CA Online Poker Initiative!!

[kartinken]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuff I have one question for you. Are you going to suggest that the maximum stakes be kept to 10/20 limit holdem and 2/4 no limit to keep the fish from going broke? Because that argument makes the same amount of sense as allowing 1 table at a time. This whole "let's protect the fish from themselves" attitude is ridiculous and is the reason online poker is in trouble right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read the initiative?

And my idea was to protect the fish... from you, not themselves.

..
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if that was your intent, surely the statute should have read "poker pros may not murder casual players."

We don't do anything to the fish. We sit down and play poker. They are choosing to give us their money.

You are protecting them from themselves, your point is insanity.

[Grasshopp3r]

Where there is a vacuum, it will be filled. You are correct in stating that the vacuum can be filled with something that is not optimal from your perspective. So, I would urge you to do something about it. If you get an initiative together and file it for $200, I will applaud your efforts, as well.

Good luck.

[mungpo]

Tuff, you remind a lot of Bill Frist.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tuff,

I don't think you quite understand, these "multitabling hudbots" generate tons of rake, so why exactly would you prohibit the ability to multitable (aside from the fact that it's in your own personal interest to ban multitabling because you're not bright enough to use it to your advantage)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does the rake come from that the HUDbots/grinders generate? Do they take it out of their pockets and donate it to the sites?

It comes from the recreational, casual, and lesser skilled players. This initiative is deliberately written to lessen the impact of the multitabling pro grinders on these players. If the fish find a fishcentric site, they will come back again and again. Good for California retired teachers and California veterans.

Bad for HUDbots. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

And, since I am a retarded player not bright enough to use HUDbotting to my advantage, I guess it helps me too. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Get over it.

Tuff
.

[/ QUOTE ]

My god, are you this dense? Look at FTP/Stars, they're generatng TONS of rake, and from who? A bunch of "tight multitabling hudbots." It doesn't matter if there are fish, people will play. Your reasoning of banning multitabling is beyond stupid, FISH CAN MULTITABLE AND USE PAHUD TOO! How about we fix the deck to let fish flop sets / straights / flushes more often than multitabling tags? Or better yet, why not just direct all the fish to 2+2 after they register their accounts?

Your idea has a 0% chance of working, and you're wasting everybody's time. This is all just what YOU want for yourself, and nothing more. There is nothing good that can come out of this. If people want to play one table with no HUDs or pokertracker, then they can play live, plain and simple.

[Kedu]

Tuff,
Make another video of you losing to HUD bots and getting pissed. Thanks.

[dlk9s]

While I do like some of the things in Tony's proposal, I do have problems with a bunch of the same stuff others do.

What gets me about the arguments from both sides is this:

1) There are lots of multi-tabling, "HUD-bot" pros that play at the big sites.
2) There are lots of multi-tabling, "HUD-bot" casual players at the big sites. They get bored just playing one table, but don't play for a living.
3) There are lots of multi-tabling, decently-skilled, casual players at the big sites (I am one).
4) There are lots of multi-tabling "fish" at the big sites.
5) There are lots of single-table "fish" at the big sites.
6) There are lots of single-table, decently-skilled, casual players at the big sites.

Point is, many different types of players can co-exist at the same online poker rooms. The general "fish" population is not about to all of a sudden go collectively broke at the hands of all the "HUD-bots". These fears, in my opinion, are completely overblown.

[Tuff_Fish]

So tell me this.

If I had written that " programs such as PokerTracker and PAHUD are permissible. No player shall play more than 6 tables at a time", would this then be a good initiative?

BTW

I got this today.


.
Greetings. I wanted to mention that I expect that we may be researching whether the provisions of the proposal are consistent with or not consistent with the State Constitution's gambling section, existing tribal-state gambling compacts' exclusivity provisions, and federal law concerning online gambling activities. If you have anything to submit on these matters, please feel free to do so. Again, this is optional on your part.

Thanks.
---
Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx
Fiscal and Policy Analyst
Legislative Analyst's Office, California Legislature
etc etc
.


Better folks than you will be telling me if my initiative is no good... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Tuff
.

[Grasshopp3r]

Please post your response.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuff_Fish, I frankly can't believe that you wrote your own opinions about multitabling into legislation

and who's opinion should I have listened to? yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody's. Don't over-regulate things. Just register an initiative to make online poker legal. It's very simple.

btw, the lottery is completely different because it's a monopoly controlled by the state. Therefore it is natural that the legislation include lots of detail on how it is to be conducted.

[ QUOTE ]
and now are sitting here calling people morons, because they won't support your excellent vision of what a poker site should be getting hard-coded into the law.

Here's some questions for you, Einstein:

- Slots take your money with quite astonishing speed. How come they are still so popular? Wouldn't people be losing their money too fast?

Slots be bad, should be banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great, a prohibitionist. Just what we need on the online poker bandwagon at this point. But I didn't ask you whether slots are bad or not. I asked you why they're one of the most popular games in casinos when they're one of the lowest paying. Could it be that - gasp - losing players aren't motivated by trying to find the game where they lose their money slowest? Are they motivated by other things, such as fun and the chance of a big payout?

[ QUOTE ]
- Party have been allowing both multitabling (currently 12 tables) and evil 2+2-nit-HUD-multitablobots for years now. Surely they should have gone to the wall by now, supplanted by visionary sites such as Pacific Poker, who only used to allow one table and still make it difficult for you to get at hand histories.

And if Pacific poker had had real good software, great customer service, and clean hand histories, they would have put a hell of a dent in Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speculation. You have zero evidence for this. I disagree. The reason Party became popular in the first place is (1) big multitable tourneys and (2) the PartyPoker Million. Pacific can't compete on those levels.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead Party (the loss of the US market aside) has gone from strength to strength, while actively encouraging big volume players with stuff like the VIP program.

Party, and others, are raking it in as fast as they can with zero regard to the long term. They know full well that time is short and competition will only increase.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Well, when the Great Online Poker Apocalypse comes, you get to say "I told you so" to me, OK? Until then, quit trying to stick these ideas in legislation. Better yet, go try to sell your message of Impending Doom to the casinos in Las Vegas which all have a million slots installed which fleece the player way too quickly.

[ QUOTE ]
- Do you in fact have a scrap of actual, real-world empirical evidence that HUDs and multitabling will destroy the poker economy, ......?

Party 2003 vs Party 2006. You all were well on your way to destroying the games without the help of Bill Frist

[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding, right? There were more players on Party than ever before! The aim of legalising online poker is not to create a nice site for you and people who think like you. If you find the games too tough, that's your problem. If there is demand for a site which bans multitabling and HUDs, then it will arise naturally in a free market. If there isn't, then tough titty for you. You're basically trying to legislate for less good players in your game. The legislature is not a toy for you to use to try to create your ideal game.

Since you bring it up, the major reason that the games on Party were tougher in 2006 than in 2003 is that people learnt to play.

[ QUOTE ]
If you play too slow on the California site, you will get a message.

[/ QUOTE ]

I eight table on some tables where you get 5 seconds to act every action. Not all of us take 20 seconds to figure out whether we have a straight or not.

[ QUOTE ]
"You have been removed from the table because nobody here likes slowplaying multitabling HUDbot grinders"

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is what it's all about, isn't it? It's your own little fantasy of getting back at the players you blame for you not being able to win online, or making the games slow, or some other [censored]. It's pathetic.

[aislephive]

Lmao, brilliant post ChrisV. Agreed 100%.