New PokerStars Data Policy

[BadgerPro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) berating fish will still happen in some form

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but it will be reduced which is a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
2) stats will still be available somewhere

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps, but less widespread.



[ QUOTE ]
3) losing players aren't gonna stop because of it and it's actually better for people to know how much they are losing
- it would be pretty low to do this just to try and get losing players to keep playing. It's better off for both the gamblers and the gaming sites if players practice responsible gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

anybody can still opt-in

[/ QUOTE ]

1) not that much, people who use DBs to berate fish will still berate fish. People who don't berate fish still won't.

2) Yes, but why is that a good thing.

3) I realize anyone can still opt in. What I'm saying is that if Stars is really doing this to prevent losing players from seeing how much they are losing not only is that a low move on their part it's also a bad move.

[KneeCo]

Meh, Stars has been talking about this for awhile (when the debate first started Lee Jones made a thread that got pretty huge with a poll and then a link on the pdb) so this obv wasn't some immediate reaction to one or two recent complaints, it sounds like they just considered the issue from all sides, got feedback and decided what was best for their business.

I like the sites, the db especially, and there are good reasons to keep the status quo(although as stated in that original Lee thread, the 'public information' angle is total BS). Still, I see no reason to be really mad at Stars.

Also N82, I think depending on how things play out in the next little while, the right thing to do may be to offer (partial?) refunds.

[mbpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
3) I realize anyone can still opt in. What I'm saying is that if Stars is really doing this to prevent losing players from seeing how much they are losing not only is that a low move on their part it's also a bad move.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right and the opt-in option means Stars is not doing it to prevent bad players from seeing how much they lose. They do it to prevent other people to see how much a bad player loses if he or she doesn't want this to be public. Even some good players don't want other people to see how much they win.

[mbpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
1) not that much, people who use DBs to berate fish will still berate fish. People who don't berate fish still won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a big difference when somebody berates the fish by "you suck" and when he berates "you suck, and you lost $3,600 last month in $10/$20".

[BadgerPro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) not that much, people who use DBs to berate fish will still berate fish. People who don't berate fish still won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a big difference when somebody berates the fish by "you suck" and when he berates "you suck, and you lost $3,600 last month in $10/$20".

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars already has a policy against datamining cash games. So if you have seen somebody berating the fish for their cash game losses they are using a site that stars doesn't allow... even though it is out there.

[KneeCo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) not that much, people who use DBs to berate fish will still berate fish. People who don't berate fish still won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a big difference when somebody berates the fish by "you suck" and when he berates "you suck, and you lost $3,600 last month in $10/$20".

[/ QUOTE ]

Stars already has a policy against datamining cash games. So if you have seen somebody berating the fish for their cash game losses they are using a site that stars doesn't allow... even though it is out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow BP, you totally missed the point of that example and I would like to think you are not so dumb that you don't know it.

[SharkScope]

at SharkScope we are currently evaluating Pokerstars' proposed policy and considering its impact. We will make another statement in due course.

At the present time we have no plans to degrade our functionality with respect to searching data on PokerStars players as on initial reading we consider the policy unfeasible to adhere to.

In the past we have been the only site to offer any kind of user self blocking and this has been entirely voluntary on our part. We consider this system to be the perfect balance between those who want as much data as possible to increase their profitability and those that wish to have privacy.

Steve
SharkScope

[romualdo]

While I think that the big ones like db, sharkscope etc are good and honest in what they are doing, I love Stars for the new policy.
- I dont want to play against robots who have additional information about me.
- Fish are definitively less likely to quit.
- The better players will certainly benefit - more skill is needed as there is less information.

Stars is doing it right,trying to do the best for the players, CONGRATS!

[Bruut99]

This will certainly make me doubt playing at stars anymore. I rely on the extra statistics about players a lot. I sharkscope every table i play and it helps me a lot. I'm very interested in what will really happen without speculations.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
This will certainly make me doubt playing at stars anymore. I rely on the extra statistics about players a lot. I sharkscope every table i play and it helps me a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a personal standpoint, I won't be too upset if players like you leave my games; I use Sharkscope as a sort of curiosity tool but I don't use it while I'm playing, and most of the time I just look up myself (which is pretty ego-maniacal, considering I track my own play anyway) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So while this move doesn't really upset me -- even if it did, the policy will probably make the games more profitable for anyone who doesn't rely heavily on sites like Sharkscope.