Quote:
Originally Posted by jaysu
You advocate not using a HUD, which I can see many reasons for, and other good players have stated this same opinion. However, at low/micro stakes (i'm playing nl50 atm) do you think it is better to use it, since most players are unknowns and without any stats it is not as easy to identify their player types and tendencies? Maybe you answered this, I didn't see. I would like to try not using a HUD but I think I might be better off with it at this level, to gather information on new players.
Also, you don't use it, but you play 6-8 tables. Ryan Fees is another player who doesn't use a HUD, but he said he plays around 4 tables, and feels that playing more is sort of like autopilot. Do you feel that playing more tables without it causes you to make some robotic decisions, or do you play with a bunch of regulars on every table that you already know really well? I don't know how it is at higher levels, but how did you choose your number of tables?
I am not sure that I have advocated not using a HUD. I have meant that a HUD, for me personally, felt like a hindrance in the past. I believe the questions in poker should never be "Should you use a HUD?" or "Should one use pre-game prep?". Rather, a more relevant quesion would be "Should I use a HUD?" or "Should I use pre-game prep?". Maybe it came across a bit wrong.
However....
In the past few days I have played a lot of hands, which I usually do when things are going well. I have, after numerous arguments, tried using a HUD for the first time in a year, at least in most of my sessions. I must admit that I have run really well, and who knows? Maybe the HUD has been helpful. These are my last 25 k hands / 50 hrs, running at almost 12 ptbb / 100:
Anyways, this could be gamblers fallacy but I am going to continue using a HUD for now, and perhaps even upgrade to PT3 or HEM (which some people in this thread have mentioned). Does anyone have a suggestion as to which their preference is? And if so, why?