased away all the recreational players.
I just hope if we get regulated online poker this is the way it is set up. I think there could then be a potential for another poker boom. Online poker is so fast anyway that you could get reads on your opponents this way still by only playing a few hours at the table. It would be up to the sites to look out for collusion and chip dumping etc. But with the rake we pay them they should be able to do this. To the roboting playing 24 tables for rakeback to bad learn poker on your own reads. With tons of recreational players and this system set up everybody bb/100 would be way higher anyway. They could have like live where there is must move tables etc. You sign in and click on what stake you want to play ( 6 max, Hu , 9 max) and it sits you at a table with a unique number.

kewl starry

I don't like your post but the only reason I can think of is that I would be crippled without my HUD.
However, I am sure there are lots of good reasons why your post isn't very good. I've just woken up and I wasn't the sharpest tool to begin with so I'll wait for someone else to come in and take it apart.

id love for that to happen.

dont think it will tho.

Everybody should use burqa in live poker imo.

While the OP is rant-tastic I wonder why poker rooms don't offer the option of anonymous tables.

Then fish worried about being tracked can sit down against anonymous players who are much better than then.

this..

Why is that? How will eliminating SN's keep people from ghosting, account sharing, etc...?
And how does HUD software hurt the game? Just because you don't like them or don't know how to use them or whatever doesn't mean everyone else should not be able to use them.
Seems like all eliminating SN's would do is make it harder to multi account.

OP, did you consider that anonymous online poker would lead to more cheating and not less? Look at the cheats that were uncovered by posters here, the fact that the victims had hand histories to offer as proof made it possible to uncover the bad guys. Look at the botting thread on the front page here -- under your system, how do you catch those guys?
most of these things would still exist. We just wouldn't be able to figure it out when it happens. Lack of information isn't a boon for the just.

Cheating is part of human nature. Not saying everyone cheats but some will always find a way to bend or break the rules. Anonimity will only make things worse as it would be harder to detect.

t Ghosting wont matter as much because the players ghosting won't know if they played the previous players on the table. and account sharing would be a non factor because you would be anonymous at the tables.

HUD kill the game basicallt mathematically tell you what moves best. Take a computer to a black table and type in what card is dealt after every hand and see how long you last at the casino. I think with HUDS it makes recreational players want to gamble less. It takes the fun and gamble out of the game.

How would it lead to more cheating? I think the only people who might get cheated is the sites with chip dumping with fradulent credit cards. But if you choose what limit you want to play and the site randomly sits you at a table with a unique number for that table. I don't know how this would make it easier to cheat? Every thing would still be the same you could play as many tables you wanted, You just would get a different unique number at each table you played.

I have mixed feelings about HUDs... Sometimes I feel like they should be gone and sometimes I feel like they should stay.. They definitely make the game harder since people have a lot more information then they would have if they could only use their brains and note section.

i feel it would enhance cheating... or am i getting trolled?

because you wouldnt be able to know that 2 guys always sit together and collude since you can not distinguish between players. Now if 2 players always sit at the same table and squeeze alot etc you can see after a while playing with them

Most cheating has been discovered via hand histories. The AB superuser scandal may never have been brought to light without huge amounts of hand histories showing that the play was simply impossible without cheating (folding too many made hand, calling to many bluffs, drawing with too many hands without odds).

Same thing with major cases on collusion. It was the hand history and the record of same players playing together that created suspicion.

100% Anonymous poker would be very easy to cheat. Essentially the only entity who could detect cheating would be the house. Most of the time they don't (at least not help from players).

No screennames = no way to identify & rail signed poker pros = sites signing less pros = less effective marketing/less interest from recreational players = less traffic = less income

No screennames = inability of the poker community to identify multiaccounters/colluders and bots that escape the sites' cheating detection mechanisms = more cheating and games becoming less secure

the site i play on has anonymous cash game tables wich run pretty well, on the microgaming network, you have a choice and i believe party do it aswell, that might just be HU tables

This is just stupid. Game select is a skill.

This would destroy staking because a lot of horses would scam the stakers because they know there's no way to find out how much the horse has won or lost.

That is why you choose the stake and the site would randomly sit you at a table at that stake. The site security would def have to be on the look out for players that collude together when they randomly get seated at the same table. But overalll cheating would be way less. The most important part recreational players would feel more comfortable. There stats would never be posted on a forum to humliate them.

Ladbrokes and other Microgaming sites offers anonymous tables. They seem to be popular and often have bigger average pots and more players to the flop.

Thee site pros could be exemptand play under a screen name instead of a differnt unique number each table you sit at.

You seem to be unaware of botting as an issue. Your anonymous site would be a haven for bot players -- all of the ways to detect and prove the existence of bots wouldn't work on your proposed site. Also, if you play in games where there are few tables (i.e. NL HE isn't the only game in the world), it would be much easier for colluding rings to escape detection.

Even in NL, once you hit limits where there are few tables, you have the same issues. "Hey Tom, I'm the guy with the $6753 stack, you've got the $7883? Perfect, I've got AA and I'm going to limp, you raise after the guy with $9841 comes in behind me..." The actual cheats aren't harmed by your proposal, but the people who might notice that the guys always play together and take collusive lines now have no hope.

No just no, purely because bots, cheaters etc will be unable to find by the players on the site.

And you know how good most of the sites are at detecting and banning bots... looks like some sits even love them. Your suggestions are even worse for the integrity of the games.

You are giving a few exteme examples on why this would be bad. The site security could easily detect bots through timing. etc. Have players type a code on the screen like stars did.

I am not talking about a poker site run like a mickey mouse operation in the unregulated past of online poker. I am talking about a MGM, Ceasars, Wynn, ETC. run site. That if you get caught cheating an automatic 86 and face criminal charges.