Challenge to those who don't like HUDs.

[randomstumbl]

[ QUOTE ]
what's an HUD?

[/ QUOTE ]

heads up display (e.g. GT+, Poker Edge)

[Sintax]

[ QUOTE ]
Go through your PT databases. Pick out people that use these tools. Please describe the process you use to determine which players use a HUD and those who don't.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is such an awesome challenge. If anyone is able to complete, I double challenge you to go back through your database and pick out all the hot chicks. Please describe the process you use and send me a list of their screenames.

[timprov]

I probably could do this, but I don't really care to. I'm not one of the ones arguing it provides a significant advantange, anyway. People seeing stats do play somewhat differently (at least against me) than those who don't. Still substantially worse than someone paying attention, however.

[ckessel]

[ QUOTE ]
I love HUDs, however, I think they are most useful in table selection. I can honestly say that without a HUD I would probably spend more orbits on bad tables then I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, absolutely. The paranoia about knowing someone's stats is crazy. It's the improved table selection that's really valuable. If all PE gave me was the table stats, I'd probably still subscribe. It's that useful.

Now, better table selection makes me more money, but I'm really not convinced it damages the fish. There are X sharks on the site. Whether they're dispersed through all tables or not really doesn't matter. Fish at tables with few sharks lose slowly to them. Fish at tables with lots of sharks are going to die in a hurry. The net loss by school of fish is the same, but it'll be hit and miss if a fish is on a good table (good for him, meaning few sharks).

Now, put in HUDs, sharks are going to disperse fairly evenly among the tables, meaning fish won't ever be at a shark filled table, which means their money is going to last longer.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I love HUDs, however, I think they are most useful in table selection. I can honestly say that without a HUD I would probably spend more orbits on bad tables then I do.

[/ QUOTE ]
This pretty much sums up in a nutshell why I don't think these programs are fair. You're using information that is only available to a small minority, to avoid the tougher players and prey on the weak ones. While this might be good for your bottom line, I don't see how it is good for the game as a whole.

As for the OP's challenge, I don't get it.

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's my challenge to you. Explain why people don't want to stop using HUDs.

If you didn't think it helped your play, why would you be using it? Why would you even bother to make this post? If HUDs don't help you play better, why bother with them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing about any kind of pro-X vs. pro-Y -- player X is using the SAME information provided by poker sites that is provided to player Y. Player X has a program that compiles such information for easier access. The reason HUDS will never go away is because poker sites will never (unless they do.. har har har) stop providing hand histories to it's players. If there aren't HUDS, people can still sit at their comps for a few hours and gather the same stats that are calculated by HUDS. Thus, this issue is neutralized to the Nth degree. Z's win!

[ckessel]

[ QUOTE ]
You're using information that is only available to a small minority, to avoid the tougher players and prey on the weak ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, I'm not sure that's true. Let's say there's 2 tables online and 20 players. 2 of the 20 are sharks.

No HUD, both sharks are at table 1. The sharks won't tend to bump against each other much because they play few hands. The fish are hurting though because they have 2 players than know how to play and are going to punish the fish for mistakes. Fish at table 1 are clearly worse off.

At table 2, fish are just shoving money back and forth and the rake is bleeding them very very slowly.

Now, bring in HUDs and the 2 sharks see each other and end up on separate tables (better table selection). Now, the fish and table 1 are better off because there's only 1 shark instead of 2. The fish at table 2 are slightly worse as now they have a shark. But the two are offsetting as far as the net effect on the fish. 1 table gains a shark, the other loses one.

Sharks lose out when they end up at the same table as once in a while they'll be against each other, but I'm really not sure fish lose out in any meaningful way.

[LowDown22]

I don't think that many people are against HUDs in general. The root of the problem is the data mining of observed HHs and the shared network DB of these HHs that crosses the line for many.

[OrianasDaad]

I guess nobody really gets it. I'll try to progress logically.

HUDs don't make people into better players. A TAG who uses a HUD won't play differently enough for anyone to know if they are.

My main problem has been that people don't like the tools that facilitate usage of a system that virtually every online poker room supports: multi-tabling.

If multi-tabling were not profitable for the poker rooms, then they would not encourage it by making multiple tables playable. It would be restricted to one table.

What type of player is most likely to multi-table? Tight and aggressive players. There are relatively few calling stations who multi-table.

That leads me to question what type of players the poker rooms expect to play multiple tables. They already know, and I'll venture a guess that allowing TAG players to multi-table is more profitable for them than not. If they disallowed it, then they'd have players with one table open at four or five different sites, and rake is rake after all. They would prefer that they play at thier room versus a different one.

The poker rooms have their bottom lines, and they are (theoretically) going to do what is most profitable for them.

PokerEdge does offer an unfair advantage. Despite datamining and careful note-taking I have been exposed to a small percentage of the fish at Party. With the shared databases of PE, a much larger percentage of the fish are all exposed to every suscriber of the service. Individuals using PV don't have this advantage. They still have to play/datamine to get the information on players, most of whom they will never see again.

The amount of useful information gained from PV is relatively small, over the long term. The most relavent statistical information that you gain are against other tight, aggressive players, which you will avoid mostly anyway.

I've got 20,787 players in my Party .50/1 database.

2725 players I've seen in two sessions. 13.1%
761 players I've seen in three sessions. 3.7%
278 players I've seen in four sessions. 1.3%
456 players in five or more sessions. 2.2%

For me, that's stats for two or more sessions for a whopping 20.3% of the players that I've seen. Notice that meaningful stats are accrued for a very small percentage of these players.

Filtering for players with the LP-P (fish) icon in PT, I have 986 players, rated at 50+ hands. Average # of sessions: 1.9. I will never see about 75% of these players again (a guess).

-------------------------

My point?

PV allows players to multi-table, and the poker rooms like multi-tablers. An individual using PV does not have a signifigant edge at any single table than a player who doesn't have PV (solely from the use of the software). While more money is, in fact, taken out of the games by multi-tabling winning players, it doesn't appear to do so at a signifigantly high enough rate to threaten the long-term profitability of the games. Also, the amount of data presented to a player, by and large, is for other tough, aggressive opponents.

PokerEdge threatened the current system by offering their base of suscribers immediate access to all the fish at once. This represents a real threat, and Party has taken reasonably quick action against it.

Party might or might not decide to ban other HUD software programs. The bottom line is that the HUD isn't causing the problems that complainers perceive, but multi-tabling does. I further contend that the problems that these players have with multi-tablers that use HUDs are wholly illusory, and not based on any objective truth.

--------------------------

My original post? I though it was pretty clear. Since some people are in an uproar about HUDs, I challenged people to provide data to back up their claims. I didn't expect anyone to answer the original post with real data. Finding likely HUD users using PT data isn't too hard, but first you have to think about the problem in the correct way.

Finally, I could be totally wrong. Perhaps HUD use is detrimental to the game. As a realist and objectivist, I haven't seen proof that this is the case, and have evidence that it isn't. I'm more than willing to change my point of view, given a well thought out and consise argument against them.

[12AX7]

Hi OrianasDaad,
My basic position is this.

1) I like the idea of HUD's, heck I could probably specify the characteristics of an ideal one if I had programmers to code it.

2) But... I all the software add ons leads to a software arms race wherein I have to keep up with all the new software and continue to buy it and learn each new one again and again... rather than simply focusing on good poker.

So it adds this extra level of BS I have to contend with to be competitive, on top of what is already a strategy laden game.

And that's why I'm partially against the software extras. What I call the "software arms race".

I just want to get good at poker but not have to go to casinos to play.

If I wanted to master lots of software, well geez, then I'd be a gamer an play "Doom" or whatever, right?

So basically my stance is, "let's keep poker... poker".

But if this trend continues, well, the logical endpoint is simply, "let my bot play your bot". After all, if you program enough logic into the software, but you just push the buttons, well, that's basically a bot anyway.

And since playing poker really is a decision tree, despite what some folks may want to argue, it is a perfect application for computer science types to be interested in.

Say what you want about the human decision making element, but the bottom line is, the expert player makes decisions based on inputs. I contend that with a sufficiently articulate and thoughtful expert player, and sufficienlty dilligent programmer, the expert poker algorithm can be coded up.

Now it may be large, it may have to involved algorithms to weight and balance things, to randomize play etc. But basically it's within reach of current technology.

Someone just needs to have the knowledge base and put the work into coding up the expert decision tree.