Quote:
Originally Posted by NellyV
Pokerstars is so dominant in the market place that it should probably be broken up to allow proper competition. Full Tilt used to provide this competition but there is no longer another site where players can go to get a similar sized player pool and therefore similar liquidity of games to Pokerstars.
Okay, sure, but it's not like the alternatives don't exist - and, if they're good ideas, we'll see them grow due to product differentiation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirty moose
My way? I didn't invent the game. It's still the same game with the same rule structure, weather you're play 1 or 24 tables. Live or online. 1/2 or 100/200. The game it self is always the same.
Just because you have the computing power to use software doesn't mean we should. How does anyone still see it as a fair game if you're using anything 3rd party.
But let's note that live poker wasn't invented with a 'no HUDs' rule, it just wouldn't have been possible when live poker began. Live poker has changed to disallow HUDs, but that was mainly AFAIK because the elements which allowed HUDs would've allowed more blatant cheating through computer communication, not because HUDs were seen as inherently unfair (I actually think it's at least arguable that HUDs are permitted in live poker based on hypothetical technology). To summarise this bit, the 'it should be played the same way as live poker' argument fails because a) there's no good reason for saying that, b) there's no reason why it should be online, rather than live poker, which changes for parity even if we do accept that first part, and c) even so, there is no rule against HUDs in live poker (there is a rule against the use of certain computer devices) - I challenge you to find a rule against consulting a database in RROP.
The 'it's not fair' argument is completely different. I'll accept that the use of advantages which not everyone has access to is unfair. However, I a) deny that people don't have access to this software (maybe people in third world countries who don't have $50 for it, but I daresay they have more pressing concerns), b) if your argument isn't based on access, I deny that HUDs provide an unfair advantage given everyone has at least validly imputed ability to use one, and therefore, short of the skill involved in using one well, everyone starts on a level playing field, and c) I deny that the fact that some people don't know HUDs exist makes it unfair on them considering it is relatively easy to find out. If I don't know courts exist, is it unfair to enter contracts with me? If I don't know past sporting results are available, is it unfair to make sport bets with me? Hell, the more appropriate analogy is if I don't know that it's possible to compile past sporting results in a statistically significant manner, is it unfair to make sport bets with me? The answer to all of those is very clearly 'no' IYAM.
Quote:
Here's my best argument, when baseball players were using steroids in the 90's there was no rules against it. Now there is, but no one is taking their home runs away and no is taking their salary back. They got away with it for as long as they could until it got out of control. Much like the 3rd party stuff has gotten out of control.
Steroids gave players an unfair advantage, the same way a HUD or some other software give an unfair advantage. Too bad for those people using them. You had a good run, now it's time to adjust and find your edge elsewhere. Cause that's what it's all about right... Getting that edge anyway you can....
How has it gotten out of control? There is no evidence that HUDs (I won't defend seating scripts) are in any way damaging the games. I also deny that permitting the use of steroids in sports is unfair if everyone has access - and indeed, I think sports would be better and more entertaining if they were permitted (n.b. because of my support in general for paternalistic laws, I should note I do not know, and am not expressing an opinion about the medical safety of steroids; I am starting from the presumption that they are safe to use).
Quote:
To add one thing, I don't need a HUD to tell me that the guy in the 2 seat is raising x amount of the time. Regs that play 24 tables can't follow all that, I get it, but that's just too bad... Play less tables.
The thing is, regs who use HUDs will still be able to identify the weaker players very quickly with or without HUDs. I can't remember the last time I identified a fish based on their HUD stats. More reliable tells (and these tend to arise WITHIN the first orbit I play with someone) are open-limping, stack sizes, screen names, avatars, and the number of tables people are playing. Until recently on Stars it was also possible to get a good idea from players playing on mobiles, but they removed that indicator, which, while I believe it marginally hurts my bottom line, I applaud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LektorAJ
Then I mean it's a good analogy for people who see the poker client as a work app like Excel or Word, rather than a type of computer game.
In computer games players can use certain third party software. The computer game analogy is not strong against TPS. If you mean to distinguish between professionals and recreational players, I don't see the relevance. I feel the distinction between professionals and recreationals can be made within the scope of computer games.