partypoker defends banning HUD's

Poker is less poker with huds. The main resource in poker is information, but with huds, computer get information, not the player by his own capability. It is imoral. Platforms created the huds to gain more volume to earn more rake.

I think they should keep HUDS out of the lower priced tables where the new players mostly show up. For the higher end tables most of the more serious players all have HUD software so its an ]even playing field. Some people love to keep slamming the new players in the lower stakes and allowing them to use HUDs only helps them.

As player with ADD, I simply can't play without HUD of some sort. Well, maybe one/two tabling, but I'd rather put some volume in for learning purposes alone. But for online poker overall, I honestly can't say if it benefiting that much either. Do recreational players care about HUDs that much that they stop playing?

Finkipz said:

As player with ADD, I simply can't play without HUD of some sort. Well, maybe one/two tabling, but I'd rather put some volume in for learning purposes alone. But for online poker overall, I honestly can't say if it benefiting that much either. Do recreational players care about HUDs that much that they stop playing?

Click to expand...

Not meaning to insult or belittle someone with additional needs (I have two autistic sons, fwiw) but you saying you need to use a HUD when playing poker because of your ADD is a bit like me saying I need to wear springs on the bottoms of my trainers to help me jump higher when playing basketball because I'm short! I shouldn't wear springs, I just need to accept that I'm less naturally suited for basketball than my taller friends, and then either work harder at my game or accept that I'm gonna lose quite often! On the other hand, if me and my friends ALL wore springs on our trainers when playing B-ball, that would be fair and fine. If you can't keep track of how your opponents play because of your ADD (or because of any other reason), then you're less well-suited to poker than players who CAN easily keep track of that stuff, so you either need to work harder, be prepared to lose quite often, or find a different game! My point is, poker and all other games/sports should be played on a level playing field, it's a less fair game when some poker players use HUDs and other players don't. I don't think partypoker should have banned HUDs outright (and it's crazy to me that they won't let players access their hand histories for post-game analysis anymore) but I think ALL poker sites should offer both HUD-allowed and HUD-prohibited tables, clearly distinguished, and for all game variations, so that HUD-less players (especially beginners and recreational players) don't unwittingly play poker with an unfair disadvantage.

ldw22 said:

My point is, poker and all other games/sports should be played on a level playing field, it's a less fair game when some poker players use HUDs and other players don't.

Click to expand...

I think, this idea of "a level playing field" is at a minimum a bit naive. If a team of amateurs were to take on a team of professional basketball players, it would hardly be "a level playing field", just because they were using the same training shoes and the same outfit. And if someone is limping and calling every freaking hand, I dont even need HUD-data to know, how to exploit this person.

ldw22 said:

but I think ALL poker sites should offer both HUD-allowed and HUD-prohibited tables, clearly distinguished, and for all game variations, so that HUD-less players (especially beginners and recreational players) don't unwittingly play poker with an unfair disadvantage.

Click to expand...

Except maybe for PokerStars, the player pool is already so small, that separating it further would be an issue. Rather we might se some sites offer less different game types, like when PartyPoker recently killed off full ring cash games to boost liquidity in their 6-max games. So I think, sites need to either allow HUDs or dont allow them. But it is possible to make certain games HUD-free. 888 Poker for instance has done that with their SNAP fast forward tables.


A build in HUD would be a fine solution as well. However I dont think, any poker sites will do this, because it will make the game appear rather nerdy and might scare off those fish, that they want to deposit or come over from the casino or sports betting section.

are right HUD harms the pro, amateurs have the advantage, I think everyone gets it

this is a great discuction

HUDs are simply a tool - they are not a magical window peeking into another players holdings and their stats certainly are not fool proof when it comes to you making a decision.

For me the biggest deal of this whole thing is its not like HUDs are exclusive to a few players here and there or professionals only. ANYONE willing to invest a little $$ and get the same tool their competition is using - so why cry about it?

Myself, I use tracking programs more for hand histories and performance reviews rather than the HUD. I havnt used that feature in over a year in fact.

It would be nice to end HUD on all poker platforms, it would make the game fairer, although I don't see any problems with who to use but I would like it to end HUD more would make the game fairer
:hmmmm2::hmmmm2::hmmmm2:

huds should absolutely be banned by onlne platforms to protect the casual player whichi is inevitably the source of most of their revenue....
huds are cheat cheets to player tendencies and kill sthe spirit of the game....

Let me first state that I think bots, solvers, HUD:s and even to much information in form of e.g. coaching/video instructions sites has almost destroyed online poker so I am personally against them.

But there is no way you can put the genie back into the bottle. AI is developing very fast and people can play with two computers, so it would be impossible to detect that you played with assistance.

In 5-10 years people would probably just play low stakes tournaments for fun online.

Professional poker would be played LIVE exclusively.

You don't see anyone play chess for money online today, do you? That is mostly because the computers are better at chess than humans.

I thought Mixed games and new poker variants could extend the life of online poker for a while but very few people seems to be playing them.

All poker rooms need to prohibit additional software - this would revive the game for fans a little! but it’s important to fight bots too!

Why not make some table HUDless, rather than the whole site?

That way those that want to play with a HUD, or don't mind those that use them can, but those that think HUDs are the devil can play on HUDless tables?

Seems PP have gone a little overboard on this one...

pentazepam said:

Let me first state that I think bots, solvers, HUD:s and even to much information in form of e.g. coaching/video instructions sites has almost destroyed online poker so I am personally against them.

But there is no way you can put the genie back into the bottle. AI is developing very fast and people can play with two computers, so it would be impossible to detect that you played with assistance.

In 5-10 years people would probably just play low stakes tournaments for fun online.

Professional poker would be played LIVE exclusively.

You don't see anyone play chess for money online today, do you? That is mostly because the computers are better at chess than humans.

I thought Mixed games and new poker variants could extend the life of online poker for a while but very few people seems to be playing them.

Click to expand...

As you say, its not possible to prevent knowledge about poker strategy to get spread out, and when it does, games gradually become more difficult to beat. This is not really new and have been going on for many years already. And sure trackers are a part of that, because they have created knowledge collected over billions of hands, about what strategies winning players are using. Paradoxically though, as players become better, HUDs also become less usefull, because exploitation require, that the person to be exploited is unbalanced. So to mainly focus on HUDs is kind of missing the point in my opinion.

But for sure the time to become rich in online cash games has passed. The online high stakes scene has been slowly dwindling away for a decade and will never return to the glory days of Full Tilt Poker. High stakes online tournaments have a better chance to survive, because they appeal more to recreational players. For a manageable one time investment, there is a chance to hit the homerun. Cash games just dont offer that potential. And if someone does have 1.000 $ to put on the line in a cash game, maybe he feel, he get more entertainment value for his money in a psychical casino than an online one. His money probably also last longer, since he only play 30 hands per hour.

So I dont quite agree, that online poker is dying, and that it is not going to be here in 5 years. But action is likely to cap out at lower and lower limits, and if you want to become a professional player, you might want to focus on tournaments or live cash games rather than online cash games. This is basically also, what Doug Polk said in a recent video. For those of us, who play 5$ tournaments or 10-25 NL cash games, and have no plans on going pro, I really dont think, much will change though.

fundiver199 said:

I think, this idea of "a level playing field" is at a minimum a bit naive. If a team of amateurs were to take on a team of professional basketball players, it would hardly be "a level playing field", just because they were using the same training shoes and the same outfit. And if someone is limping and calling every freaking hand, I dont even need HUD-data to know, how to exploit this person.

Click to expand...

^You seem not to understand the definition of a level playing field. If a team of amateurs took on a team of pro ballers "on a level playing field" - I.E. both teams shooting into regulation-size nets, both teams with the same number of players, etc, then the professionals should win easily and that'd be a fair result, because they're the better players and don't need any extra assistance in order to win - just like you don't need to use a HUD in order to outplay fish at the poker table. A level playing field is when it comes down to skill (and luck), with no additional handicaps. But if the professional ballers were also given an extra player on the court, or the net they had to shoot into had a bigger hoop and was a foot lower, then THAT's no longer a level playing field. Now, if two teams were happy to play on a court with low, big hoops and with 6 players per team then that's still a level playing field, just like if every player round a poker table uses a HUD. If two teams play on a regulation court with 5 players per team, that's a level playing field, just like if nobody round the poker table is allowed to use a HUD.
(By the way, I'm not seriously suggesting that a HUD gives a decent poker player as huge an advantage as a basketball team having an extra player! I'm just making the point that using a HUD against players who don't use HUDs does give SOME advantage.)

Matt_Burns88 said:

Why not make some table HUDless, rather than the whole site?

That way those that want to play with a HUD, or don't mind those that use them can, but those that think HUDs are the devil can play on HUDless tables?

Seems PP have gone a little overboard on this one...

Click to expand...

^Yeah, my point exactly, give the players a choice - and, by doing so, also make the beginners/casual players aware that HUDs exist (I didn't know about HUDs for my first couple years of playing, and they had been around a while).

ldw22 said:

But if the professional ballers were also given an extra player on the court, or the net they had to shoot into had a bigger hoop and was a foot lower, then THAT's no longer a level playing field.

Click to expand...

Agree but to compare with the situation in online poker, the amateur team would have chosen to shoot into a higher and smaller net, or have a player less, because they could not assemble a complete team. This is a fair comparison, because its not like, some players can use HUDs in online poker, but others can not.

I prefer to play four tables at a time, and for sure this also put me at a disadvantage compared to people playing only one. I often have to make decisions faster and split my attention between multible hands, and I am not able to pay so much attention to hands, I am not involved in.

So am I being “cheated” then, because people are allowed to play only one table? Should everyone be forced to play four tables, just because, this is, what I prefer, and otherwise the game is not fair to me? This is of course complete nonsense. And its just as much nonsense, that someone is being “cheated”, because they have selected to not use a HUD, even when its allowed.

ldw22 said:

Yeah, my point exactly, give the players a choice - and, by doing so, also make the beginners/casual players aware that HUDs exist (I didn't know about HUDs for my first couple years of playing, and they had been around a while).

Click to expand...

This is a fair point. Poker sites could state more clearly, what third party software they allow, and what this software does. Today this is often something, you need to read with small print in the TOS, which frankly a lot of players dont even read. Even though of course they should


That being said there is an awfull lot of free poker training material on the internet these days, and if you watch or read any of this, its kind of difficult to not become aware, that HUDs exist. So I also cant help to think, that if people play poker for 2 years without become aware, that HUDs exist, then they probably also missed out on a lot of other usefull information

Dlbcanuck said:

I think they should keep HUDS out of the lower priced tables where the new players mostly show up. For the higher end tables most of the more serious players all have HUD software so its an ]even playing field. Some people love to keep slamming the new players in the lower stakes and allowing them to use HUDs only helps them.

Click to expand...

Good point.

HUDs are helpful but they're not the answer.

Dlbcanuck said:

I think they should keep HUDS out of the lower priced tables where the new players mostly show up. For the higher end tables most of the more serious players all have HUD software so its an ]even playing field. Some people love to keep slamming the new players in the lower stakes and allowing them to use HUDs only helps them.

Click to expand...

Yes this is actually a fair point, and I would not particularly mind, if 2NL and 5NL tables became HUD free along with say 1$ tournaments. For people playing those limits the investment in the best programs like PT4 or HM2 is also fairly large. While if you play 10NL or higher, its not that significant compared to the bankroll, you need.

Another solution would be to limit multi tabling at these very low limits, where most beginners hang out. When PokerStars still allowed you to search other players, I sometimes did this with 2NL players and found, they were on 15 different tables and playing only like 11% of hands. So basically just nut peddling on auto pilot.

If 2NL is mainly a learning tool for beginners, why allow anything more than 2 entrys. This is the most, beginners will be playing anyway. Then maybe 4 tables could be allowed at 5NL and 6 at 10NL or higher. Such a move would motivate regulars to move up to limits, where it can reasonably be argued, they belong, and where they also generate more rake.

I started using a HUD because I felt like if I didn't I was toast. I am not adept enough to dig into stats while playing but it has opened my eyes to what kinds of things to look for in my game and my opponents games to help me improve.

fundiver199 said:

Another solution would be to limit multi tabling at these very low limits, where most beginners hang out.

Click to expand...

Seem like I am not the only one, who got this idea, since basically at the time, I wrote this, PokerStars announced their new 4 table cap for cash tables

This is a very controversial decision, but let's look at things properly.
The level of professionals is growing every year and fewer new players are plaing online poker.
For my opinion, the main task is to increase the poker room traffic today and ban huds seems like a not bad idea.
More people = more turnaments = higher prizes.

For me it is the right way. More direction Old School, where you can not see all the statistics. I think it's good to have to make notes again without a software. I would wish that even stars someday prohibits the Hud.

Yes, it’s very cool that makes party poker, it goes up and strive to become the main contender of poker number 1

This goes to show you how bad I have fallen off the planet!!

I have only just realised PP has banned HUDs, I was wondering why my stats wasn't showing up when I played there a week or so ago

fundiver199 said:

Agree but to compare with the situation in online poker, the amateur team would have chosen to shoot into a higher and smaller net, or have a player less, because they could not assemble a complete team. This is a fair comparison, because its not like, some players can use HUDs in online poker, but others can not.

I prefer to play four tables at a time, and for sure this also put me at a disadvantage compared to people playing only one. I often have to make decisions faster and split my attention between multible hands, and I am not able to pay so much attention to hands, I am not involved in.

So am I being “cheated” then, because people are allowed to play only one table? Should everyone be forced to play four tables, just because, this is, what I prefer, and otherwise the game is not fair to me? This is of course complete nonsense. And its just as much nonsense, that someone is being “cheated”, because they have selected to not use a HUD, even when its allowed.


This is a fair point. Poker sites could state more clearly, what third party software they allow, and what this software does. Today this is often something, you need to read with small print in the TOS, which frankly a lot of players dont even read. Even though of course they should


That being said there is an awfull lot of free poker training material on the internet these days, and if you watch or read any of this, its kind of difficult to not become aware, that HUDs exist. So I also cant help to think, that if people play poker for 2 years without become aware, that HUDs exist, then they probably also missed out on a lot of other usefull information

Click to expand...

My first two years of playing poker were a good while ago now - I mean, not before the birth of the internet, but far enough back that I took an actual book out of an actual library to learn basic rules and strategy! There were far fewer online resources back then, and none that I found back then mentioned HUDs, so it's a fair point that my outlook on that is probably a bit outdated, maybe beginner players these days become aware more or less straight away that HUDs are available...

But even if beginners nowadays are aware of HUDs, going back to my (admittedly kinda tenuous!) basketball analogy, it's like an amateur team shooting into a smaller, higher net (I.E. playing without a HUD), because otherwise they'd have to pay a surcharge for the court owner to set up the lower, larger net (I.E. they'd have to purchase HUD software). And they're playing against pros who easily afforded the surcharge for the larger net, but wouldn't have needed it against the amateur team anyway. So the pros would have easily won the game anyway, but with the large-v-small net advantage, the pros absolutely wipe the floor with the amateurs, so the amateurs don't ever come back to the courts -

and that's a big part of the issue, for me. Poker sites need to do more to drive up the numbers of recreational players (the ratio of sharks to fish at the moment is not ideal). Seems like Party Poker has at least made an effort to do that by banning HUDs. The sharks will still get the fish, but it'll take them a bit longer, so hopefully the fish won't be scared away from those waters permanently!

P.S. As for you playing four tables at a time, you're aware that other players are allowed to play just one table, and you wouldn't have to pay any surcharge in order to play one table and give it your full attention, so it's informed consent from you and that's the key difference. Some beginners don't know about HUDs, so they're not informed; and some beginners can't afford/can't justify the cost of HUD software but still really want to try out microstakes online poker, so it's not quite consent, they just didn't have a choice... but now, of course, they can choose to play at Party Poker to avoid opponents with HUDs, so if they know about Party Poker's ban on HUDs but still choose to play at Stars/wherever else, then it IS informed consent, so good luck to them - cos they're gonna need it!