Well if you put it like that, then it is not a good idea to do that then I stand corrected
LOL

I really have not seen a person who talks as much utter nonsense as you do.

Do you like ever NOT post when you have no clue about something?

The only party who it will benefit if you know as little as possible about each other is the site. That is why sites love Zoom, anonymous Tables, name changes and similar. It increases their bottom line and takes away lots of the skill advantage.

Unsubscribed because I can't read your nonsense anymore.

fyp

FYP.

@petjax You didn't read carefully enough what I wrote. I pointed out that your assertion was incorrect. I also pointed out that not all PERMITTED programs rely on hand histories to function. If you played poker online & used a HUD you would most probably be aware of this.

You haven't thought through the consequences of your suggestions for improving online poker. None of your suggestions will have the effect that you imagine & I'm sure you've been told why they will not work before now!

[1] PROBLEMS WITH BANNING HUDs:

[a] Difficult rule to enforce therefore a bad rule

[b] It will INCREASE the advantage of those people who will find ways to still run HUDs & it will DECREASE the ability of honest players to detect them

[c] This will reduce hands/hour for multi-tablers because they will have to play 4 or 6 tables rather than 24. This will also reduce the total rake/hr across the site for the operator = less operator profit. If the intention is to reduce numbers of multi-tablers there is a better way of doing this by aggressively reducing their time bank if they time out.

[d] Many problems relating to collusion, botting, multi-accounting are identified by the players & not the site operator. Without HUDs/hand histories you are removing the tools which allow players to track dishonest practises by other players AND the site operator. Do not forget that it is perfectly possible for site operators to run their own bots to increase rake & some sites already do this. Also it would be easier for the operator to get away with running super user accounts - this has happened before!

[e] Online poker is NOT live poker & you must stop thinking that online poker sites should emulate the live poker experience. They are different environments with different player skill sets required. The great advantage of online poker for most people is one can play at a wider range of stakes with the convenience of doing so from ones own home [or on the train etc.] & have fun for less cost than a meal out or a visit to the cinema. If someone wants to play 24 tables then let them - the fact is that most multi-tablers are exploitable by intelligent players who know how to milk the NIT tendencies of multi-tablers.

[2] PROBLEMS WITH ANON TABLES:

[a] Becomes impossible for honest players to detect bots, syndicates, cartels, colluders & multi-accounters

So basically every site should emulate stars and provided mass multi-tabling and people should learn to play better and learn to not to fall asleep well stomping blinds. And thats real online poker.

Online poker has/is pretty deserve, or should be. There are and have been all kinds of online poker sites that limit tables. They are real online poker as much the sites which allow mass multi-tablers.

Are you commenting on my post? If so can you write more clearly? Perhaps English isn't your first language?

What does this mean?:- "people should learn to play better and learn to not to fall asleep well stomping blinds"
What does this mean?:- "Online poker has/is pretty deserve, or should be"

If you are writing to me then please understand I can't reply to most of your meaningless word salad.

Answering the bits that I do understand from your babble:

[1] I was expressing my opinion regarding the ineffectiveness & pointlessness of banning HUDs. I also outlined some of the negative effects of banning HUDs.

[2] I didn't recommend that all sites should cater to multi-tablers in my post - I observed that if a site lowers its table cap it can expect a reduction in total rake/hr as a consequence because smaller numbers of tables running will result.

[3] A site that does that might have to INCREASE the rake at the remaining tables or accept a smaller net profit. One reason that PokerStars has less effective rake% than other sites [even today] is their multi-tabling policies & smooth software. It's pretty hard to multi-table at many other sites because the s/ware is terrible.

Somewhat.


Yeah no i wont clear it up. Not if talked to like that.

Banning HUDs at this point would be a prohibition in the 1920's sense. Bots are actually pretty hard to create, very few people would be able to start from scratch and create a winning bot without years of effort, so botting comes with a built in deterrent - the long, steep learning curve. Also bots are flat out cheating in every way, ethically, legally (criminally) and contractually.

Seating scripts are just bad for the game. I think they should be banned just based on the fact that any reduction in their use will be a net positive. A large reduction would be great even if some people still break the rules.

OTOH almost every current pro has integrated HUDs into the way they study and think about the game at the most basic level. All of those people benefit from HUDs now, there's no four year learning curve, and all of them would benefit immensely by continuing to use HUDs if they were banned. From what I've read the technical workarounds wouldn't be incredibly hard. And HUDs allow a ton of reg matches to take place that otherwise wouldn't.

HUDs are like beer in america. They're part of the online poker culture. Banning them at this point would be a kind of unnatural, heavy handed social engineering whose girders would ultimately fail under the implacable forces of the market and cultural inertia. On top of that banning HUDs won't do what the people advocating their prohibition say it will. It would be a placebo with full side effects.

Im not for banning huds....

But the argument you cant stop them so allow then should go for other similar programs.

An uncontained bot plague would be the death of online poker. Using seating scripts is fishing with hand grenades, they're used 100% to facilitate bumhunters' worst depredations and nothing else. HUDs are relatively benign and probably a net positive for the sites because of all the reg battling they encourage. So special pleading on their behalf is in order.

Then this should be the argument not that they cant be stopped.

Fair enough but as a matter of practicality you'll have a hell of a time stopping them, for very little if any real benefit.

As a matter of practicality a GTO bot and live hand advisers plague is coming.

How is this not a common understanding of everyone yet?

I think the best analogy for huds would be gun control in the US. I'm in the UK so it's not really my business but I think the US definitely has to do something about gun control but how do they do that when there are so many out there? And who are the ones who would stick to the rules and who are the ones who wouldn't?

Not using that to illustrate a point really as I'm against banning huds but I just think it's a better analogy (to a certain extent)

If I had to guess, and this is obviously gonna be a generalisation, it appears that a large number of people who are against huds are either live players who maybe don't know much about the bot scandals, or players who are unable to beat the lowest stakes. For the latter bots aren't their main concern it's the idea instead that they are being destroyed at the tables by hud using regs.

Again, this is just my perception and I also realise that there are winning players at high and mid stakes etc who are against them.

AAAAHHH

your arguments on pro huds are purely self motivated.
arguments like without huds, the online poker would be infested by bots or people complains about huds just because they are losing, it makes online poker looking more bad than any other arguments.
As if there are no bots on online poker or huds/softwares are used for the good of the game lol...get real hahahahaah

market is changing and big changes will not help actual poker players to keep making their living out of the game

Think you may have a reading comperhension issue as I haven't made any pro hud arguments.

Well, that is a bit my problem I don't play on-line because it is simply no fun at all!! for somebody that wants to play for fun but I enjoyed it in the beginning since I am a die hard live fan and play for 30 years already.

And I have no problem with people that make their living or [needed] extra money I even admire their ability to do so all that time sitting in front of a screen grinding relying upon/using a tactic of math and best profitable way[strategy] of playing for a [big?] part, that kills for me! the things that make poker fun for me but like I said I understand why people play like that but it would drive me crazy of boredom, so I hope you all know now where/how I stand in this that I am talking/asking from a point of view of [former] fun player, so bare with me/forgive me for my mistakes and/or ignorance. LOL

So yeah I don't understand a lot about the matters of huds and rules of on-line poker because I don't play on-line[anymore or have much in the past] and compare on-line poker too much with live and the fact I don't even play live for a living but as a hobby and I don't need the money to live like I live now nor would I want too because I know I when it comes to gambling I have no stop button I don't care about or see the value of money when I gamble a 100 euro is the same as a million to me then, I made that mistake 25 years ago and was stopped by family and friends before I could really damage myself or anybody else the damage was "only" financial and then started a sort of buy and sell business[import/export] and used playing poker as an investment/capital raising instrument and had no time to do anything else for the first 3 years then running and building my business and play poker and since been able to consider it a hobby.

So yes my motives and such are very different than most other people here because I did like the beginning of on-line poker but soon it changed very fast and the fun was soon gone for the "playing for fun players" and replaced by math and systems and bluffing and creativity was soon a recipe for losing against the people that played for their bread and butter so to say.

But the question is: will on-line poker survive without the rec players or will there be enough rec players to keep the system alive?
Because will on-line poker/sites survive with mostly regs/pro players or will it come to that most recs just stop playing or will the sites drive out most regs/pros is that what they are doing/ their intention?

I can only say that if it stays this way I never play on-line again[ok who cares, well I don't know! nor do I care that much] as do [I think] many others but I did liked/enjoyed playing in the beginning and I know that almost certainly does not come back but maybe changes like this can help to make it interesting for all fun players to return but there is a long way to go and still a good possibility it will never happen so time again will tell

Your questions are a bit peculiar. Obviously what is important for a poker site to flourish isn't "rec players" [some of whom make a profit or break even]. The key customers are REPEAT NET DEPOSITORS - nobody matters as much as the player who comes back every month & deposits 5% or 10% of their weekly/monthly wage to play. Sites have to keep them happy every way they can.

If a site can persuade repeat net depositors to invite their friends to play too then that is even better. For this to work the net depositor must have fun, it must be easy to deposit & get into games & they must be sold the illusion that they can win. This illusion isn't really possible with standard cash games because the regs are better every year at beating those games - so it's much easier to sell sit'n'goes [inc. spin'n'goes] & MTTs to depositors as formats where it's possible to luckbox a nice prize.

The poker sites can find different ways to convert these player deposits into a given rake/hour - ways which don't depend so much on having regs/pros do the job for them.

They can offer faster games with more luck/variance
They can offer games with higher hidden rake such as spin'n'goes and bounty tournaments

Even when a site does all the above it still needs to find a supply of new net depositors & new repeat net depositors & that's where marketing & promotions come into play.

Here`s why HUDs are essential and should not be removed:
- Fun players will lose much quicker. If you are winning at poker at all you are aware that HUD users are not winning cause of HUDs, they are able to win while playing higher volume cause of HUDs. Without them they will certainly win a higher bb/100 but reduce volume/hourly. That makes the skillset margin even bigger.
- HUDs are used for reg on reg battle/exploits. I do not need a HUD to play a fish. You can easily identify him by his 78bb stack size, his 5bb button open, his UTG limp, one single hand at showdown might be enough to mark him green forever. Not to mention you never get good sample on fish anyway cause after 50 hands they usually bust, curse in chat and leave.
- regs reducing volume will negatively affect Stars` own profit margin
- bots, cheats, etc. are caught easier
NOBODY benefits from a no hud policy...

A group of SN/SNE players should find a high price attorney who will take a case against Pokerstars on contingency. At least meet with one.

^ Possibly everyone but me has blocked teh Tim Stone for orthographic reasons, but he keeps making the good point that a gambling site such as Pokerstars is not obliged to take business from anyone (sports betting sites regularly ban people), so the result of bringing or winning the case is likely to be a ban from PS which may cost a lot of the winning players more in the long run.