FAO: The Oracles of the BC

[EasyPoker]

Could you survive/be as successful without a HUD?

It's pretty clear that HUDs are a contributing factor to "games drying up" in FR and 6-max on sites like Stars and FTP. I say this, because I play on a UK site which doesn't allow HUDs, and the games are still as donkalicious as ever.

I feel that in a few years time, even Stars and FTP will ban HUDs, to give even the casuals a "fair" chance at the game.

Seeing as the stats are an integral part of modern online poker, could you be as profitable (if you are that is) without a HEM or PT?

Is putting Villain on a range still going to be as accurate? Not saying you don't have to do this without stats, but unless you play with someone regularly, your reads on them may be exaggerated guesses.

[MasonGamble]

I think a HUD brings life to your opponents. Some of the major factors that are missing from live play are brought forth while using a HUD... I mean it's not like just cause you have a HUD you are now going to win no matter what.

You still have to make conscious decisions and put your opponents on a range and pay attention to betting patterns. It just fills in the gap that is missing while stairing at a computer screen.

I never had one till just recently, and man what a difference it makes sitting at a fresh table and knowing what you are up against. One big advantage I think is table selection, as now I know where I want to sit and which table will likely be most profitable

[spoonitnow]

No, they won't.

[EasyPoker]

I'm guessing you're responding to me saying Stars and FTP will ban HUDs, rather than ranges won't be as accurate, right?

[spoonitnow]

I'm guessing you're responding to me saying Stars and FTP will ban HUDs, rather than ranges won't be as accurate, right?

Correct.

[eragotte]

I dont use HUD and I win some moneys... If you are playing like 4-6 tables it isn't too big a pain to keep track of who is who...

[surviva316]

Small euro sites that don't allow HUDs are fishy and reg-devoid mainly because they're fishy euro sites. when you compare even ultimate bet (which isn't a euro site and does allow for a hud) to PS, the fish:reg ratio is still RIDICULOUS. the fact that it's a euro site makes it even fish-laden and reg-devoid. and the fact that it doesn't allow for HUD again makes regs even that much less likely to play there which brings the ratio up even more. so the reason that the site is so fishy is mainly because there are less regs, not because fish don't wanna play at a site that allows hud (to prove this, next time you're playing at your euro site, ask everyone at the table HUDs, and they'll all be like "wtf are you talking? wtf is a hud?")

FTP and PS would never disallow HUD use because they make their money from 4-20 tabling regs. if they stopped allowing HUDs it would not bring many fish to the game and a lot of regs would quit and pretty much all the regs would reduce the amount of tables they're playing. even if the ONLY consequence were to make 20-tabling bots play only 10 tables at a time, it would take A LOT of fish being added to the player pool to make up for that drop in rake (in other words, halving the rake you receive from a 20-tabling 200nl FR reg, would require 10 single-tabling fish who are willing to put $200 down on the table in order to make up for the revenue lost).

[Carroters]

Surviva, I hope you're right sir. If they take my HUD away I'll cry fo sure.

[bigspenda73]

I was always under the impression Nuts doesn't use a HUD, he's kinda good.

[WeaselT]

If the site you played at banned HUDs i would think you would just cut down tables or move. Dunno all player dependant i guess. Would be good for everybody to play without it for a while I think. But as for everything poker goes I would say "it depends".

[Miffed22001]

ban huds ftw

[jyms]

Sites don't make their money form the 6-20 tabling regs like you think they do. Sites make money from fish making deposits and nothing else, they don't care as much as you think about someone that plays 10 tables and pays a ton of rake.

[aka_red]

Sites don't make their money form the 6-20 tabling regs like you think they do. Sites make money from fish making deposits and nothing else, they don't care as much as you think about someone that plays 10 tables and pays a ton of rake.

I'm pretty sure that is exactly opposite of what is true..

[jyms]

How do you figure? if a site had 1000's of multitabling regs and nothing else, where would the money come from? Regs don't bring money to sites. All the rake that is paid by any winning multitabler is profited from a fish or some other recreational depositor. Without new cash deposited on a site the money would slowly dry up and be absorbed by withdrawals and rake. Do you know of another way that a site makes money if nobody deposits?

The only reason sits like multitabling regs is it provides a player base to expedite the money form the depositors and puts it into rake faster and on m,ore tables than if the fish played themselves on 1 table at a time.

[celtic123]

Perfectly put Jyms . It seem notice reDZill4 likes to habitually disagree with things you say. perhaps He'll stop now.

[aka_red]

How do you figure? if a site had 1000's of multitabling regs and nothing else, where would the money come from? Regs don't bring money to sites. All the rake that is paid by any winning multitabler is profited from a fish or some other recreational depositor. Without new cash deposited on a site the money would slowly dry up and be absorbed by withdrawals and rake. Do you know of another way that a site makes money if nobody deposits?

The only reason sits like multitabling regs is it provides a player base to expedite the money form the depositors and puts it into rake faster and on m,ore tables than if the fish played themselves on 1 table at a time.

Fish generate very little rake which is how they make their money. The extent of them caring about fish is that they deposit after that happens I'm sure they could care less. Obviously getting them to continue to deposit is great but the only reason it is great is because it keeps certain levels of games alive. The massive multi tabling regs kindly grind the fishes deposit into rake which is profit for the site. Even in a game full of regs (no fish) they are grinding each others rolls into rake for the site. The sites are OKAY with this. Having a billion players playing a billion games and on a billion tables generates billions in rake. I'm also surprised your not familiar with the term 'regfish'. Those guys also keep games running in absence of true fish.

Perfectly put Jyms . It seem notice reDZill4 likes to habitually disagree with things you say. perhaps He'll stop now.

It is definitely because I have a personal vendetta and is also definitely not possible I do it because he is wrong all the time. whether he wants to admit it or not me correcting him is helping him. If I didn't care at all I wouldn't post I would just continue to let him act like a monkey and laugh hardily with my friends about his constant errors. You may think I come off as a douche and if you don't like the way I do business then you have the option not to listen to what I have to say. Either way I will not lose sleep over it.

[jyms]

Red, come on, even regfish do not contribute to the bottom line of a poker site. Without new deposits the rake would slowly dry up as first the fish would be gone, then the regfish would be absorbed by rake and better players and the better players would run out of money because of rake and withdrawals. It's all fed by new deposits and all the sites earnings (rake) is generated by new deposits. How would any site even Stars or Full Tilt survive for more than even a couple weeks without fresh deposits? I already said that it's the regs that expedite the deposits from fish and recreational players to the sites faster and is the only reason that winning multitabling players are accepted by the sites. Do you think they would allow you to withdraw and be a drain on their system if the deposits suddenly stopped? Without new money, the sites will fail to survive. We are all dependent on new deposits, and the sites know this, it's why they spend so much money on new player advertising and why bonus's and RB is becoming harder to earn. You need to admit your worng in this case and maybe also understand that it's deposits that make money for sites in the broader scope and not the direct rake that is what allows the sites to survive.

[Micro2Macro]

If the sites didn't give a shit about regulars then they wouldn't make their VIP programs in such a way that those who put in the most volume get the most back

/ THREAD

[jyms]

Come on let's stay on point, I never said they don't care about regs. I said that sites don't make the money from regs and they don't care as much as you think. I said sites make their money form deposits, and they like the multitabling regs that take depositors money and multitable and pay it back to the sites via faster rake. Keeping tons of regs on the site paying tons of rake allows sites to get the money from deposits faster than if the fish played by themselves. It's a food chain. Without deposits, sites die, and that makes the depositors the most important part of the chain and if Huds become a problem for sites to gain deposits then they will ban them. That is all I was trying to say, let's not twist the debate that the thread was originally about. Don't let the fact that paying $5K in rake a month vs some 1 tabling fish that deposits $200 a month and 1 tabling cloud your judgment that regs are the more important part of the food chain, there needs to be far more deposits than withdrawals every single day for a site to earn rake.

[KillsAids]

Come on let's stay on point, I never said they don't care about regs. I said that sites don't make the money from regs and they don't care as much as you think. I said sites make their money form deposits, and they like the multitabling regs that take depositors money and multitable and pay it back to the sites via faster rake. Keeping tons of regs on the site paying tons of rake allows sites to get the money from deposits faster than if the fish played by themselves. It's a food chain. Without deposits, sites die, and that makes the depositors the most important part of the chain and if Huds become a problem for sites to gain deposits then they will ban them. That is all I was trying to say, let's not twist the debate that the thread was originally about. Don't let the fact that paying $5K in rake a month vs some 1 tabling fish that deposits $200 a month and 1 tabling cloud your judgment that regs are the more important part of the food chain, there needs to be far more deposits than withdrawals every single day for a site to earn rake.

So you're saying banks make money from people's deposit and not from investments they make or money they loan out because this is how the money enters the banks.

Seriously though, why would stars reward high volume players through supernova/supernova elite if all they care about is deposits? Someone should tip them off imo

[aka_red]

clearly you will argue for what you do which is make a deposit at one site and claim you are very important and clearly i will argue for what i do which is stay on one site and generate rake for a site and claim i am very important.

[bikes]

There is a reason why stars bends over backwards to help their high volume players. Just saying.

[jyms]

Wow

[surviva316]

this is poker economics 101.

poker sites don't make profit off of deposits alone. if you deposit money, never play a single hand and then withdraw, the poker site hasn't profited, they've just kept your money warm.

sites make profit from rake. would a poker site rather their 200nl tables be 9 multitabling regs who suck at table selection or a 1/2nl live table where the best player at the table is some guy who's gotten all of his advice from norman chad? they don't give a shit. like any other table in the entire world of poker, there will be winners (some fish will inevitably win at the bad table and some regs will inevitably lose at the multitabling reg table), pots will happen and rake (ie profit) will be skimmed from the table either way. in fact, PS prolly prefers the table full of regs who actually raise preflop and cbet 80% of the time in order to build juicy pots very quickly.

even through the VIP system, still 67% of 5% (i don't know the exact numbners, whatever) of every single pot you've ever won is given to PS and adds to their bottom line that no one can ever withdraw ever. THAT'S how they make their money, not through fish getting on a 200nl table half stacking and money slowly getting pushed around and them getting lucky and winning FIFTY WHOLE DOLLARS and snap withdrawing, whereas some other fish lose fifty whole dollars and have there roll slowly drained away.

the only way PS or FTP would think that multitabling regs are worth even a FRACTION less than every dime they bring through rake, is if the games got so reg-laden that a large portion of regs couldn't win, so they leave the site. in other words, the only reason PS or FTP would dislike regs, is if they were scaring other regs away. don't think they need to worry about because if 100nl is any indication, it only takes one fish for every 2 or 3 tables of each stake for the poker economy to be fueled, and europes a big continent full of plenty of fish who have money burning holes in their pockets.

[daven]

poker sites don't make profit off of deposits alone. if you deposit money, never play a single hand and then withdraw, the poker site hasn't profited, they've just kept your money warm.
.

i wonder how much the sum total of all player account balances at stars is at any given moment. Like, right now. Rake + interest/whatever on the money they hold on our behalf = profit

[surviva316]

oh, and all of this is so so off topic anyway because on the topic of one of the big sites all of the sudden banning hud, there would be a mass exodus, and they would have to print checks for thousands and thousands of people worth millions and millions of dollars all of the sudden and PS would prolly have to file for bankruptcy.

[jyms]

Alll I was trying to say is Regs are not the source of income, they are the medium.

[CBAT]

Alll I was trying to say is Regs are not the source of income, they are the medium.

It's the opposite.

[humanfugitive]

It's a bit of both.

Regs expedite the transfer from bankroll to rake while the fish keep adding money to increase the maximum possible rake.

[spoonitnow]

{Locked}

Congrats on totally derailing another thread.