Dear Pleno.......Best Regards, Richard

[mondatoo]

I could be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure that before this software was invented it was still very very unlikely for a rec to find himself playing vs another rec, almost certainly so at the higher end of mid-high stakes, but it wass just harder work for the regs in doing so.

[AlunB]

I think if recreational players want to play a game where they "definitely won't win in the long term" then they should realise by now that online poker (at least at any decent stakes) isn't for them. If you want to have a game of online poker for half decent money once a week, then you will almost certainly be a losing player in the game. It's 2014, gone are the days where everyone just plays poker for fun. There are no free lunches anymore. Even live, every game is 10x tougher than it was even 5 years ago. Watch that "Million Dollar Deal" Documentary (thread in the rail) and see the state of the game 20 years ago, it was a joke, nobody had a clue what they were doing or why. You'll find tougher 0.50/1 cash games in gala nottingham than in that WSOP main event.

Now, it's just not a game you can play recreationally and still have a positive expectation. (online poker, half decent stakes, that is). The people that win are the people that work the hardest, put the most hours in and are the best. Why would a recreational player be able to stroll into a game and be a winner?

I couldn't just fire up a few HU sngs and be a winning player. I played thousands of them 5/6 years ago and was a half decent winner. But since haven't played them at all and will have fallen massively behind the curve and would certainly be a loser whether I played the best reg or a weaker reg. I could work hard, put the hours in and maybe become a winner one day, as could a recreational player. But why should I be a winner if I'm not willing to do that?

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

If you want a friendly game of poker where you can still have a positive expectation, go down to your local casino and play the nightly comp there, or play the £0.50/1 cash game. Or fire up some $2 spin n gos. Because in 2014 if there's decent money on the line, then there's hoards of professionals willing to put in the work to trying to earn it.

No no Alex.

Most recreational players KNOW they will lose, & are, up to a point, quite happy to invest £25 or £50 per week to have a little poker fun. They are.

What they do NOT want is to be mugged. Thats a very different thing. If they knew that a bunch of guys were fighting to have the right to play them - & could pick of the best seat too - they'd be less than happy.  

They KNOW they will lose long-term, & don't mind. They just don't want to be mugged.

Nobody is fighting to play the people that want to spend £50 p/w to have a little poker fun ?

And tons and tons of people who aren't winning players win, obv.

Maybe Alex didn't word it perfectly, but you only need to be a winning player to win money if you plan to play a huge amount of poker, otherwise just run good and win then go do something fun will all them $s you just binked, simples.

The only recs that need to care about this are those playing mid-high stakes heads up games, how many of those people are posting itt ?

Threads blown way out of proportion imo.

I think this is a good point, but it's worth bearing in mind that's not really what people are talking about here IMO.

It's more the clinical approach of a certain sub set of pros and the absolutely horrendous and damaging IMAGE that presents to recs.

None of what you said is untrue, but what we are talking about is a situation where you are going to face a pro 100% of the time and 100% of the time are going to lose in the long term (or to be honest short to mid-term). That absolutely SUCKS. Would any losing player willingly enter into that?

Sure it only exists in mid to high stakes HU games for NOW. But it's logical to assume it will become more widespread. I mean how many recs will I find playing $100NL six max these days on stars at an average table? Especially once they've seen my stats

Dan can explain points in regards to that better than me, and I think he maybe already has no ?

No. He hasn't. He made some very good points as to why it exists and will likely continue to. But it sort of sits to the side of what I'm saying. See above from redarmi. That's pretty much exactly my point.

[mondatoo]

I think if recreational players want to play a game where they "definitely won't win in the long term" then they should realise by now that online poker (at least at any decent stakes) isn't for them. If you want to have a game of online poker for half decent money once a week, then you will almost certainly be a losing player in the game. It's 2014, gone are the days where everyone just plays poker for fun. There are no free lunches anymore. Even live, every game is 10x tougher than it was even 5 years ago. Watch that "Million Dollar Deal" Documentary (thread in the rail) and see the state of the game 20 years ago, it was a joke, nobody had a clue what they were doing or why. You'll find tougher 0.50/1 cash games in gala nottingham than in that WSOP main event.

Now, it's just not a game you can play recreationally and still have a positive expectation. (online poker, half decent stakes, that is). The people that win are the people that work the hardest, put the most hours in and are the best. Why would a recreational player be able to stroll into a game and be a winner?

I couldn't just fire up a few HU sngs and be a winning player. I played thousands of them 5/6 years ago and was a half decent winner. But since haven't played them at all and will have fallen massively behind the curve and would certainly be a loser whether I played the best reg or a weaker reg. I could work hard, put the hours in and maybe become a winner one day, as could a recreational player. But why should I be a winner if I'm not willing to do that?

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

If you want a friendly game of poker where you can still have a positive expectation, go down to your local casino and play the nightly comp there, or play the £0.50/1 cash game. Or fire up some $2 spin n gos. Because in 2014 if there's decent money on the line, then there's hoards of professionals willing to put in the work to trying to earn it.

No no Alex.

Most recreational players KNOW they will lose, & are, up to a point, quite happy to invest £25 or £50 per week to have a little poker fun. They are.

What they do NOT want is to be mugged. Thats a very different thing. If they knew that a bunch of guys were fighting to have the right to play them - & could pick of the best seat too - they'd be less than happy.  

They KNOW they will lose long-term, & don't mind. They just don't want to be mugged.

Nobody is fighting to play the people that want to spend £50 p/w to have a little poker fun ?

And tons and tons of people who aren't winning players win, obv.

Maybe Alex didn't word it perfectly, but you only need to be a winning player to win money if you plan to play a huge amount of poker, otherwise just run good and win then go do something fun will all them $s you just binked, simples.

The only recs that need to care about this are those playing mid-high stakes heads up games, how many of those people are posting itt ?

Threads blown way out of proportion imo.

I think this is a good point, but it's worth bearing in mind that's not really what people are talking about here IMO.

It's more the clinical approach of a certain sub set of pros and the absolutely horrendous and damaging IMAGE that presents to recs.

None of what you said is untrue, but what we are talking about is a situation where you are going to face a pro 100% of the time and 100% of the time are going to lose in the long term (or to be honest short to mid-term). That absolutely SUCKS. Would any losing player willingly enter into that?

Sure it only exists in mid to high stakes HU games for NOW. But it's logical to assume it will become more widespread. I mean how many recs will I find playing $100NL six max these days on stars at an average table? Especially once they've seen my stats

Dan can explain points in regards to that better than me, and I think he maybe already has no ?

No. He hasn't. He made some very good points as to why it exists and will likely continue to. But it sort of sits to the side of what I'm saying. See above from redarmi. That's pretty much exactly my point.

Didn't he make a detailed post about how it doesn't really effect the recs much and is much more of an effect on the weaker regs ?

[DMorgan]

Its 100% an image thing and I agree that it does LOOK terrible, possibly it was a mistake for me even talk about it, but people are blowing this way out of proportion in terms of who can or can't win

Under the old system the recs probably got beat 90% of the time by better players but occasionally they might get a weaker player that they get a poorly thought through bluff against or who bluffs too much and they pick up on it etc etc.  Those little moments are what makes poker playable and fun for the recs and it just seems as though this system takes it away from them completely which seems counter productive to me.

I mean come on, we're talking about playing $100 heads up SNG regs here not Phil Ivey. You think I never made a bad bluff or a play that looked silly and had a rec creasing up in chat having a great time telling me all about how terrible I am?

The image of midstakes regs studying every hand and solving for GTO so that a rec can never win a dollar from them is so so far off. I'd wager that most mid stakes regs in any format haven't review hands on a consistent basis for a good while. Thats why they are midstakes regs and not high stakes regs. Joe Bloggs still has a great chance to win sitting down with a glass of wine to play a few heads up sngs and that is an indisputable fact. As I said earlier, its still poker.

The overwhelming majority of people that I speak to if it poker comes up, their reaction isn't 'I'm never playing poker against you!' its 'we should play!'

All this torch and pitchforks against pro players and the bluster about how the games are now IMPOSSIBLE to beat for recreational players is pure scaremongering, and the vast majority of it comes from people who having been around the gambling world for a long time, should know better IMO.

It is pure coincidence that I decided to post about this stuff a couple of months after I quit HUSNGs. A lot of the same questions I answered on my short lived blog at the start of the year on blonde when I was a reg in these games.

Edit:

I could be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure that before this software was invented it was still very very unlikely for a rec to find himself playing vs another rec, almost certainly so at the higher end of mid-high stakes, but it wass just harder work for the regs in doing so.

Yes, to be able to log on to stars and sit the player in a mid stakes heads up SNG lobby and have the other player be a rec you're probably looking at about 2008 maybe 2007.

[AlunB]

I think if recreational players want to play a game where they "definitely won't win in the long term" then they should realise by now that online poker (at least at any decent stakes) isn't for them. If you want to have a game of online poker for half decent money once a week, then you will almost certainly be a losing player in the game. It's 2014, gone are the days where everyone just plays poker for fun. There are no free lunches anymore. Even live, every game is 10x tougher than it was even 5 years ago. Watch that "Million Dollar Deal" Documentary (thread in the rail) and see the state of the game 20 years ago, it was a joke, nobody had a clue what they were doing or why. You'll find tougher 0.50/1 cash games in gala nottingham than in that WSOP main event.

Now, it's just not a game you can play recreationally and still have a positive expectation. (online poker, half decent stakes, that is). The people that win are the people that work the hardest, put the most hours in and are the best. Why would a recreational player be able to stroll into a game and be a winner?

I couldn't just fire up a few HU sngs and be a winning player. I played thousands of them 5/6 years ago and was a half decent winner. But since haven't played them at all and will have fallen massively behind the curve and would certainly be a loser whether I played the best reg or a weaker reg. I could work hard, put the hours in and maybe become a winner one day, as could a recreational player. But why should I be a winner if I'm not willing to do that?

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

If you want a friendly game of poker where you can still have a positive expectation, go down to your local casino and play the nightly comp there, or play the £0.50/1 cash game. Or fire up some $2 spin n gos. Because in 2014 if there's decent money on the line, then there's hoards of professionals willing to put in the work to trying to earn it.

No no Alex.

Most recreational players KNOW they will lose, & are, up to a point, quite happy to invest £25 or £50 per week to have a little poker fun. They are.

What they do NOT want is to be mugged. Thats a very different thing. If they knew that a bunch of guys were fighting to have the right to play them - & could pick of the best seat too - they'd be less than happy.  

They KNOW they will lose long-term, & don't mind. They just don't want to be mugged.

Nobody is fighting to play the people that want to spend £50 p/w to have a little poker fun ?

And tons and tons of people who aren't winning players win, obv.

Maybe Alex didn't word it perfectly, but you only need to be a winning player to win money if you plan to play a huge amount of poker, otherwise just run good and win then go do something fun will all them $s you just binked, simples.

The only recs that need to care about this are those playing mid-high stakes heads up games, how many of those people are posting itt ?

Threads blown way out of proportion imo.

I think this is a good point, but it's worth bearing in mind that's not really what people are talking about here IMO.

It's more the clinical approach of a certain sub set of pros and the absolutely horrendous and damaging IMAGE that presents to recs.

None of what you said is untrue, but what we are talking about is a situation where you are going to face a pro 100% of the time and 100% of the time are going to lose in the long term (or to be honest short to mid-term). That absolutely SUCKS. Would any losing player willingly enter into that?

Sure it only exists in mid to high stakes HU games for NOW. But it's logical to assume it will become more widespread. I mean how many recs will I find playing $100NL six max these days on stars at an average table? Especially once they've seen my stats

Dan can explain points in regards to that better than me, and I think he maybe already has no ?

No. He hasn't. He made some very good points as to why it exists and will likely continue to. But it sort of sits to the side of what I'm saying. See above from redarmi. That's pretty much exactly my point.

Didn't he make a detailed post about how it doesn't really effect the recs much and is much more of an effect on the weaker regs ?

Yes. And it was very well made. It's also true that he and others made a good point that it has long been the case that you were 100% playing against pros in these games.

But that doesn't really change what I am saying. Maybe I'm just not making my point very well, or maybe nobody cares. Probably a bit of both.

[AlunB]

Its 100% an image thing and I agree that it does LOOK terrible, possibly it was a mistake for me even talk about it, but people are blowing this way out of proportion in terms of who can or can't win

Under the old system the recs probably got beat 90% of the time by better players but occasionally they might get a weaker player that they get a poorly thought through bluff against or who bluffs too much and they pick up on it etc etc.  Those little moments are what makes poker playable and fun for the recs and it just seems as though this system takes it away from them completely which seems counter productive to me.

I mean come on, we're talking about playing $100 heads up SNG regs here not Phil Ivey. You think I never made a bad bluff or a play that looked silly and had a rec creasing up in chat having a great time telling me all about how terrible I am?

The image of midstakes regs studying every hand and solving for GTO so that a rec can never win a dollar from them is so so far off. I'd wager that most mid stakes regs in any format haven't review hands on a consistent basis for a good while. Thats why they are midstakes regs and not high stakes regs. Joe Bloggs still has a great chance to win sitting down with a glass of wine to play a few heads up sngs and that is an indisputable fact. As I said earlier, its still poker.

The overwhelming majority of people that I speak to if it poker comes up, their reaction isn't 'I'm never playing poker against you!' its 'we should play!'

All this torch and pitchforks against pro players and the bluster about how the games are now IMPOSSIBLE to beat for recreational players is pure scaremongering, and the vast majority of it comes from people who having been around the gambling world for a long time, should know better IMO.

It is pure coincidence that I decided to post about this stuff a couple of months after I quit HUSNGs. A lot of the same questions I answered on my short lived blog at the start of the year on blonde when I was a reg in these games.

Edit:

I could be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure that before this software was invented it was still very very unlikely for a rec to find himself playing vs another rec, almost certainly so at the higher end of mid-high stakes, but it wass just harder work for the regs in doing so.

Yes, to be able to log on to stars and sit the player in a mid stakes heads up SNG lobby and have the other player be a rec you're probably looking at about 2008 maybe 2007.

Excellent post IMO.

And this particular point almost certainly has been blown out of proportion. But probably only because it represents a very small part of a much wider issue. And it's a really interesting story.

I don't think anyone is saying the games are impossible to beat for a rec. I'm certainly not. That's not really the point.

[SuuPRlim]

2) It's hard enough persuading most people the RNG isn't rigged so good luck telling them about the subtleties of tracking software. And even if it's just a tiny non-meaningful advantage you gain by using it against a rec it's still a small advantage. It's not a level playing field. It's not a huge advantage, but it can't be a hindrance. Whatever, either way they aren't good for the image of the game. But they won't get banned because volume would drop off a cliff.

I think your earlier point was very well made though. Some of the anti pro sentiment stems from jealousy without doubt.

yeh, very good point. and here lies another problem, stuff that would look shady to the recreational player, but that really isn't - or at least it's really not shady, it's pro's conspiring to out-do/think other pro's not to cheat the recreational player, the best way to handle this would be to keep it very quiet, but then when you attempt to hide something then that, ofc is going to look very shady...

When people say "a level playing field" they dont mean they're not playing against players who are better than them, they mean they are playing on a level set of resrouces, like a live poker game, 8 guys sit round a table, everyone has chips, every hand they get dealt cards and off we go, if John happens to be much better at poker than Chris, will hopefully for Chris he catches some cards, no reason why he can't.

would certainly be a slight on there intelligence to think they only wanna play vs people weaker than them.

In line with my earlier point, I think, understandably as well imo, due to the attitudes of a minority of pro players a lot of recreational players are a little overly sensitive about how pro's view them. Like i say I've lost a lot of money in high variance spots vs weaker players, and when that has happened I've tapped the table, said Nice hand, Well Done and go along with my life, and the vast majority of pro's are the same - and that's what we all want right? At the end of the day I'm gambling my money too and yeh I might have the best of it but I'm still playing the game.

[arbboy]

I think if recreational players want to play a game where they "definitely won't win in the long term" then they should realise by now that online poker (at least at any decent stakes) isn't for them. If you want to have a game of online poker for half decent money once a week, then you will almost certainly be a losing player in the game. It's 2014, gone are the days where everyone just plays poker for fun. There are no free lunches anymore. Even live, every game is 10x tougher than it was even 5 years ago. Watch that "Million Dollar Deal" Documentary (thread in the rail) and see the state of the game 20 years ago, it was a joke, nobody had a clue what they were doing or why. You'll find tougher 0.50/1 cash games in gala nottingham than in that WSOP main event.

Now, it's just not a game you can play recreationally and still have a positive expectation. (online poker, half decent stakes, that is). The people that win are the people that work the hardest, put the most hours in and are the best. Why would a recreational player be able to stroll into a game and be a winner?

I couldn't just fire up a few HU sngs and be a winning player. I played thousands of them 5/6 years ago and was a half decent winner. But since haven't played them at all and will have fallen massively behind the curve and would certainly be a loser whether I played the best reg or a weaker reg. I could work hard, put the hours in and maybe become a winner one day, as could a recreational player. But why should I be a winner if I'm not willing to do that?

I don't see why recreational players think that they deserve (for want of a better word, not trying to be nasty) to be able to have this magical situation where they can not think about poker all week, get on with their jobs, spend time with their families and then play a couple of $100 sngs and be +EV. It just doesn't happen anymore.

People keep going on about level playing fields. You're right, it's not a level playing field. You're playing with people that put the hours in, work at their game, put in huge volume, spend money on tracking software, time learning how to use it etc and all of that makes them a better player than someone who doesn't. So what?

If you want a friendly game of poker where you can still have a positive expectation, go down to your local casino and play the nightly comp there, or play the £0.50/1 cash game. Or fire up some $2 spin n gos. Because in 2014 if there's decent money on the line, then there's hoards of professionals willing to put in the work to trying to earn it.

If recs want to play a game where they definitely can't win long term then i would suggest online poker is the perfect game for them to ensure they always lose.  Online poker seems exactly the game they are looking for.  I assume you haven't worded your opening statement correctly.

ps i agree with everything else you say which is why i don't play poker anymore online.

[AlunB]

2) It's hard enough persuading most people the RNG isn't rigged so good luck telling them about the subtleties of tracking software. And even if it's just a tiny non-meaningful advantage you gain by using it against a rec it's still a small advantage. It's not a level playing field. It's not a huge advantage, but it can't be a hindrance. Whatever, either way they aren't good for the image of the game. But they won't get banned because volume would drop off a cliff.

I think your earlier point was very well made though. Some of the anti pro sentiment stems from jealousy without doubt.

yeh, very good point. and here lies another problem, stuff that would look shady to the recreational player, but that really isn't - or at least it's really not shady, it's pro's conspiring to out-do/think other pro's not to cheat the recreational player, the best way to handle this would be to keep it very quiet, but then when you attempt to hide something then that, ofc is going to look very shady...

When people say "a level playing field" they dont mean they're not playing against players who are better than them, they mean they are playing on a level set of resrouces, like a live poker game, 8 guys sit round a table, everyone has chips, every hand they get dealt cards and off we go, if John happens to be much better at poker than Chris, will hopefully for Chris he catches some cards, no reason why he can't.

would certainly be a slight on there intelligence to think they only wanna play vs people weaker than them.

In line with my earlier point, I think, understandably as well imo, due to the attitudes of a minority of pro players a lot of recreational players are a little overly sensitive about how pro's view them. Like i say I've lost a lot of money in high variance spots vs weaker players, and when that has happened I've tapped the table, said Nice hand, Well Done and go along with my life, and the vast majority of pro's are the same - and that's what we all want right? At the end of the day I'm gambling my money too and yeh I might have the best of it but I'm still playing the game.

Without blowing smoke up your arse Dave, as you know I'm a fan, if everyone in poker thought like you and approached the game in the manner you do then we would be a much better place. Sadly they don't so we're in a place that kinda sucks.

[cambridgealex]

@arrboy, yes wrong way round obv

[Rexas]

2) It's hard enough persuading most people the RNG isn't rigged so good luck telling them about the subtleties of tracking software. And even if it's just a tiny non-meaningful advantage you gain by using it against a rec it's still a small advantage. It's not a level playing field. It's not a huge advantage, but it can't be a hindrance. Whatever, either way they aren't good for the image of the game. But they won't get banned because volume would drop off a cliff.

I think your earlier point was very well made though. Some of the anti pro sentiment stems from jealousy without doubt.

When people say "a level playing field" they dont mean they're not playing against players who are better than them, they mean they are playing on a level set of resrouces, like a live poker game, 8 guys sit round a table, everyone has chips, every hand they get dealt cards and off we go, if John happens to be much better at poker than Chris, will hopefully for Chris he catches some cards, no reason why he can't.

Frankly, it's hard to be a worse player than Chris, but he is living proof that catching cards is more important.

W
A
L
.

[AlunB]

Worth a read http://www.thempn.eu/blog/scripts/

[DaveShoelace]

Worth a read http://www.thempn.eu/blog/scripts/

Good read, always enjoy Alex's stuff.

I get his point about anonymous tables, but my fear with them is that they actually open pandoras box or recreational players. They see a table is anonymous, so they ask why, and they discover that online pros have sophisticated methods for finding weaker players as soon as they sit down. Sure they will realise they are safe at the anonymous table, but it overall paints poker in a bad way.

[DaveShoelace]

Thought about one good thing about this cartel lark. If you are a rec and ever fancy a punt on a $100 HUSNG, you can play it and if you win it, you can type your favourite movie quote in the chatbox, stuff like:

"Tell your crew there is a new sheriff in town"

"This is my yard now"

"Take me to your leader"

"yeah bitch, go run to your boss and tell him I'm waiting for him"

And so forth.

[Tal]

Thought about one good thing about this cartel lark. If you are a rec and ever fancy a punt on a $100 HUSNG, you can play it and if you win it, you can type your favourite movie quote in the chatbox, stuff like:

"Tell your crew there is a new sheriff in town"

"This is my yard now"

"Take me to your leader"

"yeah bitch, go run to your boss and tell him I'm waiting for him"

And so forth.

Die, bad robots! Die!