Rob Yong and DTD..Your views

[SuuPRlim]

Dubai's contention that fish will lose less against the multi-tabling reg than the super-focused reg is convenient for the argument but not true as it isn't the whole picture. If the 4 tabling reg wins 4bb/100 and the 12 tabling reg wins 1bb/100 then it stands to reason you'd want to play the 12 tabling reg, but that fails to take account of the fact there are 3 times as many of them. If you're on a 6max table with one 4bb/100 proshark, you and 5 of your recfish mates have to pay his wages, so you pay 0.8/100 each. If instead you are on a table with 3x 1bb/100 multiregs you only have to pay 3bb/100 in wages, but you only have 2 recfish mates to share the burden, so you each pay 1bb/100. Not drastic, but if you take account of the rakehole (roughly 40bb/100 at 100nl) then in scenario 1 you each pay 44/5 = 8.8bb/100 while in scenario 2 you each pay 43/3 = 14.33bb/100, a 63% increase.

To get a true picture you have to look at a macro level, not just what happens on 1 table. The whole enterprise is funded by losing players (or more accurately, players losing), they are the numerator. Mass multi-tabling adds more reg-clones and more rakeholes, they are the denominator. HUDs and such like only increase the denominator, therefore fish have to pay more and they're bad for "the poker ecology". They aren't bad for the sites though, not even in the long term, and obviously they aren't bad for any individual pro that uses them or they would just stop using them, so I can't see any impetus for change happening in the future except government regulation. This development by DTD won't change the landscape imo, but it will provide players with a choice, which has to be a good thing.

Great post. And agreed there is no real impetus for change. They are definitely good for the sites.

I think the detailed discussion of the relevance of HUDs and training sites, misses the main point of why this initiative is, potentially, going to achieve it's aims.
It is simply this.

Think this will get me back on DTD online to be honest.

Lots of players don't feel comfortable playing in nameless games, against people they don't know at all, who they think may be taking advantage of them by technology, or other means.
It doesn't matter if you think that some of their discomfort is unfounded, or irrational, that is just how some players feel.

It's not rocket science to recognise this, and Rob isn't the first person to try and do somethig about it (anonymous tables, ability to change SN, no regs tables etc...), but I think his ideas are pretty solid, and have a fair to better chance of being relatively successful.

Couldn't agree more. As I said its a great concept and idea but just pointing out the hud stuff is basically irrelevant to it all, other than peoples misconceptions of how it works etc.

Yes +1 from me btw, I am also keen to encourage the sentiment behind this concept, just also want to point out HUDs are not the villains people think they are.

Let's not fall into the trap of being binary on this. It's not HUDs are evil or HUDs are fine. It's a hell of a leap of logic to say that HUDs don't help good players play or get better through using them when they are learning. Even if that's just positive reinforcement of the correct decisions. And the fact that most people don't use them properly is irrelevant (same as it is with training sites) because those are the recs we're talking about anyway!

HUDs arguably turn the game into something different (tables full of rakeback grinders) and that's arguably just as big a problem for the image of poker.

I'm not a hater of HUDs or training sites by any means. Simply trying to give some more texture to the argument.

Yeh. The reason I really don't want to see the debate hung up over HUD's and Tracking software is that it will, IMO be totally impossible/impractical to ban them, the results of trying will be certain regulars will just work harder on getting round the system, and some will come up with a way (some v smart guys out there) and now you're providing a big incentive because if all of a sudden you (a reg) can have TS and no-one else can that is a HUGE edge, whereas as things stand that is largely negated.

Multi-accounting, bumhunting, table-blocking, buttoning and all the nonsense that comes with those things is what we need to stamp out, and what a scheme like Rob's could lead the way to improving, if we can achieve that then with or with HUD#s and TS online poker would be a far, far, FAR more welcoming and enjoyable environment for everyone - not just the recreational players either, I'd love to be able to play and not have to deal with all that bullshit EVERY DAY.

[pleno1]

3. Most of the information would be readily obvious playing 1 table and REALLY concentrating[/b]

I've heard this argument a lot. It makes a MASSIVE assumption that people are willing or even capable of doing this. It's bollocks really. How can something that collects information perfectly not be an advantage?

Really disagree here. One of the main problems with 1 tabling is you get paranoid.

FFSSSSSSS this skandi keeps 3betting me. Put stubborn hat on and not fold to him anymore etc.

So often I see people typing in chat box

"you are so fkn crazy"
"mr bluffer"
"bluffing again"
"you never bluff"
"obviously got it you havent played a hand all night"

Whenever I search these guys they are ALWAYS one tabling. Its a really really common thing.

If somebody isnt capable of realizing somebody is overly aggresive when they are 1 tabling then they will never ever win at poker anyway and the advantage that the reg currently holds with the HUD doesnt matter. The main point we are talking about is non drooler recs vs regs and the non droolers definitely notice things when 1 tabling. Its their night of fun, they have their glasses on, their hoody on and they are one tabling the night away.

[AlunB]

3. Most of the information would be readily obvious playing 1 table and REALLY concentrating[/b]

I've heard this argument a lot. It makes a MASSIVE assumption that people are willing or even capable of doing this. It's bollocks really. How can something that collects information perfectly not be an advantage?

Really disagree here. One of the main problems with 1 tabling is you get paranoid.

FFSSSSSSS this skandi keeps 3betting me. Put stubborn hat on and not fold to him anymore etc.

So often I see people typing in chat box

"you are so fkn crazy"
"mr bluffer"
"bluffing again"
"you never bluff"
"obviously got it you havent played a hand all night"

Whenever I search these guys they are ALWAYS one tabling. Its a really really common thing.

If somebody isnt capable of realizing somebody is overly aggresive when they are 1 tabling then they will never ever win at poker anyway and the advantage that the reg currently holds with the HUD doesnt matter. The main point we are talking about is non drooler recs vs regs and the non droolers definitely notice things when 1 tabling. Its their night of fun, they have their glasses on, their hoody on and they are one tabling the night away.

You disagree with me?

[SuuPRlim]

3. Most of the information would be readily obvious playing 1 table and REALLY concentrating[/b]

I've heard this argument a lot. It makes a MASSIVE assumption that people are willing or even capable of doing this. It's bollocks really. How can something that collects information perfectly not be an advantage?

It collects information PERFECTLY yes, but it doesn't collect PERFECT information. As proved in the example I gave of myself and my friend both with 12-15,000 hand samples on the same player and DRASTICALLY different information, obviously a very extreme case, but the point stands. PERFECT information is gethered by you sat there, watching you man play, and is really only available (or close to) in live poker.

[pleno1]

3. Most of the information would be readily obvious playing 1 table and REALLY concentrating[/b]

I've heard this argument a lot. It makes a MASSIVE assumption that people are willing or even capable of doing this. It's bollocks really. How can something that collects information perfectly not be an advantage?

Really disagree here. One of the main problems with 1 tabling is you get paranoid.

FFSSSSSSS this skandi keeps 3betting me. Put stubborn hat on and not fold to him anymore etc.

So often I see people typing in chat box

"you are so fkn crazy"
"mr bluffer"
"bluffing again"
"you never bluff"
"obviously got it you havent played a hand all night"

Whenever I search these guys they are ALWAYS one tabling. Its a really really common thing.

If somebody isnt capable of realizing somebody is overly aggresive when they are 1 tabling then they will never ever win at poker anyway and the advantage that the reg currently holds with the HUD doesnt matter. The main point we are talking about is non drooler recs vs regs and the non droolers definitely notice things when 1 tabling. Its their night of fun, they have their glasses on, their hoody on and they are one tabling the night away.

You disagree with me?

yes and rugby is shit!

[Hippy80]

Ok, a few quick caveats to my post,
First, I'm a professional Poker Journalist, and I've been playing poker for longer than I care to remember. Second, I've used a HuD ever since I took online poker even remotely seriously.

HuDs are a valuable tool for every player, regardless of how seriously they take poker, but they do not impact individual hands, or the outcome of those hands in any significant way. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but I'll try to explain.
All of the information a HuD collects while you play is information that is available to you already. A player at a live cash game will already have a very good idea about who is raising pots, and who is open limping. You get to know the table as you play, and you may play against the same players week in and week out, so you should have a better understanding of their game. That's what the HuD does online, it captures that information. Where a HuD really comes into it's own is to allow a player to sit at more tables, and not be at a serious disadvantage against the player who is sitting at only one. If anyone here has ever tried to multitable without a HuD, you know what I'm talking about, it's close to impossible to do it and stay as a winning player (some people I know can do it with 4 tables, but they are freaks).
People have been talking about sample sizes, and they are right to do so. For the length of most recreational players sessions, they are going to play maybe 1-200 hands at a single table tops. From that, you can only really take into consideration PFR (Pre Flop Raise) VPiP (Voluntary Put in Pot) and maybe 3 bet %. Any half decent player is going to have that information for a table playing the same amount of hands live. Given the size of most online player pools, you may never see most of these players again at your table, especially if you are only playing 1 at a time. HuDs have a very limited impact on any single hand.
Where a HuD really comes into it's own is away from the table. When you review your game (and any good grinder is going to spend a lot of time analysing their game) the statistics from a HuD can show you where you are losing money. Do you 3 bet light too often? Do you call out of position in three bet pots too often? Are you folding too often to aggressive players? This tool can really help analyse a players game, and the only information it uses is freely available Hand Histories.

The only thing a banning of HuDs would really cause is a drop in volume for players, and grinders having to play at a higher level to make rent. Volume is where the money is in this game, for both the player, and the operator. This actually hurts recreational players. It's going to be really hard to find a $0.01/$0.02 game on some sites, because all of the Russian multi table grinders are gone. The backbone of the online market is still the grinder, they hold open the games. the flesh however is the recreational players, who attach to that backbone.

Players who don't understand HuDs are understandably scared of them, but they really aren't the bad part of online poker. Collusion, poor operators, and unsustainable rake are all much more important, but because they aren't discusser out in the open, they get a lot less press.

There are issues with the market, but HuDs are not part of the problem.

[SuuPRlim]

Like I said I'd love there to be no HUD's (I love making graphs though!!) but the incentives Rob is purposing, if successful, will hopefully put an end to some much, much wider and more pressing issues than the use of HUD's and TS, so it's really frustrating watching the argument get sidetracked onto HUD's at every step, as it would be DISASTROUS if this issue were to hinder the progress these initiatives could make if we work and support the DTD online games.

I do agree with this. It's a side issue. But it's interrelated with lots of other issues so it can't just be ignored.
[/quote]

I really think it can be, it's honestly so irrelevant the to greater picture, it's just the perception of it that is damaging, so if banning HUD's is the only way around it then I'd be all for it, as I said before, in a perfectly selfish way I believe I'd make more money with no HUD's for anyone than everyone having a HUD.

Problem is for all the online regs (and this is why you'll see a rush to oppose plans to ban it globally) if 4% of the Regular player pool find a way round the software bans, its the other regular players who are getting done, not the Recreational players.

[pleno1]

Welcome to the forum, I hope this is Matt!

[SuuPRlim]

Ok, a few quick caveats to my post,
First, I'm a professional Poker Journalist, and I've been playing poker for longer than I care to remember. Second, I've used a HuD ever since I took online poker even remotely seriously.

HuDs are a valuable tool for every player, regardless of how seriously they take poker, but they do not impact individual hands, or the outcome of those hands in any significant way. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but I'll try to explain.
All of the information a HuD collects while you play is information that is available to you already. A player at a live cash game will already have a very good idea about who is raising pots, and who is open limping. You get to know the table as you play, and you may play against the same players week in and week out, so you should have a better understanding of their game. That's what the HuD does online, it captures that information. Where a HuD really comes into it's own is to allow a player to sit at more tables, and not be at a serious disadvantage against the player who is sitting at only one. If anyone here has ever tried to multitable without a HuD, you know what I'm talking about, it's close to impossible to do it and stay as a winning player (some people I know can do it with 4 tables, but they are freaks).
People have been talking about sample sizes, and they are right to do so. For the length of most recreational players sessions, they are going to play maybe 1-200 hands at a single table tops. From that, you can only really take into consideration PFR (Pre Flop Raise) VPiP (Voluntary Put in Pot) and maybe 3 bet %. Any half decent player is going to have that information for a table playing the same amount of hands live. Given the size of most online player pools, you may never see most of these players again at your table, especially if you are only playing 1 at a time. HuDs have a very limited impact on any single hand.
Where a HuD really comes into it's own is away from the table. When you review your game (and any good grinder is going to spend a lot of time analysing their game) the statistics from a HuD can show you where you are losing money. Do you 3 bet light too often? Do you call out of position in three bet pots too often? Are you folding too often to aggressive players? This tool can really help analyse a players game, and the only information it uses is freely available Hand Histories.

The only thing a banning of HuDs would really cause is a drop in volume for players, and grinders having to play at a higher level to make rent. Volume is where the money is in this game, for both the player, and the operator. This actually hurts recreational players. It's going to be really hard to find a $0.01/$0.02 game on some sites, because all of the Russian multi table grinders are gone. The backbone of the online market is still the grinder, they hold open the games. the flesh however is the recreational players, who attach to that backbone.

Players who don't understand HuDs are understandably scared of them, but they really aren't the bad part of online poker. Collusion, poor operators, and unsustainable rake are all much more important, but because they aren't discusser out in the open, they get a lot less press.

There are issues with the market, but HuDs are not part of the problem.

This is an excellent post.

[Doobs]

3. Most of the information would be readily obvious playing 1 table and REALLY concentrating[/b]

I've heard this argument a lot. It makes a MASSIVE assumption that people are willing or even capable of doing this. It's bollocks really. How can something that collects information perfectly not be an advantage?

It collects information PERFECTLY yes, but it doesn't collect PERFECT information. As proved in the example I gave of myself and my friend both with 12-15,000 hand samples on the same player and DRASTICALLY different information, obviously a very extreme case, but the point stands. PERFECT information is gethered by you sat there, watching you man play, and is really only available (or close to) in live poker.

This is all a lot of arguing over degrees of advantage.

You have an advantage from having a HUD, everyone has accepted that, people are wasting a lot of time arguing about how much.
Pros make more money overall 12 tabling with a HUD than they would 2 tabling without one.
If pros make less money, recs lose less money.  
Recs losing less money, or losing it more slowly, is what Rob is trying to achieve.

This is the absolute crux of it, If there is a flaw in this argument then nobody has pointed it out yet.

[RacePoker]

Ok, a few quick caveats to my post,
First, I'm a professional Poker Journalist, and I've been playing poker for longer than I care to remember. Second, I've used a HuD ever since I took online poker even remotely seriously.

HuDs are a valuable tool for every player, regardless of how seriously they take poker, but they do not impact individual hands, or the outcome of those hands in any significant way. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but I'll try to explain.
All of the information a HuD collects while you play is information that is available to you already. A player at a live cash game will already have a very good idea about who is raising pots, and who is open limping. You get to know the table as you play, and you may play against the same players week in and week out, so you should have a better understanding of their game. That's what the HuD does online, it captures that information. Where a HuD really comes into it's own is to allow a player to sit at more tables, and not be at a serious disadvantage against the player who is sitting at only one. If anyone here has ever tried to multitable without a HuD, you know what I'm talking about, it's close to impossible to do it and stay as a winning player (some people I know can do it with 4 tables, but they are freaks).
People have been talking about sample sizes, and they are right to do so. For the length of most recreational players sessions, they are going to play maybe 1-200 hands at a single table tops. From that, you can only really take into consideration PFR (Pre Flop Raise) VPiP (Voluntary Put in Pot) and maybe 3 bet %. Any half decent player is going to have that information for a table playing the same amount of hands live. Given the size of most online player pools, you may never see most of these players again at your table, especially if you are only playing 1 at a time. HuDs have a very limited impact on any single hand.
Where a HuD really comes into it's own is away from the table. When you review your game (and any good grinder is going to spend a lot of time analysing their game) the statistics from a HuD can show you where you are losing money. Do you 3 bet light too often? Do you call out of position in three bet pots too often? Are you folding too often to aggressive players? This tool can really help analyse a players game, and the only information it uses is freely available Hand Histories.

The only thing a banning of HuDs would really cause is a drop in volume for players, and grinders having to play at a higher level to make rent. Volume is where the money is in this game, for both the player, and the operator. This actually hurts recreational players. It's going to be really hard to find a $0.01/$0.02 game on some sites, because all of the Russian multi table grinders are gone. The backbone of the online market is still the grinder, they hold open the games. the flesh however is the recreational players, who attach to that backbone.

Players who don't understand HuDs are understandably scared of them, but they really aren't the bad part of online poker. Collusion, poor operators, and unsustainable rake are all much more important, but because they aren't discusser out in the open, they get a lot less press.

There are issues with the market, but HuDs are not part of the problem.

+1

[Hippy80]

Ok, a few quick caveats to my post,
First, I'm a professional Poker Journalist, and I've been playing poker for longer than I care to remember. Second, I've used a HuD ever since I took online poker even remotely seriously.

HuDs are a valuable tool for every player, regardless of how seriously they take poker, but they do not impact individual hands, or the outcome of those hands in any significant way. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but I'll try to explain.
All of the information a HuD collects while you play is information that is available to you already. A player at a live cash game will already have a very good idea about who is raising pots, and who is open limping. You get to know the table as you play, and you may play against the same players week in and week out, so you should have a better understanding of their game. That's what the HuD does online, it captures that information. Where a HuD really comes into it's own is to allow a player to sit at more tables, and not be at a serious disadvantage against the player who is sitting at only one. If anyone here has ever tried to multitable without a HuD, you know what I'm talking about, it's close to impossible to do it and stay as a winning player (some people I know can do it with 4 tables, but they are freaks).
People have been talking about sample sizes, and they are right to do so. For the length of most recreational players sessions, they are going to play maybe 1-200 hands at a single table tops. From that, you can only really take into consideration PFR (Pre Flop Raise) VPiP (Voluntary Put in Pot) and maybe 3 bet %. Any half decent player is going to have that information for a table playing the same amount of hands live. Given the size of most online player pools, you may never see most of these players again at your table, especially if you are only playing 1 at a time. HuDs have a very limited impact on any single hand.
Where a HuD really comes into it's own is away from the table. When you review your game (and any good grinder is going to spend a lot of time analysing their game) the statistics from a HuD can show you where you are losing money. Do you 3 bet light too often? Do you call out of position in three bet pots too often? Are you folding too often to aggressive players? This tool can really help analyse a players game, and the only information it uses is freely available Hand Histories.

The only thing a banning of HuDs would really cause is a drop in volume for players, and grinders having to play at a higher level to make rent. Volume is where the money is in this game, for both the player, and the operator. This actually hurts recreational players. It's going to be really hard to find a $0.01/$0.02 game on some sites, because all of the Russian multi table grinders are gone. The backbone of the online market is still the grinder, they hold open the games. the flesh however is the recreational players, who attach to that backbone.

Players who don't understand HuDs are understandably scared of them, but they really aren't the bad part of online poker. Collusion, poor operators, and unsustainable rake are all much more important, but because they aren't discusser out in the open, they get a lot less press.

There are issues with the market, but HuDs are not part of the problem.

This is an excellent post.

Just saw how many typos are in that... *Hangs head in shame*

And Pleno, it's not Matt. Some people may recognise my username, but I'm trying to fly under the radar if I can...

[Gazza]

3. Most of the information would be readily obvious playing 1 table and REALLY concentrating[/b]

I've heard this argument a lot. It makes a MASSIVE assumption that people are willing or even capable of doing this. It's bollocks really. How can something that collects information perfectly not be an advantage?

It collects information PERFECTLY yes, but it doesn't collect PERFECT information. As proved in the example I gave of myself and my friend both with 12-15,000 hand samples on the same player and DRASTICALLY different information, obviously a very extreme case, but the point stands. PERFECT information is gethered by you sat there, watching you man play, and is really only available (or close to) in live poker.

This is all a lot of arguing over degrees of advantage.

You have an advantage from having a HUD, everyone has accepted that, people are wasting a lot of time arguing about how much.
Pros make more money overall 12 tabling with a HUD than they would 2 tabling without one.
If pros make less money, recs lose less money.  
Recs losing less money, or losing it more slowly, is what Rob is trying to achieve.

This is the absolute crux of it, If there is a flaw in this argument then nobody has pointed it out yet.

Finally. Very succinct.

[cambridgealex]

A great example of some of the points illustrated by Dave and others is in my video I made the other night.

I recorded myself playing one table of a tournament and gained a huge advantage NOT from my HUD, but from just playing one tabling and really watching everything that was happening, seeing every showdown, and being really aware of how everyone was playing.

It enabled me to take notes and make adjustments that I never would have been able to do whilst multitabling with a HUD.

A great example is a hand where a player made a small raise out of a 13bb stack in middle position. I had ATo in the big blind. According to my hud, he was playing 10/8 or something very tight (meaning he only raises preflop 8% of the time). And based on that, and the fact that generally people don't raise/fold out of this stack, and that when they make a small raise instead of jamming, they often have a VERY strong hand - I would definitely just fold.

But since I'd been watching the table and seen him raise/fold from this stack before in the same spot, I decided to shove instead of folding and he folded and I picked up a pot that I never would have been able to do if multitabling and just relying on my HUD.

This is a perfect example of where a "rec" playing one table and concentrating actually has an advantage over a reg multitabling with a HUD.

Watching and focussing on one table will provide you with all the information a HUD can, and heaps more.

Before anyone retorts with the "well if you don't make money from it why do you use it?", I'll repeat what others have said - it enables me to play more tables and recognise player types instantly without having to focus on just one table. I can be in a close spot with AJ and have half a second to make a decision, I can't remember everyones names, I have a quick look at his HUD, see he's playing 60/45 (mental!) and make my decision to go with my AJ.

They are mainly useful for picking up on other regs tendencies. You don't pick up enough hands on recs to be able to pick apart their game like people have alluded to. You simply can see how tight/loose they are, or how often they raise preflop as opposed to calling - again, nothing you couldn't pick up from playing 2 tables without a HUD.  

[cambridgealex]

Doobs is right though with his summary, and banning HUDs is definitely going to be good for the recreational player, pros will win less, recs will lose less.

Myself, Dave and others are not arguing with that, we are trying to change people's perception about what sort of advantages are actually gained from the HUD, and why we use it.