Why? One doesn't exclude the other.

Go look at a heads up or cash game lobby goofball. Serious comment? Which software company sent you here to post.

Go look up the difference between correlation and causation.

HUDs clearly offer a significant advantage (why are people still debating this?). There are 3 possibilities:

(1) Everyone uses HUDs (eg stars implements them in client)
(2) Nobody uses HUDs (eg anonymous tables, anonymous during session, hh blocking, periodic name changes)
(3) Some people use them but others don't (status quo)

I would rank my preference as (2), (1), (3).

The worst scenario by far imo is the one we have today, i.e. (3), which allows some players a substantial in-game advantage over others (some of whom don't even know that advantage exists).

I don't feel so strongly between (1) and (2) but would prefer (2) because it makes the game/skillset more similar to live poker (which is what attracted us all in the first place, remember!) and is less off-putting to new players.

I suspect if you polled a sample of new players, almost none would vote for (3) and most would vote for (2).

Well, nobody has run a randomised controlled study but it seems clear that in-game software is part of the problem. They help to kill off new players quickly. They help reduce edges between regs so that few can clear the rake (which hasn't been reduced accordingly due to market dominance). They provide a platform for all sorts of add-ons/gizmos/hand-history importing etc which are speeding up the process of the game becoming too efficient to be healthy. They deter new recs who hear about large numbers of players preying on them using these software weapons that they don't have.

Ultimately which direction do we want the game to go?...

(A) More in-game data/advice/player-specific info, software, add-ons, seating scripts, opponent-profiling, heat-maps, charts, badges, hints, ... The winners, until the bots take over, will be those best at producing and exploiting the latest/best software tools and crunching data from the ever-growing mountain of stats.

(B) Less software etc, more use of poker skills, more attention to the game itself. The winners will be those with stronger poker skills, the ones who read opponent tendencies themselves - the same ones who win live.

The bolded seems to be the opposite of what is the case. Effective exploitation of information is what creates edges between regs.

There are 2 components to exploitation: (1) Information; and (2) Use of that info.

Part of the skillset of pros is gaining/reading maximum info based on past actions. HUDs deliver more of that than the best human can accumulate and so destroy that difference. HUDs also help with use of that info, particularly where they allow highlighting of exploitable tendencies of specific players. I would say that if you had a bunch of regs playing against each other over a large sample, first with HUDs/NC etc and then without, I believe the outcome would be much more even with HUDs than without. Without HUDs we would see more clearly who the stronger players are.

Some regs are losing players without HUDs. It is their exploitation of non-HUD players combined with reduced losses to strong players that allows them to make a profit with the help of their in-game software.

zooNewsflash: software reduces edges, gto runs at minimal edge. now how counter intuitive is that!

@ everyone saying excessive HUDs don't kill the recs and fish faster: since you don't agree with it, you must support the opposite. I think we can safely exclude the illogical statement that super huds and live leakfinders have absolutely no effect on recs & fishes (i.e. perfect ZERO), so then it's one or the other (they lose faster or they lose at a slower pace).

Ok, so if you don't agree with the fact that it makes fish&regs lose faster, than you MUST (by the law of the excluded middle) support its opposite, i.e. they actually lose slower if we all regs use superhuds and live leak finders. So let's assume that, for argument's sake.

Now can someone please tell me how would that be possible? How could it be possible that, with all regs having said tools, fish&recs lose at a slower pace? What's happening here, are they somehow actually benefiting from us regs having these supertools? Really, can someone explain this SF scenario?

I agree with your preference ranks but not anonymous tables. Live poker is always face to face.

HUDs are a fantastic learning tool for new to intermediate players. They show you what to look for but eventually you get better than the HUD. There are 100 ways to beat HUDs, like flipping from one bet size, pre, flop, turn and river strategy, to another. If people play you according to the stats you can eat them alive.

You should always stay unpredictable.

The bots and software assistance use GTO, which is easier to exploit for a good online player than your average donk pulling off hero bluffs, or limping with big hands and raising rags. But for bad or average players against other bad players, yes, HUDs are a big edge.

Stars redid their seat preference script. If this was kept random, a lot of HUDs would have to be updated (most need you to select the same seat at all tables).

I would like no HUDs at tables but it's datamining and dynamic variable software that's the biggest problem. HUDs are totally pointless until you play a bunch of hands with each player yourself. There are some bastards sitting in mtts with full history and playing stats for everyone though, even those they've never played against.

I meant my about OP topic.
The intent, and so the aim, of this move is noble but i could be warried about means.
First of all i think that PT & NC with PokerProHuds, NC et simila must leave, as all is static. About NC i think it's necessary split implements of support (manual stats, etc) during game from badge and notes that imo should be banned during game.
Subsequenty i think that human knowledge belongs to the world so post session everyone is free to work with all struments he can. The majority of these are accessible and companies rightly provide differents pricies based on kind of level played.
The key thing here over the integrity of the game is the equality ofmeasures. I hope that Amaya knows what it's talking and eventually has the means to control and protect the game because i think it'll be not hard to bypass its.
Moreover don't forget the the real problem here it's: collusion/sharing; BOT; banned player who keep playing.

To the end i would remember you that onother nuisance is, like said, datamining. So stop to share your HH in exchange for money.

Okay, fair enough, my point went too far. I still don't think you can generalise across the set of all regs though, or even accurately claim any particular weighting.

thats pretty much what i concluded in my blog post

I can see why your posts are generally treated with disdain. At least you should be used to it by now though.

I agree with you on both points. On top of that the countries that are currently segregated have high avrg salary which means more fish on higher stakes and less incentive for grinding for a living since you can earn decent money actually working, as opposed to eastern countries.

Your also part right on the second point. Nobody knows how many fish leaves because of the software instead of other reasons.

But thinking that software doesn't have some impact on them is naive. Im pretty sure at least some fish leaves when they lose some money, google a few poker vids and see how a guy thats been taking money from them has 50 stats on his HUD.

If we talk about equal grounds it would be fair from Stars to email all their players about what kind of software is allowed and where to get it. But if they do that im pretty sure we would see a dramatic decrease in traffic overnight.

And given that every day the information about HUDs and other software is getting easier to find out via twich and other social media the recs thats put some effort in it will find out about it sooner or later. Now once they do they either use it and start losing less, or just strait out quit because they fell they had been unfairly exploited, and neither one is good for us.

And if there would be a choice between playing on tables with or with out software, its a pretty safe bet that 90% of recs would sit on the latter.

Note that i think that both those ideas would be utterly stupid, which just goes to show how much i think recs finding out about all the software available today would hurt the games.

As you said, we can never know how many fish we actually lose because of all the s/w, but we don't really live in times we can afford to lose any fish. And nothing mayor happened since last year, and the traffic at nl100+ has dropped significantly since the same time last year.

Feel free to skip.... this is just addressing s/w verification and how Stars could and should enforce s/w that interacts with the poker client or is on their approved list to run in parallel with the client - ie not glossing over enforcement as an issue. It is long dull a little technical, in places patronising and as is my want drifts into regulations and speculation on future potential nasty shocks for some players too so SKIP AWAY. It is 99% not relevant to the main issue of the thread.

Enforcement of software standards on third party software suppliers and security checks for that software is by no means a poker only issue. It is a live issue for any software integration team that has an interest in security, whether that is financial security, security against malware or even the policing of digital rights or subscriptions for services. Hell it is even a core part of version control within product development with multiple teams and/or suppliers.

Approved software:
The starting point is you get the active cooperation of the third party wanting to have their software approved for your operations. Without that active cooperation you can't get the enforcement/security you need - but then if they want to be on the approved list cooperation is not a big ask.

The 3P (Third Party) software needs to declare itself openly to the poker client via an API (Application Program Interface) - it says this is the s/w version I am, please check I am aproved. Then the client goes OK, that's who you SAY you are, I am going to do some background checks just to make sure that you are not a different bit of software and that nobody has mucked around in your source code that I have approved and confirm the code is what you say it is.....then the file verification is done and we have two applications up and running that have mutually identified each other thoroughly.

That means that you can now have the two apps work together. If we assume this is a HUD or data tracker the cooperation required is that the poker client gets access to the data being used and the display produced from that data. In turn this can be checekd to ensure tht the display does meet whatever rules have been agreed by the 3P and the Poker site and does use the data that the s/w says it is using. The data used itself can also be checked vs the player's record so if they have more/better data than could be produced from their own play.

Simpler software, all they need to do is ensure that it is the software that meets the Stars rules, the verification is enough.

Non approved software(on same PC):
Here it is roughly the same game as the current banned list. stars uses "spyware" to see what is running . It also mystery shops the software it has banned so it is easy for it to identify it.

Now covertly distributed, non approved software might escape for a while but the "unidentified" s/w will show up and get flagged if it is seen to have an effect on the play/return to those using it. Yep just like bots they may get away with it for a while but if it is 3P poker software that is not on the approved list that would be against the TOS so account closures and balance seizures could follow, just like for botters.

Software on another machine:
Obviously this is harder to detect but hey, that is true for a bot or cybot on another machine too. Like the way that the cartel worked out that Skier was doing something that delivered an advantage and just as Schier detected the PLO Bot ring if the s/w is powerful enough to make a big difference it will show up in the data.

Is it posible that you end up with a sub group that Stars suspects of botting or data abuse or non approved software that is not being proven? Yep. That's when you shift from what are essentially technical and evidential issues and shift to a customer management issue.

Arbitrary Customer Restrictions
Bookies in the UK routinely refuse or drastically limit some gamblers - those they suspect are acting as traders, buying liquidity from them to use on the exchanges later n the day, arbitraging, using inside information to get an edge on the horses, acting to place bets for others...a whole range os "suspicions" and possibly as they are the house just refusing customers that shop around and only use them when they are best price or otherwise show that as a sports bettor their business is likely to be (in the long term) unprofitable for them. As you can imagine their arbitrary decisions to restrict or claose accounts is incredibly infuriating for those affected.

Rampant speculaton (skip): if we assume we have a group of players that Stars strongly suspect of s/w or data abuse but cannot prove it they could choose to refuse them service or restrict them from some games. It is their business, if they don't want em at all or not in some games they can act like the bookies and just say NO. As an example they could shaft Skier (again) by saying, thankyou for your business, unfortunately we will no longer be offering you Heads Up games on our site. We regret our decision is not subject to negotiation or appeal as it is our view that it is no longer in our commercial interests to allow you to play in these games.

Similarly they could kick some micro grinders out of the lower stakes either by banning them completely or restricing VIP rewards at the lowest stakes.

No doubt some will think I am mad but drastic measures to deal with the ecosystem and suspicions of unfair advantage are IMHO more likely than not to happen. Arbitrary player restrictions are one obvious tool.

Regulation - 3P Poker Software
Stars is in an awkward position by approving some third party software. If that same functionality were being sold to Stars or included in the client then the s/w provider would need to have a UK software supplier licence, make sure the s/w meets the Remote Technical Standards published by the UKGC (not very arduous) and sign up to certain social responsibility rules including making sure their software is designed to prevent cheating.

In the months and years ahead Stars will need to work out what this means for their approved list? Does it mean they require the approved s/w providers sign up to the Licence Conditions and Code of Practice and Remote Technical Standards that they are signed up to - does it mean that they ask the bigger approved suppliers to get the UK licence.

The potential advantage is that a shift in regulatory attitude not new legislation could criminalise the supply of unaproved software, introducing potential penalties for Bot makers, Data suppliers and software Stars prohibits.

Conclusion
To sum up - as s/w suppliers would, unlike botters, be actively cooperating with the poker sites enforcement is a lot easier, indeed that cooperation is the only way I can see that illegal data can be kept out of games but still be available for people like Schwein to catch botters.

See, I told you to SKIP but one thing I haven't done is gloss over enforcement.

Welcome change if implemented.

If the rule change goes through, hopefully it becomes the catalyst for deeper changes to the software policy in the future.

Just because we have a brain that is capable of observing millions of hands, does not mean we are now entitled to have a machine do the recall for us. This reason is exactly why live poker was, is, and always will be filled with fish and obscenely ridiculous tilting by fish and regs alike (until google glass with poker ace HUD comes out).

ANY software not only significantly reduces the amount of human recall error to zero, it now prevents tilting and irrational thinking by just "suggesting" what to do.

Ban all of it. You owe nothing to the players using this software or the companies making it.

Poach people from HEM/PT and write your own Stars Tracker or Stars manager, accessible only through the logged in client.

Have a one click button option on each table to activate the HUD. Populate the HUD with extremely basic information (enough to confuse recs to use the information improperly or imprecisely, and regs cannot exploit to the Nth degree.)

Reset all stats mined into and displayed on the new stars client HUD every 6 months (or whatever community deemed appropriate amount of time.)

Perhaps offset the cost of implementation by charging a nominal amount off FPPs for the service. Perhaps every data reset period.

3. Profit, Control, another step towards sustainability.

Edit: the HUD would only displayed player observed data while playing. HUD would have to shut off when you aren't being dealt in.

Also I believe the elephant in the room is that stars is less profitable as a business if advanced HUDs are banned because volume by mass tablers will decrease (conjecture) so I tried to come up with a solution that takes Stars cut into account because that's really all we are fighting to get changes made imo

Exactly, we don't. But the only study that has been done by anyone, and has been posted a few times on this thread shows that winning players win more and losing players lose less quickly on anonymous tables.

See above.

This is similar to those who bring datamining etc into the discussion. The problem is datamining not the software. With regards to the point you are making you are admitting the problem is rake due to Stars market dominance.

This is a bit too vague to address.

I don't believe this to be the case. I'm a recreational player and it never put me off. Back in the day when I started playing and I found out about Pockertracker I went out and bought it, it wasn't a big deal to me. I'd assume that would be the case for most people on here, including the recreational players.

I too have a strong preference for (2) and is something I neglected to include in my megapost (anonymity/name changes). (1) does not solve the fundamental issue. If people have data, they will be able to use it and the way they use it will be above and beyond what is available in the client. The only solution is to reduce the effectiveness by reducing the amount of data one can get. The best HUD in the world is useless with no data, and further, all of these highly specific stats will become much less useful with low sample sizes.

I think that name changes/anonymous tables/some way to prevent being tied to your entire play history is a very good way to go. I think there are also plenty of things which could be considered to reduce the differences between the one name forever and the completely anonymous model:

1) Have site wide anonymous names. A player with the name of 'player12345' is the same player across all tables. This allows for much easier multi tabling and preserves across table dynamics

2) You can allow name changes, but you always have our previously used named reserved until you choose a new one. This allows people who wish to use the same screen name (think pros looking for notoriety) to do so.

3) You can do stuff like limit changes to weekly name changes which still allow weekly leaderboards/etc

4) You can make some formats anonymous while others are not. Cash games and sit and goes can be anonymous but scheduled tournaments are not.

5) Games could be anonymous for observers only and there could be exceptions - ie last 4 tables of a major tournament.

Having some degree of anonymity, rather than just limiting ability for non participants to observe a table, fixes not only mass datamining, but the sharing of databases. The issue of population tendencies is still not fixed (though perhaps made more difficult) but at least those who use mined data or share databases cannot get the history for the specific player they are playing. This also puts a significant curb on the effectiveness of sophisticated HUDs and tools like NoteCaddy without resorting to complicated and ineffective rules.

Even with anonymous names observing should still be reserved for a subset of the games. It's not impossible that player categorisation could tie anonymous histories together. I think this could be solved by just making, for example in SNGs, every 5th game observable. Players could still see in the lobby that a game is running, but the ones which they can actually observe, would have a tag/highlight specifying as much. Things like tournaments could be observable when deep, but in the early stages perhaps reserve that for the 2 tables with the largest number of chips and tables containing pokerstars pros etc.

C'mon, I am very aware that software aids are not the sole reason for fun players losing their deposits quicker than ever. Poker is a constantly evolving zero-sum game. Bots and data-mining are a HUGE, HUGE issue that need to be addressed. But to suggest software aids like HUDs aren't playing a role in this, too, is naive (and yes, I think this should be inarguable/common sense just based on the nature of what they do/what they facilitate - people profitably playing nX more tables than they would otherwise be able to, skewing fish:reg ratios).

In that article, almost all of what the author observed would be exactly what I would expect to see, aside from this point
This is interesting to me and, perhaps, the reason behind it being true is obvious and I'm just missing something.

My intuitive assumptions for what we'd witness from these games would be that
- Anonymous, HUD-less tables would be the biggest attraction for two specific player pools
a) fun players/those afraid of software aids, and
b) non-mass-tabling regs (note that these people are quite likely to be better poker players than their mass-tabling colleagues)
- The fun player:reg ratio will increase in these pools (more fun players at each table)
- Since the winning player is going to be seated at tables w/ more fun players/less regs, he/she naturally sees their overall WR increase (as observed), BUT decrease versus each specific fun player (i.e. fun players WR's increase due to it taking longer for regs to know exactly which type of fun player they are (loose/passive, tight/passive, maniac, etc.) and there being less players at the table efficient at exploiting them)

However, this last assumption was not observed. So why are losing players playing bigger pots and losing more at these anonymous/HUDless tables?
I would argue attributing that to the lack of HUDs is mistaking correlation with causation. With more research, I think we'd find this has to do with basic psychology. At these anonymous tables, fun players are more comfortable playing larger pots/pumping money into pots - in which they make larger, more costly mistakes - because they feel less attachment/shame/embarrassment towards their play.

In the end, Anonymous, HUDless poker is not equivalent to HUDless poker.

just make sure that all the "==" that are supposed to be "==" are not "=" then you should be ready to go. oh wait ..just one more question ..after you did a security audit, will you compile the code?

He also created a software which gives players a huge advantage compared to common programs. Which is why we have even more people now talking about software in general and casual HUDs, which isnt even the topic.

The advantage has been totally blown out of proportion. Voice controlled chart lookup does not offer an inherent advantage. Nor do charts on their own. A better strategy does. The advantage offered by likes of HUDs far eclipse any advantage a chart retrieval program can offer.

New players? New fish? People who rarely ever play? They dont even CARE ABOUT ALL THIS HERE. Jesus christ some posts are just so ... omg. Why are people here seriously talking about Tracker in general. Totally standard software that the majority of players are using since ages. Which has helped our understanding of the game a lot, and not only gives us an advantage.

I'm totally against this whole bias that is going on here. I hope PokerStars wont be fooled by a few players who are abusing the current situation for crying their soul out.