Stats

Do u think these poker tools (HEM,PT,PTR etc) are fair? Its great to see tools to teach ppl there game but do u think without it the game would b better?

How does HEM, PT3 and PTR teach anyone? You have to know how to use the software and interpret the data. They don't teach anyone anything, all they do is store data. Yes they are fair, as in everyone can use them, so it doesn't give an edge to anyone.

With out them, the game would still be the game, just less people multi- tabling 8+ tables.

I think people 8+ tabling is worse for the game than any tracking software.

Its good for the sites for rake though.

you are new to online poker obv

The programs definitely change the game a bit. Everything is more precise. If you're playing live you're not going to be describing a hand as, "The guy was 22/18 with an AF of 2.8" ya know?

But that's why online is a different game.

As far as fair? Tough to say I guess. I think it's more fair to let everyone use them as opposed to any attempt at stopping their use. People that wanted to keep using them would find a way, people who played by the rules wouldn't, and then would have whatever edge the software provides over the people who are playing it straight. Also, I sure love my HEM, so I vote for fair.

Why do you feel that 8+ tabling is bad for the game?

The tracking software and HUDs you mention simply provide a way for multi-tablers to translate numerical statistics into some very basic "reads". There's nothing inherently bad or unfair about them. In fact, if you're playing one or two tables only (and paying attention), I'd say you'd have an advantage over someone playing 6 tables and using HUD numbers for reads.

My $0.02.

Brilliant! I'm a n00b obv


The good people are at a lot of tables.

Lets take extremes. If a good player can play at only one table. They can only take money from bad people at one table. If they can do that at 10 tables it increases their win rate, and they can take money from the poor players at 10 tables.

The poor player will probably only be at one or 2 tables.

Now if there are 4 good players playing at 10 tables (that's equivalent to 40 good players) and 50 poor players at 1 table each. So that's 10 nine player tables full with 4 good and 5 poor players.

Where do you think the money will end up and how fast?

Now lets look at everyone can only play one table. Now we only have 54 players which can fill up 6 tables. Lets assume the good players know each other and wont sit at a table with another good player. Now we have 4 tables with one good player and 2 with no good players. Now how fast will the good players take the money?

Also think about the people at tables with no good players. Now they get a sense of being better than they actually are, keeping them playing longer, and maybe even depositing more money (because they just ran bad).

Also think of the 10 tables when a good player to make a decision and time out on another table. The other 10 tabler's won't mind much, but the poor players at one table will, and may leave.

Bottom Line; The poor players will loose their money faster with multi-tablers than with good players only allowed to play at one table.

Also: Why do you think online poker is so much different than live poker? I contend it has a lot to do with multi-tablers.

Absolutely it is fair! Everyone has the opportunity to use it and if people choose not to then so be it. For the ones who do, it is a great tool for extensive reads on your opp which are difficult in online play. The sites wouldn't allow them if they weren't fair.

Is there a reason why you may believe that they are not fair or are you just curious as to what the popular belief is?
Wow. I read this and all I can think is that you must not consider yourself to be a good player. All players have the ability to multi-table, good or bad. Good players will continue to do it for a variety of reasons, including to make more money. I guess I just don't get your point.

+1 on Sysvr4's comment. Note the implication towards the end - players using a HUD (myself included) would probably play better if we weren't multi-tabling. That would put weaker players at a greater disadvantage, don't you think?

The HUD and multi-tabling doesn't directly improve winrate - it allows multi-tablers to increase they're hourly rate. Most multi-tablers (myself included) would probably have a higher winrate if they played fewer tables (my winrate is higher at 4 tables than at 6 tables), but would have a lower hourly rate.

This is exactly my point!!

My point is multi-tabling is bad for the game. Multitablers take the money from the poor players faster.

From my example above think about the 5 poor play at a table with 4 good players vs. the 8 poor players at a table with only one good player. At witch table will the poor players loose their money faster?

I get the feeling from peoples reactions that I am making a personal attack at multitablers. I'm not. I'm not saying that multitabling is wrong or people shouldn't do it, just making an observation of the effect of mutitabling.

Think about this question:
Is bad players loosing there money faster good or bad for the game?

I think you missed my point. Poor players will lose money even faster if multitablers were to not multitable.

Yeah, if I'm focusing on one table, then I'm going to be maximizing my extractions from players. Multitabling splits my focus, so I'm actually winning at a lower rate, just playing more hands per hour.

The reasons I think online poker is different really aren't related to multitabling. When people are behind their computer, it's easy to be aggro. All you have to do is click a button. You don't have to sit there and have the other guy staring at you, it's very impersonal. Online games in general are often this way, very aggressive. Player routinely will attempt some crazy bluffs, or will make these crazy hero calls. Light 4 and 5 betting are not this everyday thing in live games like they are online. You'll see them sometimes, but not often. I've personally only seen it happen once live.

In live games, players are often much more passive, and are more afraid to run bluffs. When you bluff live and get caught, there's some sense of embarassment assosciated with it. Everyone's looking at you thinking, "Oh man, what an idiot". This thought keeps a lot of players from making moves. On top of this, they invested some amount of time getting to the casino, waiting on the list. They don't want to sit down and bust themselves trying to run some bluff or by calling a big bet when they only have middle pair.

However stick that same player online, and he may very well try that bluff or hero call. Those are a few of the things I'm referring to when I say live and online are different games.

Yes I got your point. I think you missed mine.

Let me put it this way.

Will a poor player loose their money faster playing against 1 good player and 7 other poor players OR playing against 4 good multitablers and 4 poor players? While one multitabler may be winning less from the poor players the poor players still loos their money faster against 4 multitablers. Also think about my example above where there were 6 tables total and only 4 had good players.

By the same token, he'll lose money even faster against 4 good players who are single tabling and 4 poor players.

You're making two assumptions that I think are incorrect. First, the population of good players is a fixed quantity - so by multitabling, their good play appears on more tables. I think some sites have more skilled players than others as a percentage of the overall population at the site, but I don't think the number of players who are good is a fixed value. One of the reasons this forum is here is to allow people to become more skilled through discussion and reading - this is increasing the population of skilled players.

The second assumption is that multitablers are universally good players. I don't believe this to be the case. Many multitablers have very exploitable weaknesses, some caused by the fact they're multitabling (decreased attention to detail, relatively robotic play as a result), and some simply because they're not that good. There are some multitablers that I'm familiar with that I'm less inclined to play back at, but there are others I eagerly play back at because I have an idea of some weakness or another in their game.

The trick is whether you yourself are interested in becoming skilled. The population of multitablers at microstakes (esp. 10nl and below) generally is still in a learning stage, and playing against them and the rest of the population at those stakes doesn't represent as huge a difference in skill levels as say jumping into 200nl.

Its pretty obvious that multi-tabling is bad for the game, and its pretty obvious that a HUD increases your edge very little if at all.

I don't exactly know what everyone's definition of "good for the game" is, but if it's purely in a money making sense, I agree with bigjoker that multi tabling is bad for the game (given that you don't multi table of course). Oh, and as usual, my response is highly technical so I may be missing some hidden agenda that is +EV for the forum overall.

Let's say we suddenly put a 1 table cap per person in place. The 4 multi tabler and 4 fish tables will become 1 good player and 7 fish tables, not 4 good players and 4 fish tables.

At any given point in time, the ability for someone to multi table changes our win rate and over very short spans of time, the growth rate of the poker population is not that large. The growth rate of poker is very relevant on our bottom lineover long spans of time but is not that relevant for isolating the effects of multi tabling.

Would you rather have a 60/2 fish at your table or a 9/7 nit fish at your table?

Let me try to rephrase what I think bigjoker is trying to say. The multi tabler plays more tables because their $/hour increases as compared to fewer tables. So where is this extra money coming from? It's coming from the fish of course. They are essentially winning less money against the fish on a per table basis but because they are taking money from more fish (over many tables), they are draining the money from fish pool at a faster rate overall. Therefore the fish lose their money faster and there will be less fish money to go around.

+1 though I do have to point out that the HUD can be bad for the game in the sense that it allows people to play more tables and increase their win rates a non-negligible amount for 12+ tables.

this thread suddenly became tldr; lol

Thank You! This is a very good summation!!