Maybe someone should say WELCOME to the game of internet poker to YOU. If you read any books on internet poker the first thing they will tell you to get is a HUD. HUD is basically the main way for a player to make reads on opponents. It doesn't play for you, it only gives you statistics on opponents. You will still definitely lose with a HUD if your not a good player.

Hi,
Anyone find a HUD that works with Bovada - I know Anon means only have one session - but looking for something to help me review my own play. TY.

.

Holdem Indicator is a HUD that works for Bovada. Read back a page or two ITT for more info on it.

If you already have HEM and PT and want to only analyze your play, you can buy Bovada Hand History Converter from Ace for relatively cheap and then HEM/PT can import them. I do this and it works great

Hey guys, sorry if these have been answered but I just have a couple questions.

1. How much of the bonus do you think I could get grinding micros 10nl to start and then 25nl for 4 hours a day, 4 tabling? I was thinking around the 500ish range, but if anyone has some experience that'd be great.

2. I've never used Western Union before. Could someone explain the process I would have to go through to deposit on Bovada, and I heard something about getting a fee refunded? What's the deal with that?

Appreciate it.

I only know the answer to 1. And if you do 4 hours a day of 10NL and then 25NL, I think you should go ahead and deposit the full 1k as I think it's very conceivable that you'll get the full amount bonus. I play only 10NL and about 2 hours a day average and I will be on pace, points-wise, to have earned $500 bonus

I deposited using my cc - no issue

And you do realize that if everyone gets a HUD, that edge is incrementally negated because it's now an even playing field since everyone has them?

I know you say "you can definitely lose with a HUD still." This goes without saying. You can always lose if you don't play well. I always laugh when people try to defend HUD's and the sustainability of poker when the reality is that having a HUD is more likely to improve one's game than detract from it, and that over time win rates diminish when people are exposed to more and more information to expedite the learning curve.

Poker since the Chris Moneymaker era with the information and technology available has been like evolution on steroids. I've been playing for more than half a decade, at times professionally and recreationally and I am happy with the direction that poker sites are going; anonymously and more geared towards sustainability. Poker professionals won't appreciate it, but being a full-time online grinder in my opinion is/will not be a sustainable profession, unless you live in certain places in the world where the cost of living is low and stability of internet is high. I'm also factoring in regulation here in the U.S. I don't think it'll be as rosy as people think (they're not going to care about professional players best interests) and even if it is initially, you're going to need to earn a living beyond the first few years and as more time goes by, it'll only get harder.

IMO most players never play more than 5 years full-time and therefore aren't worried about the long-term ramifications of what's happened to poker over the last decade. It's in some ways analogous to the argument of pollution/global warming and that we're not looking at it in larger chunks of time. Thus if more than 90% aren't worried about HUD's and they simply want immediate profits and the highest hourly rates, then of course they'd advocate for having more information at their fingertips that can be used to extract the maximum edge.

BTW, there was a thread recently with a poll about wanting HUD's removed. Surprisingly almost 40% wanted them gone. If you had asked 3 years ago, I'd bet money that it would be lower than 40%.

With regards to your first statement:
On no site, except maybe Carbon lol, does everybody have a HUD. Sure the edge is incrementally negated as a higher percentage of the playing population gets a HUD, but since it will never be 100% of people, there will always be a significant overall edge from using a HUD.

One counter-argument is that people might develop their own HUD that goes undetected and/or sell it on a black market of sorts. Thus giving a select few a huge edge that isnt available to the vast majority (everybody has the option to buy a HUD for sites that allow it).

Out of curiosity, when did HUDs first appear on the scene? And were there very successful Internet pros in the pre-HUD era?

I cannot open my bovada poker client. Everytime I open it, the client tries to do liveupdate and just gets stuck. Anyone else experiencing this?

The HUD was really looking at the leaves through the trees. My main driving point is that information is leveling the playing field. The past decade has seen a huge influx of available knowledge to sharpen one's game. The HUD is just one small part of that.
[/QUOTE]

That's why I think that anonymous screen names is the way to go. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but even holdem indicator can only track the statistics from that specific session or game versus that opponent. I don't believe there is a loophole with this format.

Ha, I almost asked that question myself! I'm really not sure to be honest. Maybe a historical buff could chime in here.

As far as successful internet pros before the pre-HUD era is concerned, I know one guy who actually cracked 1M and as of about a 1-2 years ago, couldn't even beat $50 HU SNG's and lost all of the money. He started before me but I was told that it was like "taking candy from a baby" back then. To be fair, it's not only due to the evolution of information in the game. It's also been about losing the ability for fish to actually deposit without issue.

Fwiw I have a HUD as well, although I probably rely on it less than others do for my decision-making. So I'm not trying to be that old-timer who doesn't want to change his ways. My arguments were about the longevity of the game and dichotomous nature of sharks and guppies and how those new players entering the games would be eaten alive by the highly-skilled players.

Yeah, I mean there's definitely a lot of solid points in the argument that you made. It might well be better for the longevity of the game as well as for attracting and KEEPING gups. I think the true pros will adapt and still continue to crush without a HUD, the main problem is they won't be able to play 20 tables as easily and will need to start paying more attention to who they are playing with.

That being said, Pstars and FTP in their current state allow HUDs and remain thriving poker ecosystems with sufficient distribution of fish, pro sharks, and everything in between. And they have been that way for a while. Games are still very beatable on those sites for the true pros. So I don't think you can claim that HUDs have destroyed online poker or are threatening it THAT much given those two successful models. If you are a winning player who knows how to efficiently use HUD, obliviously you prefer the latter system.

The extent to which no-HUD preserves online poker longevity and how much HUD threatens it is really too hard to say, or measure. All I know is that HUD is a model that works well for a winning player, but I have no clue about no-HUD and/or anonymous profitability, so you can probably guess why I prefer HUD.

Cliffs:
To me and many others, why fix it if aint broke?
Source: PStars and FTP

You likewise bring up valid arguments. You also mention how you weren't around in the pre-HUD days. You also note that the HUD model works well for a winning player, something of which I don't think can be argued. What about all the subtle issues that HUD's create, such as mass tablers that piss recreational players off and don't want to play anymore b/c it takes too long? There are tons of reasons, I'm just illustrating a possible rec player perspective (Bodog allows only 4 games per person to prevent this). In a healthy ecosystem though don't we also need to look at the larger picture, which in this situation is what is the recreational player/fish view? Without the smaller life in the ocean such as plant life and plankton, you're not going to have Whales and Sharks, which are seldom prayed upon.

The system on Stars/FTP may work for some people, but if we compare it to how it used to be, the games were much softer before technology and the game evolved. Some of that evolution is of course natural, as there is more known about something, the better it probably will be. Some of that change can be removed, so that the poker "ecology" is better balanced. It's essentially about sacrificing immediacy for a more sustainable future (assuming you rely on poker for anything other than a vacation fund).

I felt like even before Black Friday the poker model was broken. I intended to drop poker full-time in favor of something else, and BF only forced me to figure out something else sooner. I could still beat the games and I still do right now, but with every decision we make in life there is an opportunity cost and I believe we should always evaluate them with a long-term perspective.

I always told myself if I'm not making $100k a year at poker then I'm done (full time). Between your taxes between being self-employed, having to insure yourself and being a liability in the eyes of anyone if you need a loan or mortgage there is already enough uncertainty with playing poker as your primary source of income (ask me my lovely story about getting a mortgage). Throw in the fact that the games have progressively become tougher to beat (it's all relative over the years, of course) and in my opinion people should want the system to be changed because (again imo) it's on a path where those people who didn't leave after BF are going to be faced with tougher decisions as time continues to go on. Poker as a profession is already in many contexts a black hole to many employers. In certain contexts, mostly business, you can use it to your advantage, but again it's one of those things to think about now and not when it bites you in the ass in 5 years because you had no plan.

I know it probably sounds like I'm going in circles and yes I'm going on a tangent a bit. I do think it ties into the HUD thing though. A HUD isn't the exclusive problem. It's part of many other problems, but what it represents is definitely a problem for those who need to rely on poker for the long-term future.

Note that I'm strictly speaking for U.S. players. I know the Stars/FTP thing on your part was hypothetical b/c we (U.S. players) can't play there. Many factors can be justified as to why it's doable to live in another country based on poker as your primary source of income for years to come.

I do think that a lot of this is just postulating as well. We each have our opinions, and one isn't more right than the other. Look at these old farts on TV with their degrees and experience all trying to predict the economy/markets/real estate and are quite often wrong. Referencing that HUD thread about a month ago, I think the 40% disapproval of HUD's is indicative of others also believing that this isn't the way to go, even if it hurts our immediate bottom line, because there is something to be said about long-term prosperity and sleeping at night knowing you have job security.

my cc is a mastercard....*sigh*

Can't get my $10K+ off of Lock, but just received my first max withdrawal check from Bovada at my door exactly 56 hours after I requested it. That's smokin'.

From what I've heard bovada has always had a fast cashout process, which is why I've been trying to deposit on it.

No, not always. Everyone is subject to processing problems from time to time. That said, the last year has been pretty damn good at Bovada

That is smokin' fast!


--
Kahn

How do u people get pass the employees playing at the high stakes cash tables on bovada.

I agree with many of your points but disagree with others. Unlike evolution where a minnow cannot become a great white shark, any fish in the poker community through their own effort and talents could conceivably become a great winning poker player. HUDs are available to everyone. If someone chooses not to buy one then they are putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by choice. It would be like going out for the football team but choosing to wear sneakers while everyone else wears football cleats.

My best friend is a professional poker player that grinds in the casino every day. That was not really an option for me for various reasons so I really wanted to make things work out for me online. Unfortunately I was pretty much only breaking even if not losing a little. I decided to quit online poker due to lack of success and really began to wonder if I was being cheated because I had so much success playing live. Then I discovered HUD was an option and after using one I can't imagine ever going back to playing online without one. In real life you can gather information that will help you make decisions about your hand by looking and listening to the behavior of your opponents. Playing online without a HUD is like playing poker in a casino with blinders on (only being able to see your whole cards and the board). The only information you would have is the hand action. To me that's just not poker. In poker there has to be information available to players for them to decipher and based upon which they make decisions.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I simply am better at poker than even the superusers.

Also, here is a thread just for you!


--
Kahn

Point I was trying to make with the analogy of sea life was that all parts of the food chain must be fed in order for it to be sustained. Plankton and plant life can't turn into sharks and whales because it's genetically impossible.

You have to ensure the recreational (losing) player base is being kept highly satisfied. You're already seeing it over the past year with existing networks/sites. I don't expect people to be happy with my opinions b/c I'm basically inferring that poker is going to be a dry well unless things change from the status quo. I also am coming from this with a business background and perspective and not a current full-time grinders perspective.

Again, I'm referring to U.S. players who rely on poker as a primary source of income (not referring to affiliates and third-party sites).

If it is ever legalized in the U.S. and I believe it will be then with advertising the player pool of recreational players will constantly be refreshed. In the current climate yeah, Its typically grinder vs grinder.

Wow, some effin great posts from both LiarsDice and Blunsters.

To Liars:
Very solid insight. I def agree that there were certainly issues already with online poker around the time leading up to BF.

Mass tablers, aka nits w/ HUD, absolutely made life annoying for recreational players (and everybody else). And although HUD certainly plays a role in facilitating that, I think a simple rule like having a table-max would curb this issue. I used to be against table-max, but posters like yourself have since helped me change my view. That being said, I think Bovada's 4-table max is on the other extreme, too low. I think a table-max like 8-10 would be reasonable, and still a far cry from the "mass tablers" doing up to 20+. Also, Rush/Zoom/Zone are very popular options with ALL sorts of players that seek to cut down on wait times. With Rush/Zoom, people seeking high volume hands can now play 1/4 of the same number of tables to get those hands. And recreational players who just want quick action get their fix too. However, the concept becomes almost dirt to strong players when there is no HUD and every new hand is with totally new players/unknowns.

Your points regarding the issues facing an American player who wants to play pro poker as a living, even in pre-BF conditions, are insightful and anybody looking to do in the future so should strongly consider them. That being said, the principal concern here is that playing professional poker online remains even an option to begin with! People can think about those issues if/when they get there, but we definitely don't want to lose the entire possibility of being able to make over 100k playing online (even if only for the top percentages). And as we speak, there are online poker pros on PStars and FTP who make well over 100k playing as little as 28 hours/week. There's not millions of em, but theres a lot. I could start firing off a list of individuals doing that just off the top of my head. And those are just the ones who are vocal about it (e.g. cardrunners instructors, those w/ blogs, those active on 2+2). In the discussion of eliminating HUD, a lot of people feel the viability of playing pro poker online gets severely threatened. For a lot of us, that's our entire dream - even if only a pipe dream for most. And for plenty, pre-BF, it was their job. Sure I think there will be some pros in a HUD-less system - but the question is how many? The games are tougher in general now, so not only how many, but how profitable will those pros be?

To be fair, like you said, all of this is postulating. And I eagerly concede that what you are proposing may in fact make playing professional poker more lucrative. For example, compare Bovada to Carbon. Probably the 2 biggest online poker sites for American players. Bovada has the anonymous, no "real" HUD system (session-only stats = weak) and table-max... and these games are juicy as hell compared to Carbon. Often the players per pot % and the avg pot size on Bovada are twice of that for Carbon on the same stakes! I mean at Carbon I sit down at 10NL and the average players per pot is often around 20% at 6max! Really? Carbon of course is the more traditional site that allows HUD and if they even have a table-max, it is really high. They even allow a HUD, Poker Edge, that Pstars and FTP don't allow since it gets stats from a huge collected database even if you've never played against them before. So clearly I don't think your hypothesis is all air. However, that being said, the fact that Bovada tables move much slower than Carbon and that Bovada has a 4-table max, might make a Carbon a more viable option for serious money due to the incredibly higher volume I can get - even if the winrate is smaller.


So could your aforementioned proposals, or type of system, be better for the long-run longevity of online poker? Could that kind of system be just as lucrative, or even more lucrative, than current FTP & PStars model? Both of those may very well be the case. But its the risk of it being much worse that scares many when there's already a way that works - albeit with rough edges patches. Change is scary to many no doubt.

Blunsters also made awesome points about HUD making the online game more enjoyable for people like he and I, who seek to minimize the gap in information loss between live and online play. And it's true that advertising may very well drive in fish at a much higher rate than the sharks (rate of new sharks or rate of players becoming sharks), meaning they will always win enough from other fish to stay happy.

Regardless, online poker in US is looking very HUD-hostile. So to those who wish to play seriously if/when it is fully legalized in the future, we best adapt to a non-HUD climate. Times have changed but since we have the closest to that sort of model here with Bovada, I think it is worth considering that we start a separate thread or start a group devoted to sharing information for best getting reads on Bovada, taking notes, using Holdem Indicator to its best potential, & more. It is time to evolve

Agree with both of your posts. There is so much that could be discussed about the potential profitability of each model (Anonymous or not) and the theoretical win rate because any stone thrown in the water is going to have a ripple effect, and there really isn't enough data out there to have any conclusive evidence one way or the other.

I agree that many on Stars/FTP are still finding continued success in ROW land. There are a lot of factors outside of poker that also make their income more conducive to a very comfortable lifestyle. Just look at Romanian players and how far they can stretch their yearly income there for many reasons, not just the cost of living. I live in California and thus I'm already forced to make more money than those living in other states just to keep my head above water. So there is a ton of pressure or lack of it depending on where you live and the government/tax system in place.

As far as the future goes, it'll be VERY interesting and scary to see how the sites are created because one could argue that some of the predatory behavior of the hardcore grinders could be negated by a lot of promotions and TV marketing (once it's legal of course). Time will only tell. I think there is a sweet spot, probably somewhere in between the Bovada model (with 4 tables for example) and the status quo of online poker as we're used to it in a HUD-friendly environment.

As a for-profit player though, I love Bovada. The games are just ridiculous. I feel like I just went back in time when I play here.

All very true. I live in California too so I know exactly what you mean about the insane cost of living relative to other states & countries, and how that would add an additional dimension to consider when pursuing playing online for a living.

With regards to the bolded part, I'm 100% with ya on that. Especially coming from the disgusting Carbon environment which seems to have an enormous % of grinders, Bovada makes me feel a lot more like I'm playing against the $1/$2 live ones at Commerce casino lol (although online players will probably never be that bad and/or cracked out).

Out of curiosity, do you think it is feasible to maintain a winrate of 7BB/100 or better over the long-run playing at Bovada's medium stake (e.g. 200NL) games? The online pros that I know of who boast such high winrates over the long-run all use a HUD. However, the games at Bovada seem so soft that I wonder if that kind of a winrate can be maintained on there despite there being no HUD. Blunsters has been averaging better than that, but another poster said it was a heater as that rate cannot be maintained. At stakes that high & w/o a HUD, at most other sites I would mostly agree w/ that - but on Bovada I think that is a very realistic winrate. Being that you have played pro online in the past & that you currently play on Bovada, I'm very interested as to what your thoughts are regarding that