an argument against HUDs

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
Please give one example when it is better to play without a HUD.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you're pissed off cause your losing and you want to blame something.

[Apanage]

Please give one hand example that is better played without a HUD.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Please give one hand example that is better played without a HUD.

[/ QUOTE ]

no.

[Apanage]

My Dad can beat your Dad.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
My Dad can beat your Dad.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm sure he can. it's pretty clear that you think HUDs only add to your game. so be it.

[Entity]

Bob,

I'm pretty sure (99%+) that the problem is with how you're using the HUDs. If you feel that you can't make on-the-spot reads that combine with your information you get from a HUD, then it's probably better for you to stick with one or the other; playing a small group of players on a regular basis, you're going to be better off without one. However, there are a lot of situations where you can take a read (28/21/1.4 over 780 hands), and allow it to have some flex, based on recent game conditions. I'm not sure what it is about HUDs that prevent you from doing that, but if they do, it's not the fault of the HUD.

You're a good player, and if you prefer life without a HUD, that's great; I don't really think this hand offers much in the way of reasoning to not use one, though.

Rob

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
not using a HUD is retarded

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. If you are misusing a HUD, then perhaps a temporary period of not using it is appropriate while you rapidly train yourself to accept additional available data without overvaluing that data or distorting the overall balance of all available data.

But refusing access to available data in any decision-making process (except where actionable data is overwhelming the capacity to process - should not be the case here under any circumstance), especially a decision-making process that will be repeated again and again and again, is a phenomenally bad idea.

[bobhalford]

I don't really see how a HUD is anything but redundant when you are playing 1-2 tables. When 4 tabling, a HUD can be quite useful. I no longer play poker this way. I also feel much more comfortable playing without the HUD. My reads have more depth now because I am paying close attention to my opponents. How could an HUD help me do this better? If anything, stats could mess me up if they were out of line with my read. I'm sure that over 200 hands, I could have a VPIP between 22% and 34%. When I was using a HUD, I used to be happy to see someone I had 300+ hands with. But I don't think that these reads are all that reliable. I'm no statistician, so I can't say for sure. I just feel that having 1000 hands would make me feel comfortable with the stat read, and anything less than that may throw me off.

But if I had 1000+ hands on any player, wouldn't I have a very detailed read on him already? How on earth could a HUD improve anything when you already have what you need - reads drawn from observation. Thing is, my gut tells me (and again im no stat guy) that even 1000 hands ain't enough.

I've always found that when people post hands on these forums, it's usually with a stat based read. I always wonder how the poster got 300+ hands on this opponent and nary a note was taken. Is this complacency (or laziness) a byproduct of HUD use? I have no idea, but I think it's possible for a lot of players.

I understand the argument that HUD should not hurt you. Stats are just information, and more information cannot be anything but a good thing. But this assumes that this extra information is always 100% reliable (like observation based reads are). As I've said, I don't trust small samples, and since I have less than 1000 hands on most players, I just don't see why I should be paying much mind at all to these stats.

I can learn more about a player by watching her play one hand than I could by checking her stats after 500 hands. I can understand the pro-HUD argument sounding more like "Use the HUD and you can watch movies while you play 4 tables of poker!" Until I want to start watching movies or play 4 tables, I'm not using any HUD.

And the notion that myself or the OP are burning money by refusing to use HUD is ridiculous. And what is this idea about using HUD wrong? Unless you are stupid there is no way you can use an HUD wrong unless you putting more stock in that info than is warranted. As I've said, all I need to do is see a player play one hand, and that info is much more useful than any stat read even with 10K hands on that player.

I think the only way I would use HUD is if I was playing with a lot of familiar faces. Then I could get a large number of hands on them that I could analyze in my spare time. This would enhance what I already know about the player. But barring this situation, wanting to watch movies, or wanting to 4-table, I can't think of one single solitary reason to use HUD.

[veganmav]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see how a HUD is anything but redundant when you are playing 1-2 tables. When 4 tabling, a HUD can be quite useful. I no longer play poker this way. I also feel much more comfortable playing without the HUD. My reads have more depth now because I am paying close attention to my opponents. How could an HUD help me do this better? If anything, stats could mess me up if they were out of line with my read. I'm sure that over 200 hands, I could have a VPIP between 22% and 34%. When I was using a HUD, I used to be happy to see someone I had 300+ hands with. But I don't think that these reads are all that reliable. I'm no statistician, so I can't say for sure. I just feel that having 1000 hands would make me feel comfortable with the stat read, and anything less than that may throw me off.

But if I had 1000+ hands on any player, wouldn't I have a very detailed read on him already? How on earth could a HUD improve anything when you already have what you need - reads drawn from observation. Thing is, my gut tells me (and again im no stat guy) that even 1000 hands ain't enough.

I've always found that when people post hands on these forums, it's usually with a stat based read. I always wonder how the poster got 300+ hands on this opponent and nary a note was taken. Is this complacency (or laziness) a byproduct of HUD use? I have no idea, but I think it's possible for a lot of players.

I understand the argument that HUD should not hurt you. Stats are just information, and more information cannot be anything but a good thing. But this assumes that this extra information is always 100% reliable (like observation based reads are). As I've said, I don't trust small samples, and since I have less than 1000 hands on most players, I just don't see why I should be paying much mind at all to these stats.

I can learn more about a player by watching her play one hand than I could by checking her stats after 500 hands. I can understand the pro-HUD argument sounding more like "Use the HUD and you can watch movies while you play 4 tables of poker!" Until I want to start watching movies or play 4 tables, I'm not using any HUD.

And the notion that myself or the OP are burning money by refusing to use HUD is ridiculous. And what is this idea about using HUD wrong? Unless you are stupid there is no way you can use an HUD wrong unless you putting more stock in that info than is warranted. As I've said, all I need to do is see a player play one hand, and that info is much more useful than any stat read even with 10K hands on that player.

I think the only way I would use HUD is if I was playing with a lot of familiar faces. Then I could get a large number of hands on them that I could analyze in my spare time. This would enhance what I already know about the player. But barring this situation, wanting to watch movies, or wanting to 4-table, I can't think of one single solitary reason to use HUD.

[/ QUOTE ]

dataminers

[veganmav]

"er. But barring this situation, wanting to watch movies, or wanting to 4-table, I can't think of one single solitary reason to use HUD."


fwiw I often watch movies or look at pr0n while i multitable