What if players names were Player1, Player2, etc?

[Reef]

poker is Darwinism in action

isn't pokerstars rigged enough to keep the fish around??

[Jeff Oneye]

The bottom line is that technically proficient players will ultimately get the biggest slice of the pie. The only reason some people claim it's unfair is because they lack the ability, drive or risk-threshold to become winning players.

It really doesn't matter what obstacles the sites may employ in an attempt to undermine certain tactics. Furthermore, it doesn't matter much what new software programs are devised. The dedicated professional will adapt to the harshest conditions.

People who don't own or utilize any software complain about Pokertracker. Those who only use Pokertracker complain about HUD's. People who run both complain about 'illegal' pay for service programs like Sharkscope. And people running legally dubious or illegal data-mining programs say bots are the "real" culprit. And those running bots say its people who run bots in 'share mode' who are the vermin of online poker. And the people running bots in 'share mode' complain about bot sweatshops. And bot sweatshop owners will say the problem is the dishonest, unregulated sites making irresponsible claims about site security.

Of course, it doesn't matter who says what. The ultimate measure of ones success is measured in terms of dollars or euros. The most successful players laugh at or simply dismiss these tantrums about 'fairness' or 'leveling the playing field.'

JeffreyREBT

[6471849653]

You can go and play at WPEX and Cake poker that are close. But as far as your reasoning goes, it's incorrect; it's to everyone's advantage that basic tracking is done by the machine as it saves time and effort and makes multitabling possible that's more fun rather than sit there on one table and do basic math rather than think about the real important things. Multitabling is also good news for the one table players as they do better when they play one table and their opponents play two or more tables.

Having players with no names (Player1 etc.) has many problems in it, including that in the real poker world one is supposed to see who anyone is. Online poker is different from offline poker as offline one doesn't have what it takes to make notes there, while online one must do so. There are also always players who can make more or less their own softwares, that would be a disadvantage for most of us who don't have the ability or the time to do so.

I remember when I started playing online poker in 1999 and had to make notes manually (there wasn't even the note function) and all observations, what a drag, a hell; online poker on that is as close to hell as it gets, and one must keep detailed enough notes too as the opponents will, or one will have to stop playing especially holdem and pick some stud that has personal open cards, making it more what one sees than what one doesn't see, and holdem is the better form as one can see from actions, seat positions, how many hands someone plays, how often raises, and what flops in the light of that, it being so great a skill game, rather than stud where everything can be seen like half the time, making it the inferior form.

Heads up holdem would be what one would need to play to get enough action, though they would become increasingly competitive while the rake is still too high from limits 1-2 to 3-6 or 5-10, so it's hard to move up step by step, one needing to build the bankroll playing stud.

[ThaHammer]

[ QUOTE ]
Why, I thought you'd never ask.

Here's my two cents on the subject.

Regards, Lee

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to read any part of this post, read this article. Thanks Lee!

OP, I think your idea has some merit. I don't have a problem with hudbots because they are normally easy to spot and therefore you can adjust your play. I'm looking at it from the angle of having challenging, quality games.

Playing against hudbots and mass multi-tablers is boring, so once in awhile it would be nice to have games where all of the players are into the game, and actually playing the game. Imagine a table where the players are not relying on muscle memory and stats, but are totally into the game.

It would be great to have the option to move to untrackable tables. I would even go so far to make some of these tables single table only. I think the challenge and quality of the game would improve.

[jschell]

My suggestion would be that everyone has their own screen name at the tables, but hand histories only contain your own screen name with generic ones for all the other players.

I would be in favor of this for several reasons:
1.) You could still keep track of your own stats for improvement of your own game, keeping track of wins and losses, ROI, etc., which is fair IMO and an important feature of online vs live.
2.) Players could still learn other player's tendencies, but only by observing their play for themselves. Also, there is some value in being able to observe well known pros, your friends, etc. whether it be for entertainment or to learn from how the top players play. If everyone had generic screen names, you wouldn't be able to do this.
3.) People wouldn't be able to datamine, which is unfair IMO.

My 2c.

[SlapPappy]

Definitely agree with Lee. Also get rid of the multitablers (3 or more). However I will attempt to face reality in that that will probably not happen. If you want to know whether overfishing the waters is a problem just ask the spermwhales.

[SlapPappy]

Apparently Pokerstars doesn't think your privacy is important.

Smartbuddy

Pokerstars Jeff's response

[batair]

[ QUOTE ]
**NEWS FLASH**

If you can't win money with these tools, you can't win money without them either. Don't blame them for your poor play. Man up and get better.

OPs idea is just awful and the notion that it will sweep the online poker industry is just silly. These tools are the only way to incorporate certain elements of poker into the online game.

Seriously, take responsibility for being a losing player. Don't blame these tools, or bad luck, or stupid players, or anything else besides yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always find it funny that people who use huds and datamining attack the people who don’t think they should be allowed as bad players who cant win. I wonder how many hudbots would become losing players if they had there crutches taken away, quite a few I would guess.

Unregulated fisheries will often get fished to the point they are no longer viable. This will happen to poker its just a mater of time. Regulation of huds,datamining and other tools will allow the bad players to sustain themselves and not be fished out. This would be beneficial for the good players and the fish. The only people that this would hurt would be the marginal players that can’t win without these tools.

save the fish

bat

[Tuff_Fish]

Most of the hudbot grinders that inhabit this forum are insufferably ignorant of the basics of conservation.

It is all "Me Me Now Now"

Fish like hell and deplete the lake in a year, or fish judiciously and fish for a lifetime.

Tuff

[StarTracker]

I'm not really for this, as I run a website which tracks players. So, keep that in mind as you read my reasons:

1) The tools don't help out players enough to make that big of a difference in the ecosystem Lee speaks of. Players have just gotten better at playing with or without tools. That has a bigger impact on declining fish counts than these tools.

2) The tools only make sense in the higher buyins. It is just not worth the effort in the small buyins, where the new fish live.

3) A lot of people use the databases to track themselves. If sites provided more detail on play for their clients, these databases would not be as popular.

4) Though this has declined recently by my own observation, players berating other players for bad plays (or poor results) shows the self proclaimed good players are not smart enough to use information correctly from these sites. Clients berating other clients is something the site should control by dealing with the offensive player. Don't blame the messenger.

5) A shark at one table is a fish at another. It isn't a matter of fish vs. shark. It is a multi level food chain and the skill set changes from game to game/buyin to buyin. A fish armed with a tool to "make him play better" is just a bigger fish, or a fish who thinks he is a shark.

6) The recent U.S. legislation has had the biggest impact on declining fish counts. Shame on the online poker industry for not doing what they should have done to "know the threats" to their business.

7) Believe in the game. Poker is a game which can maintain the balance in the ecosystem as Lee calls it. It has the element of chance in it. Where in the ocean can a small fish eat a shark? In poker it happens all the time. There are huge fish out there, fattened from devouring sharks due the the beauty of this awesome game where any two cards can win!

Believe in the game!