Tuff Fish's proposal cleared by CA Sec. of State for petition circ.

[Jzo19]

there's no point in playing one table online , for that i would go to my local B&M and have a more enjoyable experience

i would much rather gauge my eyes out with a fork than single table online ...

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why Tuff Fish doesn't think CA shouldn't be allowed to simply set up their Internet poker site however the state sees fit. Unfortunately, Tuff Fish doesn't care what you, I, or anyone else here thinks. In fact, he's amused that we dont like it.

If Tuff ran a casino, he'd immediately remove half the slot machines and lower the rest to $0.25 or below, so the gamblers wouldn't lose too much and stop gambling. If stockholders complained, he'd yell at them, calling them greedy people who wished to "overfish" the town. If they asked him for proof of his theory, he's just laugh at them and tell them it was his way or the highway. Then, he'd act surprised when he couldn't get their support.

[/ QUOTE ]

TheEngineer just won this thread. I note that now it has been pointed out to Tuff_Fish that his unsubstantiated claims about how gamblers will behave conflict with real world gambling data, he's backing his theories up with even more unsubstantiated claims about the difference in the psychology of slots players and losing poker players. Tuff is one of those people who believe that his own intuition and "common sense" are enough to declare a proposition true.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you use any facts for your arguments? Or are they all based on your experiences and what you think people would do if they thought like yourself? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that you who playing against a bunch of "sharks" at Party $10/20 last year? You even recognized at the time that you were out of your league, but yet you still played. Recreational players like playing against good players, it provides them a challenge. They know they can win on any given day against anybody, and that's what keeps people coming back for more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen.

Two afterthoughts. First, I think it's hilarious that Tuff constantly complains about multitablers holding the games up, when all the evidence from his videos is that he is an incredibly slow decisionmaker. He probably takes twice as much time per action as I do, even 8 tabling. I estimate the number one cause of delays online for me is bad players tanking (or pretending to tank) over a non-decision.

Second, there's a lot of chatter on this thread about games getting tougher. This is almost entirely a UIGEA phenomenon. I play on non-US sites and the games are easy as hell.

[SmackinYaUp]

I just don't see why it's Tuff's right to pick how many tables people can play. Let the economy sort itself out. It's obviously just a personal pet peeve so no amount of logic will persuade him. Tuff is nowhere near qualified to be leading this proposal.

[Legislurker]

Lets circulate a 2p2 petition. If Tuff gets it done, everyone log in and time out every hand at the California sites until they change it. Set up bots to do nothing but max stall/fold.
And find out who/where he sits, and get the best players to play well against him and stall every hand as long as possible. Aim for noob dealer hph levels.

[NNNNOOOOONAN]

[ QUOTE ]
As a multitabling grinder myself, it would actually benefit me (and lots of other serious pros) if these measures were enacted. We will always be able to find ways around them, and the less devoted and not-so-computer-savvy multitabling semi-pros will be the ones who will really take the hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true, and wholly unfair. i too am a multitabling gringder. I am however, not a computer expert. when it comes to playing online poker for a living, it wouldn't be close to right if it does come down to this and all of a sudden i need to be a winning poker player AND a computer technician.

[tsearcher]

It would be real easy for sites and/or players to work around this. Sites can just have franchises, skins. And players just open more than one site at a time. Or play from multiple IP's. The one table restriction isn't a big deal.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As a multitabling grinder myself, it would actually benefit me (and lots of other serious pros) if these measures were enacted. We will always be able to find ways around them, and the less devoted and not-so-computer-savvy multitabling semi-pros will be the ones who will really take the hit.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true, and wholly unfair. i too am a multitabling gringder. I am however, not a computer expert. when it comes to playing online poker for a living, it wouldn't be close to right if it does come down to this and all of a sudden i need to be a winning poker player AND a computer technician.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind multi-tablers but do have a pet-peeve about software assisted ones. Be it HUDs, personal databases or leased ones, based on hand histories, I say ban the computer assistance. Those tools belong in play chip land as learning aids.

I know this is often an unpopular sentiment, but I'm old school. If you can't use it in a B&M, it has no place in an on-line game. Most players of any fish scale have no problem using our brains and bankrolls against other's brains and bankrolls but some how feel cheated playing against the software assisted so called sharks.

Yes I've heard all the arguments, including the "multi-tablers play sub-optimal poker so a good single table player is better off" one. Personally I think the whole industry built around all the software assistance is bad for on-line poker. If nothing else with the advances in software, computing power and the advent of leased databases if not halted at some point will lead to a potentially serious advantage and an ever increasing software arms race. I can imagine the development of a HUD that not just puts you on a hand based on what average players do in that position, but one based on what you’ve done in that same situation based on every hand you’ve ever played on-line. Not just the ones someone has data mined by playing against you.

Let people play as many tables as they want and can afford to play. Eliminate hand histories and the ability to save them from real money poker.

Just an unpopular PERSONAL opinion,

D$D

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't mind multi-tablers but do have a pet-peeve about software assisted ones. Be it HUDs, personal databases or leased ones, based on hand histories, I say ban the computer assistance. Those tools belong in play chip land as learning aids.

I know this is often an unpopular sentiment, but I'm old school. If you can't use it in a B&M, it has no place in an on-line game. Most players of any fish scale have no problem using our brains and bankrolls against other's brains and bankrolls but some how feel cheated playing against the software assisted so called sharks.

Yes I've heard all the arguments, including the "multi-tablers play sub-optimal poker so a good single table player is better off" one. Personally I think the whole industry built around all the software assistance is bad for on-line poker. If nothing else with the advances in software, computing power and the advent of leased databases if not halted at some point will lead to a potentially serious advantage and an ever increasing software arms race. I can imagine the development of a HUD that not just puts you on a hand based on what average players do in that position, but one based on what you’ve done in that same situation based on every hand you’ve ever played on-line. Not just the ones someone has data mined by playing against you.

Let people play as many tables as they want and can afford to play. Eliminate hand histories and the ability to save them from real money poker.

Just an unpopular PERSONAL opinion,

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

These seem like decisions best left to the marketplace. Sites could offer what they want, as WPEX is doing, and let the customer decide.

As for the multitabling issue, my personal opinion is that the initiative could have stated something like "the director will determine the maximum number of tables each player may play simultaneously, consistent with ensuring continued viability of the game". This would accomplish the goal of preserving the game without shutting out pro players. This is especially a concern if CA makes other unlicensed Internet poker illegal and offers only one site/skin of its own (which I think would be likely with passage of this initiative).

[JPFisher55]

D$D, these kind of regulations and rules are almost as bad as the UIGEA. Stick to representing the PPA and your day job. Anyone can purchase PT or HUD, using them is not cheating and does not give a player any tools that another player cannot easily acquire. Also, online poker is not B&M poker.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
D$D, these kind of regulations and rules are almost as bad as the UIGEA. Stick to representing the PPA and your day job. Anyone can purchase PT or HUD, using them is not cheating and does not give a player any tools that another player cannot easily acquire. Also, online poker is not B&M poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say I supported any sort of rules just expressed my PERSONAL opinion about hand histories and what might become of them in the future. I clearly said it was a personal opinion and pet peeve.

I don't mind being criticized when I'm wrong or unclear but this is over the top.

D$D