In another thread, one poster declared "online poker is doomed", clearly referring to the perceived rise across the industry of bots+HUDs+GTO, which combination many posters fear may be undetectable and unbeatable.

The perceived threat to players "in it for the money" seems clear. I get that is a very BAD thing, but posit it does not dictate an end to demand for recreational play. Online poker is a game for most players and not necessarily doomed for players who play for entertainment/recreation and a hope they "get lucky" and win something.

Before you tee off on the premise that the online poker industry is not doomed, consider that casinos, online and live, offer a negative EV prospect for every customer who plays slots, or craps, or video poker, or almost any other table game ...... but new ones get built all the time. They offer entertainment and hope. Consider also that live poker, where no one multi-tables, can clearly afford a skilled player a significant edge in whatever game he selects.

It may be that some window of opportunity to 24 table to leverage/exploit an edge in personal skill seems to be closing, but does that mean the industry "is dead" ? Skilled participants, priced out of the market by competition from indefatigable, never-tilting cheaply operated robots would not be a story unique to "playing poker" as a way to earn returns in exchange for labor.

Bots present a threat, no doubt, but not one that is insurmountable.

There is hope in game design for skilled players who can be better than bots in contributing to the entertainment value for recreational players. This may require a redesign of the overall experience to require human interaction at the table with recreational players and bar suspected bots incapable of uman interaction. (I suggest offhand that a Chicago Joey could be very entertaining on a couple of tables, exercise skill, and still take home a profit in a distinguishable manner from the interactions which could be required of even an advanced bot.)

Skilled poker players who cannot adapt to a recreational experience, or at least act demonstrably human, might not be distinguishable from robots .... that would be too bad, but change maybe requires adaptation.

As a form of entertainment - no.

As a feasible and realistic way of making a living in the 1st world - yes.

Why are HUDs a problem? Everybody can use them if the site permits it. I dont get it .
Its like complaining about a guy avoiding traffic jams with an app because you are too ***** lazy to use it.
And why is GTO a problem?! Nobody plays GTO. GTO has been around since nash wrote his thesis (long ****** time ago).
Bots however are a problem and hopefully there will be a monetary incentive for the sites to accelerate the detecting and banning process...

Succinctly put.

I agree with #1, but not necessarily with # 2.

There is a perception that the combo is really deadly.

There can be a monetary incentive for players also to accelerate the detecting process. .... I feel that creation of enough human friction can help expose bots.

Ummm...no. It's nothing at all like that. In that somebody avoiding a traffic jam I'm in doesn't affect me at all, or if it does it's positive.

Most recs are smart enough now to play $5 mtts then to jump into a 1/2 cash game. They know they get better value for money. This is why cash is really hard now and mtts are still soft at low levels. Fish don't want to play against pros/bumhunters and bots

well the question is, what defines "doomed". if you think that there will be no online poker, then i would answer no. if you say "online poker as we know", then the answer is yes.

it's changing and everyone around for more than 5 years obviously has noticed, how different the environment is.

online poker in general is

a) time consuming
b) not extremely popular any more
c) filled with too many "pros"

overall less money flows into the industry and therefore less money is to be made. the future is definitely mobile gaming so the lines between traditional poker and casino games will fade more and more.

Yea my analogy is maybe a bit confusing. I was focusing on the being envy because of laziness thing...

It depends on oldies in depends.

did you mean to make this post 5+ years ago?

online poker for any meaningful stakes has been dead as a form of entertainment for years.
why on earth would any fun player who wants action play in tight games with people mass multi tabling using all kinds of software including seat scripts, have to deal with bots etc? It's not entertaining at all and you have no chance to win.

maybe mtts with the prize of a big score can still be entertaining but not cash games.

What if multi-tabling was reduced or eliminated? Say, maybe a limit of 4 tables? Or one table?

The bots would be less profitable and more easily avoided. Recs can just sit where they want and leave if they dont like a particular reg/bot.

Also, while more rake is bad for regs, it weeds out the break-even rakeback junkies.

These kind of posts regarding HUDs are extremely tilting, IMO.

I have a job where I make decent money and I want to relax with my away from work time. I don't want to use a HUD, set up a HUD, study to play poker etc...

I'm good with throwing in a few bucks and firing up an MTT or a couple of Sit and Gos when time permits. i.e. I want to play for fun.

IMO, as a rec player, I will never play online cash for any meaningful amounts because I recognize that I will be facing players using HUDs and IMO, HUDs are cheating. In the same way that you may think BOTs are cheating, I think HUDs that store my stats with perfect recall, is also cheating. I don't really care if the sites allow them or not.

Just becase you are too lazy to set up a bot that is not detectable by the sites, why do you complain about those that do take the time and effort to do so?

I assumed he meant the new breed of bots which are very balanced, hard to exploit, and read HUD data to find the best way to play against an opponent. I don't think he's saying HUDs or GTO concepts on their own are that bad. Both of those, and even bots, have been along for quite some time. Like he said "the combination is deadly."

Odd post. You call HUD users cheaters, but praise the effort the bot users are putting in? Interpreting HUD data and implementing effective strategies based on that data is infinitely more difficult than setting up a bot.

If you could guarantee me that there were no cheaters in the games I'd be willing to give up data. Unfortunately history has shown that sites can't be trusted to effectively police the games on their own. Every site has had cheaters found by the players collecting data on other players.

I do think that online poker is only going to get worse until the US market gets going again. By that time high rake, increased game knowledge, bots, and other software will have likely killed the game elsewhere. Not to mention all of the other forms of enertainment available that is more stimulating than losing money to poker bots.

Not my intent. I was talking to a poster who said I am too lazy to set up/study HUD use.

Playing poker with no Hud ---> Hud --> Hud with "helper" software--> Bot

It's a continuum IMO. On the left is Poker. As you move right, it becomes cheating. I personally think anything right of playing poker using your brain, is cheating.

I agree with this. People say they use HUDs just because they play a lot of tables, but it's not anywhere close to the truth. Even if they 1-tabled, they couldn't gather even 1% of the information the HUD provides. It's pretty much an equivalent to a wall-hack (being able to see opponents through walls) in the first person shooters. Sadly, it became a norm in the poker industry and isn't considered cheating, but when you really look at it from the logical point of view, it absolutely is.

Not sure HUD's can be considered cheating if allowed by a site but to say one who doesn't use one is lazy is just dumb.

lol.... without pissing in my pants, even at the advanced age of 64.

Well first of all, what is the minimum amount you believe a Westerner needs to make in order to play poker for a living? Assuming they're not living in their parents basement and they are actually having to pay bills/rent/food for themselves.

...

What is a livable wage/income is NOT the first question to ask, unless you hold the environment and revenue models static. However living income is probably about the same amount as would a participant in any other industry impacted by automation of that participant's input.

I could foresee a business model where a poker player could monetize playing activity beyond just winning chips in a game or tournament. Think of the social aspect of playing and how it can be entertaining and monetized.

If you limit "play poker for a living" to net wins from betting/playing within the game at the tables, you are too limited in your scope.

Conversely, if you rule out changes to the poker experience which impact bots heavily, but not rec players or actual human poker pros, you are too static in your view and miss a couple of key points.

Rec players have different demands than pro players, consider how market demands can change from a pro-centric, multi-tabling, yet bot-infested experience to a single table, highly social, bot excluding one.... more kin to live poker than what you see today.

The critical mass to turn a profit operating online poker was skewed upward around 2002, by catering to professional players' market demands.

Since then technology has made several huge advances of relevance;

(a) two (better hosting technology & lower cost and improved payment processing) were good for lowering costs of boutique or smaller operations,

(b) the other very bad for massive, environments open to efficient leveraging of bot exploitation,

(c) the development of "apps" to decentralize game hosting and reach into mobile markets, I am unsure it impacts a particular segment of players.

Maybe for you, but tens of thousands of people obviously feel differently.

Then why not play on a site that doesn't allow HUDs?

That's, like, your opinion, man. And as it turns out, your opinion isn't relevant when it comes to what is or isn't cheating - the only thing that is relevant is the site rules. If a site allows HUDs, then by definition, using one isn't cheating.

The difference is that he is correct, and you are not.

This is extremely ridiculous. Not willing to cheat = too lazy? LOL.

Words have meanings. You don't get to redefine them.

There's definitely a continuum when it comes to what people think is or isn't good for the game, what should be allowed, etc. That's why different sites have different rules around this, or take steps to limit what can be practically used.

But when it comes to cheating, there is a very simple line - the rules of the site.

I think there are very solid arguments for disallowing HUDs, mass-multi-tabling, seating scripts, etc. But suggesting that people who are using tools the sites allow them to use is cheating because you (understandably) don't want to play against people using them isn't at all helpful.

One problem with HUDs is that when recreational players first find out about them they’ll often think they’ve been taken advantage of and be less inclined to play in the future.

As for GTO, there are many situations where GTO play can be easily applied and many other GTO ideas can be incorporated in your play. This is especially true in games where many pots are played heads-up.

Best wishes,
Mason

The quick answer is, no. Big field, low buy in tournaments are an easy way to sustain a poker model. Whether no limit cash games will survive is another question. There is a fine balance between having enough cash in play long enough to people can be entertained with a chance of winning decent money and professionalism driving people off the table by taking the money too quickly.

I know plenty of recs that have been playing and losing in cash games for years. They have jobs, its just like any other hobby to them. They play some poker on their phone while the wife watches some ****e on TV.

I'm not sure if HUD's discourage that many recs from playing. I would argue that most don't even know what a HUD is. Now if you are saying what stops people from initially playing online (other than the legality and inability to get money on a site easily) I think they simply just say it is "rigged".

I would agree that knowledge of HUD's and other forms of software have increased compared to say 10 years ago by the recs, meaning I think more of them are aware of it; but I think it is still a small percentage of the population that have any real knowledge of any of these programs. So it is hard for me to believe that it is stopping true recs from playing.