Does the use of poker HUDs make online poker more of a math and robotic game than it already is? Is it taking more and more the skill, instinct and judgement out of the game?

I know that there is alot of math in poker. I know its part of the game. It just seems to make it more robotic.

It just creates an even bigger gap to the skills, feel, and instinct between online poker, and live poker.

Personally I disagree with this, I actually think it makes online poker more playable.
You get the stats, but it's up to you to use them, you still have to be a good player.
It makes online poker tougher though.

But the reason I think that online poker is more playable with HUD's is simply because people don't stay at tables for long and people are constantly leaving/joining.

So without a HUD you will basically never have a read on anyone, thus take your skill advantage away from the game, and noone would be able to profitably play more then two tables at once.

At live poker it's different cause you're playing only 1 table, and people aren't leaving the table all the time. And you can see the people in person and it's easier to keep read on people without numbers above their heads.

Live and online poker is two very different games.

Does anyone think that starting-hand ranking systems like David Sklansky's make poker more of a math and robotic game than it already is? Is it taking more and more the skill, instinct and judgment out of the game?

If it's jam or fold, then sure. Otherwise, absolutely not. Those rankings tell you nothing to do about stack sizes, flop bet sizing, raising draws, or anything. In most realistic purposes, the charts are useless.

Charts that I think would be more useful: Top Floppable hands. For example, I would bet that AXs performs better when you get 5 cards for one price instead of just 3. A chart that takes this into account would be better for choosing PF starting requirements, although it still would not make winning robots.

I'm going to go out on a limb here. You've never used a HUD, have you?

All a HUD does is show statistics.

You still need to know how to play poker.

Changing, not ruining.

I rely on pokerace and it's hard to imagine playing without it. It's in my best interest to use an HUD.

HUDs are not in the best interest of poker sites, and I'm surprised that they're allowed at most sites. They let the good players take the money of the bad players in fewer hands. This has two bad effects for the site: 1) less money is raked 2) bad players are less likely to return. As a result of 2) other bad players will be at a greater disadvantage, will lose faster and will be less likely to return--this pattern goes on forever.

When you think about it everything that improves your poker game is bad for the sites. This includes, books, articles, odds calculators, etc.

Winning players want to think they're somehow doing a service for the sites they play at. Many of them are doing just the opposite. Every dollar you pull off the table is some fraction of a dollar that will not be raked as a result. The reason I say some fraction is because the dollar may have gone to another winning player or to the rake, we don't know. Let's say that fraction is X. If you contribute less than 1.5X to the rake per $1 you win, you're hurting the site you play at. The reason I say 1.5X is because I'm assuming 33% rakeback. If you take advantage of reward points and reload bonuses, and other promotions the number could get up to 5X or more.

The majority of good players are not good for a poker site. A site would be wise to discourage good players from playing there.

then why wont every site disallow 24 tabling?

i mean what fish does 24 table?

No. If it were the case that winning players and losing players generated the same amount of rake this would be true, but you logic has missed something. Many winning players multitable and play every single day for hours. They pay rake on every winning hand just like every other player, only that do it many, many times over. Pokerstars loves to see the 20 table grinder ---loves it, and encourages it with its reward incentives. Why? Because most of these players aren't slaughtering the innocent "fish" to the tune of 15-20 ptbb/100, they are scraping by at rates that are only marginally higher than the rake itself. This isn't going to kill the cashcow before PS gets more than their share, from both the winner and loser. The winners are more like vampires taking a little blood from the herd, just enough to survive. And while they are doing so, they pay rake. Huge, huge sums of rake.

And Stars spends that huge rake to advertise, and the cycle goes on.

HUDs are what enables this whole economy. I don't think they are going away soon.

For the win.

Like I said it depends on the amount you contribute to the rake vs. the amount you take off the table * X. X is the probablilty that a randomly selected dollar in your game will be raked, not cashed out. The amount that is raked and the amount you make are both proportional to the number of hands you play. Whether or not you're good for your site is not dependant on the number of hands you play.

Let's say a grinder on AP made 1k in rakeback last month (30% rakeback). He also cleared $800 in ARPs, $500 in bonuses, $133 for his interest payment and played $100 worth of tournaments at AP's expense. He contributed $3333 to the rake. He got $2533 back. AP netted $800 from him. If he made $2000 from game play--that's $2000X less that will be raked. Chances are X > 0.4 and he cost AP money.

There are a lot of grinders out there who made their sites money last month b/c their winrate is low or because they ran bad, etc. But many grinders cost their site money. And the ones who make their sites money don't make their sites anywhere near as much as it appears.

I don't know what you mean about if he won 2 k, that 2k less to be raked. You are assuming that you could run a viable poker room if everyone always lost everything. I assume that the interest in such a site would be minimal at best.

And for the rest, Yes. $800 a month (about 10K a year) for the administration of a pretty (censored) simple computer program, together with almost nonexistent support, and the ability to hold my bankroll (and everyone else's) to draw interest, day in and day out.

And lets not forget the economies of scale; the mid sites have about 10K players at a time average.

I think they are OK with this relationship. In fact, I suspect that more than a few people have got fabulously wealthy off the rake of grinders.

I know that when I open my room I'll be offering free escorts to guys that 20 table all month long.

do you have to pay for these huds?

You make this statement assuming this grinder will play at this site if such incentives were not present. I can't believe a player of this sort will be attracted to any site that doesn't offer such kind of incentive to play there.

Yes. The most common is pokerace HUD. Pokerace works off of your pokertracker database, so if you don't have PT, PA is of no use to you.

When a fish deposits his money's final location will be with the site (via rake) or with a winning player. The site will get more of that money if they give the fish more hands before he loses his money. Anything that increases the winning player's edge will cost the site money.

There's a negative feedback loop that will take care of itself and bring the whole thing into an equilibruim. Many fish --> attracks grinders --> more grinders --> reduced win rate for grinders --> pushes grinders away --> continously make adjustments as necessary.

The amount of expected number of grinder*hands at a site in the long run is proportional and dependant on the number of fish*hands. If you bring the fish the grinders will come, however bringing grinders will not bring fish.

Grinders provide a service for the site. That service is getting the money out of the fish. For this service grinders are paid a fee. That fee is their win rate. Sites should look to mimimize the fee they pay their grinders. They should also seek out fish, as fish are the ones who create games, not grinders.

Every time you exploit something it becomes less exploitable. If you're a winning player you're making future poker games worse. And if you're making them worse you're making them less likely to occur. (That's not to say poker will be ruined eventually.)

Fish don't use HUDs. Regulars do, and their effect roughly cancels out amongst each other. Hence, it allows regulars to make money off the fish easier.

Also, being able to minimise ranges based on stats adds a lot more skill than employing a wider range based on a generic player. Sure, you could try to work it out without HUDs but that's pretty much impossible playing more than a couple of tables.