Rob Yong and DTD..Your views

[DaveShoelace]

I have a question.

What's the under/over on Pleno mentioning or posting a link to pokerstrategy again within the next 10 posts?

Pleno1 is actually a gimmick account I created so I could spam PokerStrategy stuff. He isn't a real person, I got the pictures of him from a One Direction tribute act.

[Pinchop73]

Anything that gets more people logged in and depositing is absolutely marvellous news for the poker pros economy.

[aaron1867]

Pleno never looks in the rail

[pleno1]

what about reddog ever making a meaninful post in a serious thread? 100-1
what about reddog ever making a non meaninful post as a moderator on a serious thread? 1-100

Pleno actually taking time to discuss and providing links and discussion for a forum to help a debate? 1-100

The majority of my posts in this thread have been regarding HUDs and not about pokerstrsategy, the pokerstrategy posts were super relevant at the time.

[theprawnidentity]

At the minute it seems like a HUD's are been made into a scapegoat for everything that is wrong with online poker.  As someone who doesn't really play cash games (and don't really know to what extent cash game regs are using HUD's), can somebody explain why if HUD's are such a big offender in terms of reg's winrates etc, then why do live cash regs report much larger returns (bb/100) than online regs?

[mfcrocker]

As I've said in a couple of places discussing this article it feels like what Rob is actually missing is the poker economy from 10 years ago. I agree with tomsom87 - I don't think it's HUDs that are primarily to blame for the way things have changed.

[RED-DOG]

Then they glued me to a yak.

[mumblesrock]

I have never played online cash games for all the reasons Rob and Trumper have said, the thought of HUDs, tracking software etc makes me feel a bit sick as its just a form of 'cheating', ive been playing poker for the last 5 years and have known about these devices for many years and chose not to play, im sure that many new players in this industry who feel the same and therefore chose not to play - hence contributing to the decline in this industry!!!!

I love the idea of the DTD club cash games online with people who aren't anonymous playing against you and the ban of all types of 'cheating' software can only be a good thing!!  I have signed up to this and have played cash games for the past two days and thoroughly enjoyed it!!  Isnt that what this business should be about!!!

I fear this will never catch on with the big operators though because they have a lot of pro's and grinders who clearly make a lot of money from their activities.  I would suggest that these types of players are actually bad for the long term survival of the industry - like leaches they will suck the industry dry eventually!!!

[DTD-ACES]

having reread this thread, I think what everyone agrees on is that;

a. some people believe that HUD's are an advantage and dont want to play against players who use them

2. some people believe they are not an advantage, in fact, playing more tables with tracking software could actually be less profitable in some players cases

Therefore, logic dictates that the case for banning tracking software is overwhelming as there is no upside for any parties in allowing racking software or HUD's - as far as I can see, no one actually benefits from tracking software, whether that be the  site, recreational or new players and even professional players.

Everyone wins by banning tracking software/HUD's it looks like to me.

Cheers Simon

[pleno1]

I have never played online cash games for all the reasons Rob and Trumper have said, the thought of HUDs, tracking software etc makes me feel a bit sick as its just a form of 'cheating', ive been playing poker for the last 5 years and have known about these devices for many years and chose not to play, im sure that many new players in this industry who feel the same and therefore chose not to play - hence contributing to the decline in this industry!!!!

For this I thank Rob and Simon so so so so much.

If I were you I would feel very very similar about the issues Im sure, but without knowing how they actually work and how the guys are actually using them and the actual advantage that they have over you by using a HUD you are of course going to think like this.

This thread really calls for Steve Mcloughlin. Let me organise something with Steve and Rob where they can discuss backwards and forwards about pros and cons regarding HUDs and let the experts educate you regarding it.

Its so sad to see so many people being put off online poker without known the real reasons how the things are working. That to me is extremely scary.

[skolsuper]

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.

[Doobs]

In basic $$ terms so you can understand in that sense

Without a hud Player might win $20 per hour per table when 4 tabling, if he increases to 8 tables he might win $12 per hour per table, when he increases to 12 tables he might only win $6 per hour per table.

In this example. 4tabling he makes $80 per hour, 8 tabling $96 per hour, 12 tabling $72 per hour. Player should 8 table

Now with a hud he might make $20 still per hour per table when 4 tabling but $13 per table per hour when 8 tabling and $10 per table per hour when 12 tabling.

so 4tabling he makes $80 per hour still, now he makes $104 8 tabling and $120 12 tabling. So he should 12 table


Now as a "rec/fish" 1tabling v the player above. You obviously will lose less to the player when he is 12 tabling than when he is 4 tabling


Obviously the "good" player above isn't the type you are trying to attract with this venture anyway so that works in the "recs" favour, just theoretically they will lose their money quicker in the above scenario.

That doesn't really follow.

If the pro is forced to play less tables then the ratio of recs to pros improve.

By your own maths a pro playing less tables without a HUD makes less cash than one playing more tables with a HUD.  So overall each pro makes less money, so if each pro is making less money then it can't be the case that recs are losing money more quickly.  The recs must lose less money in those circumstances and that will be down to a healthier rec/pro ratio.

I think the reality will be that the pros will still have tables on the side other than the DTD cash tables, so he isn't going to be producing much better win rates than he does with a HUD anyway.  And I think some of the newer players who have done most of their improving with a HUD in place are going to find it harder to adapt than someone like you who doesn't use one, or someone like me who has done a lot of playing without one.

I don't think it is entirely clear whose argument will win, but I don't think anybody can be clearcut on this, and I really hope it succeeds.  Don't know what you can do about the multiaccounters and data miners though.  I mean just because you have a picture of somebody up on your screen it doesn't mean you are playing him.

FWIW My PC broke a couple of months ago, and I haven't reinstalled the HUD yet.  A bit lol sample size, but profits fell [ ]

[pleno1]

having reread this thread, I think what everyone agrees on is that;

a. some people believe that HUD's are advantage and dont want to play against players who use them

2. some people beleive they are not an advantage, in fact, playing more tables with tracking software could actually be less profitable in some players cases

Therefore, logic dictates that the case for banning tracking software is overwhelming as there is no upside to allowing HUD's for the site, or the professional, recreational or new players.

Cheers Simon

One of the main reasons people use HUDs is to just track their results. Its hard to know how much you have exactly won or lost or to prove this to somebody.

Lets say somebody in America wants to pay tax on their winnings. What they do is show screenshots of holdem manager and show how much they have won and then declare tax. Without holdem manager this wouldnt be possible.

When people want staked they have to show a sample of hands to somebody, this would be impossible without holdem manager.

When people have lost 1000 dollars at nl50 and they dont know why they can check if they are running bad or playing bad. This wouldnt be possible without holdem manager.

[skolsuper]

In basic $$ terms so you can understand in that sense

Without a hud Player might win $20 per hour per table when 4 tabling, if he increases to 8 tables he might win $12 per hour per table, when he increases to 12 tables he might only win $6 per hour per table.

In this example. 4tabling he makes $80 per hour, 8 tabling $96 per hour, 12 tabling $72 per hour. Player should 8 table

Now with a hud he might make $20 still per hour per table when 4 tabling but $13 per table per hour when 8 tabling and $10 per table per hour when 12 tabling.

so 4tabling he makes $80 per hour still, now he makes $104 8 tabling and $120 12 tabling. So he should 12 table


Now as a "rec/fish" 1tabling v the player above. You obviously will lose less to the player when he is 12 tabling than when he is 4 tabling


Obviously the "good" player above isn't the type you are trying to attract with this venture anyway so that works in the "recs" favour, just theoretically they will lose their money quicker in the above scenario.

That doesn't really follow.

If the pro is forced to play less tables then the ratio of recs to pros improve.

By your own maths a pro playing less tables without a HUD makes less cash than one playing more tables with a HUD.  So overall each pro makes less money, so if each pro is making less money then it can't be the case that recs are losing money more quickly.  The recs must lose more money in those circumstances and that will be down to a healthier rec/pro ratio.

I think the reality will be that the pros will still have tables on the side other than the DTD cash tables, so he isn't going to be producing much better win rates than he does with a HUD anyway.  And I think some of the newer players who have done most of their improving with a HUD in place are going to find it harder to adapt than someone like you who doesn't use one, or someone like me who has done a lot of playing without one.

I don't think it is entirely clear whose argument will win, but I don't think anybody can be clearcut on this, and I really hope it succeeds.  Don't know what you can do about the multiaccounters and data miners though.  I mean just because you have a picture of somebody up on your screen it doesn't mean you are playing him.

FWIW My PC broke a couple of months ago, and I haven't reinstalled the HUD yet.  A bit lol sample size, but profits fell [ ]

snap

[skolsuper]

having reread this thread, I think what everyone agrees on is that;

a. some people believe that HUD's are advantage and dont want to play against players who use them

2. some people beleive they are not an advantage, in fact, playing more tables with tracking software could actually be less profitable in some players cases

Therefore, logic dictates that the case for banning tracking software is overwhelming as there is no upside to allowing HUD's for the site, or the professional, recreational or new players.

Cheers Simon

One of the main reasons people use HUDs is to just track their results. Its hard to know how much you have exactly won or lost or to prove this to somebody.

Lets say somebody in America wants to pay tax on their winnings. What they do is show screenshots of holdem manager and show how much they have won and then declare tax. Without holdem manager this wouldnt be possible.

When people want staked they have to show a sample of hands to somebody, this would be impossible without holdem manager.

When people have lost 1000 dollars at nl50 and they dont know why they can check if they are running bad or playing bad. This wouldnt be possible without holdem manager.

Pretty sure the IRS isn't going to accept screenshots from holdemmanager, they look at the ins and outs from your bank account and nothing else. It's a major reason why so many Americans had so much money online on black Friday.