Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtyMcFly
It's hard to prove a direct link, because the "amount" and effect of software is impossible to measure, particularly when some of it is unknown/unauthorised. That said, there is a ton of circumstantial evidence:
Exhibit A: Pokerstars has more data on the software used by its customers than any other company in the industry, and it is hyper-aware of churn rates.
Exhibit B: Pokerstars Steve started this thread. I suspect he wouldn't be doing so if the rise of software wasn't a concern.
Exhibit C: The widely reported long-term decline in traffic on most "established" sites. (There appears to be a correlation - if not direct causation - between the rise of software and the decrease in player numbers).
Exhibit D: Traffic on Unibet (a site with no mainstream HUDs, datamining or table-selection) is growing rapidly.
Exhibit E: Traffic on 888's Snap tables (again, with no mainstream HUD support) is either stable or growing year on year. (Full figures aren't publicly available, but anecdotally Snap seems to be attracting more users than a year ago. The opposite is true on iPoker, where Speed Poker - where HUDs work - is reportedly dying).
Exhibit F: Traffic on Bovada (which lacks full HUD support, and has anonymous play) is reportedly growing.
Exhibit G: The MPN study that has been linked to several times ITT.
Exhibit H: The ending of affiliate deals for sites that promote "rakeback grinding" (e.g. William Hill severing ties with several sites that promote HUDbotting, and getting rid of offsite rakeback).
Exhibit I: Ever-diminishing winrates on sites like Stars that allow stat-mining.
Exhibit J: "Pre-boom" winrates are possible on sites that don't allow HUDs.
Exhibit K: The ever-increasing number of NVG threads that contain the words "ban HUDs".
Exhibit L: Common ****ing sense.
Exhibits A and B only have to do with new software which has become available recently, not software in general.
Exhibit C - as you rightly note, correlation, not causation. Alternative causes: regulation, end of the poker boom, players getting better so regs are less likely to continue and fish going bust quicker.
Exhibit D - these are not the only central features of Unibet (for instance, it could be solely due to the achievements system or lack of table selection), and any new, well-run poker site is somewhat likely to grow if advertised using the power of a company like Unibet.
Exhibit E is largely a function of game softness, not HUD availability. Ask a random fish what the difference between the two games were and I doubt they'd be able to tell you that one allowed HUDs and the other didn't. 888's low RB is a very large cause of this.
Exhibit F - largely due to it being the only reasonable option for non-regulated poker in the US, as well as being the softest site on the internet.
Exhibit G - weak evidence; refers to anonymous, rather than HUDless games which is an important distinction. Also, it largely refers to games being softer, rather than sustainable. If Stars, the market leader, were to go fully HUDless, HUDless games would instantly become significantly tougher.
Exhibit H - high rakeback is very bad for any site, but this has absolutely nothing to do with HUD use, and the term 'HUDbotting' is ridiculous since HUDless play is likely to be far more automatic than play with a HUD.
Exhibit I - again, this is a cause of the arms race in skill, not in software (though some of the stronger software does, I will concede, play a part, I find it very difficult to imagine that this will be affected by the market leader merely ceasing to allow a HUD).
Exhibit J - first, not quite (not aware of any sites where 15bb/100 is possible at 200NL). Second, this is largely because those sites are unattractive to regs for a multitude of reasons - possibly lack of HUDs being a minor consideration, but often the relevant considerations are more strongly software problems, lack of rakeback, lack of liquidity, lack of trustworthiness, and lack of awareness.
Exhibits K and L are completely worthless as evidence and you know better, but I suspect you were being facetious.