Another Ahead of the Curve: HUD

[OrianasDaad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Observed hand histories aren't going anywhere. They implemented it due to the load on their servers from the multitude of players requesting hand histories.


[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't matter. There was little to no demand for observed HH.

[/ QUOTE ]

The demand is there now, and it's something that many of the major poker rooms implement.

[ QUOTE ]
That money that we pay in rake, however, came from the accounts of other players.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great point. [censored] who claim Party needs multitabling pros can't wrap their head around this one. Pros contribute absolutely zero money to the rake. This is precisely why pros are suboptimal customers once you reach a certain player base (where any person can easily find several games going).

As for HUDs, I hope you're right. And I hope they do it soon. Then all the unskilled players who live on rakeback and datamining will be on a level playing field with everyone else.

[ QUOTE ]
Observed hand histories aren't going anywhere. They implemented it due to the load on their servers from the multitude of players requesting hand histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

usually tighter multi-tablers request thousands of hand histories using auto-import. party could easily decide to restrict requests to a few hands per hour and rarely alienate a fish. it could easily happen given party has critical mass without mutli-tabling sharks.


[ QUOTE ]
but this wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

me too. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

- weatherly

[ QUOTE ]
To keep the fish happy I could see Party banning huds, but fish are fish partly because they dont know about things like Huds or PT.

[/ QUOTE ]

even oblivious fish are happier playing at a table with a vp$ip of 40 versus one with a vp$ip of 30. get rid of the tools that make multi-tabling easy and you get a lot more of the former (tables with high vp$ip) and eventually more fish.

- weatherly

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To keep the fish happy I could see Party banning huds, but fish are fish partly because they dont know about things like Huds or PT.

[/ QUOTE ]

even oblivious fish are happier playing at a table with a vp$ip of 40 versus one with a vp$ip of 30. get rid of the tools that make multi-tabling easy and you get a lot more of the former (tables with high vp$ip) and eventually more fish.

- weatherly

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would Party ban HUDs? Party gets more money when money circulates faster.

If most multi-tablers went only 2-tabling it would seriously hurt Partys earnings at least short term.

Very high number of multi-tablers use HUDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. It would a) increase the time that it takes the fish to go broke and, therefore b) increase the number of players per evening which would at least partially mitigate the decrease in TAG MT rake. Also, these fish would have more time to find the blackjack tables.

I would be curious to know if anyone has done the math to figure out what the PT/HUD combo is actually worth in BB/table hour (not BB/100 since this does not take into to account the increase in multitabling on Party). In other words, I would be curious to know how much additional money the availibility of the PT/HUD combo takes off the table in terms of big bets per player per hour. Also, how much longer would the average fish last without the availibility of such software?

Right now, I just don't know. It's is similar to the arguement that lower taxes would mean more revenue to the government due to increased economic growth and more monetary turnover and investment. These concepts are really only theories, and, as such, they are difficult to prove.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That money that we pay in rake, however, came from the accounts of other players.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great point. [censored] who claim Party needs multitabling pros can't wrap their head around this one. Pros contribute absolutely zero money to the rake. This is precisely why pros are suboptimal customers once you reach a certain player base (where any person can easily find several games going).

As for HUDs, I hope you're right. And I hope they do it soon. Then all the unskilled players who live on rakeback and datamining will be on a level playing field with everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who realizes this.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Pros contribute absolutely zero money to the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

A perfect example of complete idiots being allowed to post.

>Ploink<

[Terry]

Let’s look at some hypotheticals:

Two good players each with a BR of $100 play heads up. They both quickly realize that neither of them has an advantage over the other that will make up for the rake. The site makes a couple bucks and they quit playing.

Two poor players each with $100 play heads up. Neither thinks very much about the rake. They continue to play for quite a long time, eventually giving up $80 or more in rake before they quit.

One good player and one poor player, same $100 each. The poor player goes bust by the time the site has raked $20. Good player cashes out $80.

The self-centered multi-tabling rake-back bonus whoring player is going to be claiming he paid $10 of that rake and over the course of a month that he pays several thousand dollars in rake in similar situations. I think a clearer, more realistic view is that the poker site has made no money from that player and has, in fact, lost the other $60 of rake that it would have received had the play taken place between two poor, unaware players.

If you cash out $1 at the end of the month the house made ZERO money from you. If it were true that there would have been no game at all unless you played, the argument that the house made money from you might hold some water but I think it is more precise to say that the house makes money “because of” winning players keeping the games going rather than that the house makes money “from” winning players.

Small poker rooms with a small player base may “need” winning players (or props) to keep the games going; online sites with huge player bases probably do not.

I’ve been making my living from poker for 13 years, both live and online. I in no way feel that the poker rooms have made money from me. It seems to me that those who think so are doing some self-centered, twisted emotionalizing rather than clear logical thinking.


PS: I want my HUD. I take no part in any affiliate scheme.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you cash out $1 at the end of the month the house made ZERO money from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

A second example of a clueless idiot who shouldn't be allowed to post.

>Ploink<