+1 to yours as well.

Well for me I want HH to look at my play and identify collusion. I think looking for RNG weirdness is a waste of time.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

One of the biggest problems with online poker is that the average poker player who doesn't play online poker thinks it's rigged or people cheat.

Providing hand histories will help fight that perception. Obviously it will never eliminate the perception to some but you would at least have the data to catch legitimate cheaters AND you would also have the data to prove to anyone with an OPEN MIND about the legitimacy of the RNG.

Right now the system caters to cheaters and an illegitimate deal. There CAN and should be a better balance.


You wouldn't think it's a waste of time if anomalies were found. If you were getting dealt aces once every 1000 hands and another player was dealt them every 100 hands and you both had a 100k plus sample, I'd want to know that. At the end of the day we want to know the deal is fair.

The way current hand histories / hand playbacks are set up now, all villains are randomly given player numbers. I feel like we can assume that if your requests gets answered and you get your hand histories, they would be returned with villains having random names/numbers assigned to them (similar to bovada/ignition)

...would having this type of hand history really be able to help protect you against collusion? You would only be able to see collusion in a single cash game session/sit and go/MTT...

if your answer to the above question is yes, then how is receiving a hand history to detect collusion any different than questioning collusion while you are playing?

(Not trolling, genuine question. Most of my online history was played on bovada, so I never really used hand histories)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well the hand history ideally should keep everyone's name or number consistent so that you can see over time if the same players/numbers are pullung the same sequence of moves on you.. which would implicate certain sets of players in collusion. Also if you were able to load the data into pokertracker you could identify players with identical stats... I dont want the data in this format though, because then you open the door to huds.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

My general opinion is hand histories will lead to HUDs, which will lead to both bots and robotic-humans 24-tabling cash games, which are both terrible for the games, IMO.

Requesting hand histories so that you can track your own personal stats, vpip, etc seems reasonable for people that really want that (similar to how ignition currently does it), but this will not allow you to track a specific villains stats over multiple games, which of course will be of know help trying to solve theoretical collusion or super users etc etc.

Just my opinion. I know everyone is this thread has theirs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only solution is webcam poker.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Ah. So this would be DIFFERENT from bovada/ignition.

Having these types of stats available would tend to lead to bum hunting, which is one of the main things the site wants to try to avoid, as they are making a strong effort to cater to recs.

Also, fwiw, in whatever “format” the HH comes out in, I’m sure there will be an extension that someone creates to be able to convert the data into PT4 format. As someone above me mentioned, it’s not that hard for ppl that know what they’re doing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As Monterrey mentioned above, a site tried this, and resulted in a ton of inappropriate content on the webcam.

Seeing how mean/cruel/inappropriate some of the comments/attacks in this thread have been, I would not be surprised to see similar actions if everyone had a webcam in front of them as they lose their 70/30 aipf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it's also been discussed in the wpn subforum re bots etc. Webcams for everybody would be a huge barrier of entry for recs, should only be used/watched by site security with legitimately suspicious accounts to verify nothing shady is being done.

i was unaware of the part I bolded but i believe it haha, links? I somehow missed out on that, i do remember a site with livecam thumbnails for avatars 5+ years ago that didnt last long.

Yeah...I mean for everyone that plays from a laptop, it’s safe to assume that there is a webcam attached to the laptop. But imagine trying to make your first deposit while playing on a desktop computer, and finding out that you have to purchase a webcam in order to play! Why do that when you can just play on X site instead?




I don’t know, I was just going off of Monterrey’s post...I would believe it though. Day in and day out, I’m amazed by the general immaturity and general hatefulness of the vast majority of people in online forums, random twitter accounts, YouTube comments, etc etc. (if you disagree with me, peel through some of the personal insults in this thread ). Anonymity brings out the worst in everybody, and asking for a webcam so we can visually see it? No thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So reg people wanting to play in a fair game from comfort of their home that like playing in casino poker rooms are going to have a problem with a webcam?

If marketing is done right similar to how global has marketed, people will sign up. Think of how many people are twitching, fb live, and youtube living their play of random video games. The current climate is ideal for webinar style poker. People can verbally communicate with each other also. It could be a good thing.. and individuals that misbehave would be dealt with. There are always a few people that don't know how to act appropriately and that is life, but those people get thrown out of casinos, get banned from chats, etc.

Anyway, I dont have money to start this so it doesnt matter if it's a good idea or not, but I would certainly play a home game with friends like this. It would be fun imo.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

The webcam effort was probably over a decade ago in an era where nearly everything was tried. One room for riggies (Real Deal Poker) had these weird machines that would do a real life shuffle that could be watched or something (since riggies like to see the deal thinking that will matter) and that room flopped within a week because all it was was super slow and riggies (as will always be the case) thought it was rigged.

Another site (True Poker?) had very unique animations and I think a 1 table limit (not sure on this). Other rooms had single table limits for a while (Pacific Poker for instance). Hard for me to remember them all as 1) I am not good with remembering names and 2) I probably had accounts at well over 100 rooms. I do recall getting my season 1 WPT DVD set through a promotion at Aztec Poker...

Basically, in those days if you think of a gimmick it was likely tried, and most failed at a time where the market was in a massive growth phase. Aside from the perverts on webcams, the problem again was you had very severe table limits and a HUGE chunk of players (casual and especially regulars) have zero interest with being on camera when playing online, so it becomes a very very niche product in the end at best.

As to the lack of hand histories, that is a topic that has been discussed before. Ignoring the riggie stuff (wah wah they are hiding their sinister full house rig or whatever) there is a valid argument to be made for and against saved hand histories. I think Unibet is sort of catering to the same niche as well (no HUDs, but not sure on the HHs).

I would certainly want a room that has no saved HHs to have top level security, and it is hard for me to say that can ever be the case in a room that spews out free $2 bankrolls to anyone with an email address only, but just as I did some marginal rooms in the distant past - it becomes a risk/reward calculation for each player to make, and the room is not required to proved HHs if they choose not to do that.

Some people probably do, yes.

I feel like everyone who plays online also (generally) like playing in casino poker rooms.



How many people do you think are not currently playing online poker because there are no webcams? How many people do you think are currently playing online poker, and would either stop or move to a different site if they had to inevitably experience seeing inappropriate content every time they sit down?

If you are talking about the marketing component of this, the scales better tip VERY HEAVILY in the first part if you think a company taking this risk will be worth it.




< 0.5% of people playing online poker have run a twitch stream, a YouTube stream, or a FB live stream. I’ve pulled this number out of thin air, but I feel like it’s pretty accurate. What do YOU think this percentage is?



Oh god.

So you want there to be audio also?

Imagine playing 4 tables! And having 32 separate voices (8 villains per table) spewing words out of your laptop. My god, it would be like trying to have a conversation at a concert!

Not to mention...you are playing a hand against villain X...but he is also multitabling, and cussing out player Y (at ANOTHER TABLE) about how bad he played the hand...


Think of all the people that type nasty stuff in chat. Do you think they act like that in a live casino? Most likely not, not most of them anyways.

Anonymity brings out the worst in everyone. There will be MUCH MORE instances of misbehavior in webcam online poker than in a live casino.



This I actually agree with. Gather 8 friends and play some sort of online virtual sit and go! THAT would be a lot of fun.

The problem lies when you are playing against anonymous strangers



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

<0.05%

Hard for anyone to top Tuff Fish though!


Seriously, the webcam as a requirement to play all the time is a bad idea. Really bad. REALLY bad (not saying this tat sam1chips as he kind of agrees). The idea is so bad that it is not even worth debating, it is literally that bad.

If a group wants to use webcams to do a home game then do a homegame on Stars and do a group call on Skype or something. If a site wants to require webcams selectively to test a player (suspecting he uses a bot) - fair enough. Web cams as a requirement to play? Well, I hope making money is not the goal of that site .

They aren't anonymous when they play on webcam.. That is the point. It is a different type of game. 1 that would be closest to casino poker room without physically being there. Majority of people would behave because they wouldnt want to be kicked out. And most recs would fire up 1 table at a time. Your "pro" group are more likely to multitable and they can turn off the sound. Anyway it is just an idea. But its always easy for people to be critics right?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Are people anonymous with their usernames on public forums? Just because we can’t see their face doesn’t mean they aren’t representing themselves through their forum usernames.

I honestly don’t believe that people would act different interacting with other people online just because there is a webcam in front of them. In fact, I would imagine it being MORE vile than just written words.

That’s my opinion. I’m just speculating. You seem to have a different opinion, so I suppose We will agree to disagree.



It is an idea, and definitely a creative one. As Monterrey mentioned, this idea has been tried by another company, and did not work. I imagine it would be safest for GP to follow the business model of every other current successful online poker company and go with no webcam



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whats funny to me is, how adamantly opposed to this idea you are. From the poker pro, serious reg group, they have been so desperate to play that they have subjected themselves to playing in illegal live rooms, illegal online rooms, in technically legal environments but possibilities of not being able to cash out, when the biggest fish have always been those playing at a casino or the mass public. You want to revitalize poker you need a system that attracts those people.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

We have a very strong difference of opinion here. There is no reason to continue going back and forth.

If you want to continue either pitching this idea to current online poker companies, or start a new company with this idea as a main selling point, go for it! It seems to be an untapped market



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem I see with webcams being required is the only people that would adhere to this rule would be regs. Recs aren't going to use a webcam just to "gamble". So basically, the games would become nothing but regs playing in my opinion. Doesn't sound fun to me.

Lol I already said I have no means to start this and then you and Monteroy started rattling off dissertations about how bad the idea is

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Oh I know, but you also just continued to make posts supporting the idea of having current online poker companies take this idea up.

Personally, I disagree, very strongly, for the reasons I stated above. But maybe I am wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's fine, I'm not really sure why I post on forums anyway. I probably do it to feel connected to something I'm interested in and to "help" the occasional person, but it truly is a waste of time to chime into anonymous forums with advice or thoughts that have no real relevance or benefit to anyone. I certainly don't feel more enlightened, intelligent, or better for it. I'm going to go create a task list of what is important and focus on those things. Sorry for time waste, hopefully OP works out his RNG concern.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

You've accused people of being "arrogant" if they try to reinforce an idea that may have happened 50 pages ago, but then repeat this platitide as if it solves anything?

There are basically only a couple real options for the poker community right now, and your stance is that we have two options:

1. Play and shut up - accept any wrong-doing we see
2. GTFO


Can you see how some thinking people might find flaw in that?

I'd hope this is a a given for anyone engaging in any financial speculation of any sort.

You replied to me, but I'm playing way under my bankroll... a winning player at GP, and this money is (way) inconsequential to my life. If you want to compare household incomes we can do that Splaya, is that where this is going? Want to put a side bet on it? Can your dad also beat up my dad?

Or, we could stay on topic and NOT do the personal attacks thing? Your call.

Completely reasonable, and you could be right. So what's wrong with people having the ability to make that call for themselves? Again... why fight AGAINST the ability to hash this out. As others have stated, this data has helped bring down countless scams in the past of all sorts. Seems simple enough. Why are we arguing about this again?

I'd say my motives are more on the side of poker community than the company, but in essence yes... the company opening up basic data to players is a win/win for both sides in the long run, IMO.

See, no insults necessary.

+1