[FuzzyDunlop]

eBay of course do sell the analytics going back a year through an affiliate (Terrapeak) and there are numerous websites that take data from the last 28 days completed items search available to all...

I don't have a problem with anonymous poker in principal -- it's another option people don't have to use. That is predicated though on it being a properly regulated environment, which offshore is not, so the oversight removed by anonymous play is worrying.

Was using EBay as a generic example in my rant. Terrapeak is for the sellers to make more money, bringing fees up. If there is a tool where the focus is on buyers that can pay less in real time by looking up other people bidding on an auctions habits, I'm not aware of it. The 3rd party software in poker works on the opposite in that sharps kill fish in less hands, generating less rake.

[prop]

The sense of entitlement from those that think they are sharp is astounding, claiming they run the games, generate rake etc when all they've done for the last few years on Bodog is drive away casual players.

This part of the post completely lost me. Bodog had the softest games before the launch. This is all about Bodog viewing those who cash out as their competitors. Poker is a skill game and the objective is to win money. You can take away the top 1% but from there a new top 1% develops and gets stronger so therefore you can only imaginary take it away and put short ripples in the market. (some one will always be driving away the casual players). Running honest games I don't believe their software accomplishes jack so it has me wondering does Bodog lack intelligence, integrity or both? The advise here is when using Bodog stick to the areas you can't be cheated, and if you venture outside those because you believe you might have an edge, be on high alert and realize if you do get cheated this was a risk you voluntarily took.

Also: I don't blame SBR for not taking a side here - at this point there is no evidence players are getting cheated, the sportsbook works fine etc. The only question I'd have is this: Is depositing with Bodog a greater, lesser or equal risk today then it was one week ago.

Quoted Payout delivery time were 7 days. Then went the 15, then a few days later (today) went to "within three weeks". Will tomorrow they be within 1 month and the next day within 2 months? Will they meet the time frames quoted? Chances are the two quick changes are due to high demand of players wanting to cash out now. With bodog scheduled to change their name and re-brand on January 1 this is probably going to create new withdrawals. When a lot of people are cashing out there are more risks! How much more risks? No idea unless having Bodog's full financials that's impossible to gauge.

I don't see much cause for concern on the sports side other than there is a higher risk now due to a ton of people cashing out and changes that are about to go down (again non quantifiable from my perspective to what level that risk now is) Siding with caution for now will be a good idea, actually a great idea as in come back next season if all is well and use someone else for now. These are obviously for preemptive reasons, Bodog might be safer than safe, is not currently cheating players, has had okay to great payment processing since their 2008 fiasco ended. Just a challenge here, I personally want to see how they do with that prior to starting back up with them, but again this is for 100% preemptive reasons only.

[SBR_John]

Bodog's stance is that the sharp players have killed their ecosystem. Heads up cash games had 30 or more tables with one shark sitting waiting on a fish for years. There are programs like pokertracker and hold em manager that give players a ton of information they normally wouldn't be privy to if they were datamining or buying datamined hands and other programmers wrote programs that specifically reformatted hand histories from the Bodog format to theirs. There are websites that list cash game results, sit and goes, tournament results all while shilling their own affiliate links or requiring payment for access or like in the case of the site that found this exploit, just blatantly selling intellectual property of data they had no part in creating.

Coming from my Digital Forensics background, I can't fathom the balls of someone selling information like this for a profit except that they know they most likely won't face repercussion due to the industry. Couldn't imagine Ebay letting someone sell off data analytics of auctions to people to aid in them getting lower prices and making more money. Some sites were banning players for having hands in their personal database that they didn't have a part in, some sites like Cake gave players the ability to change screenames (which is super ironic as most of these butthurt sharps change their name on cake when the fish won't give them action and are now crying about anonymous tables)

The sense of entitlement from those that think they are sharp is astounding, claiming they run the games, generate rake etc when all they've done for the last few years on Bodog is drive away casual players.

Hard hitting. Thanks for the brief.

To a sports guy like myself, I'm not sure I would ever want to be the fish at the fish fry. I do get how the sophisticated guys feel. I'd feel the same way.

The thought of guys who have bought my playing history and are now waiting for me to sit at a table is kind of creepy.

[FuzzyDunlop]

This part of the post completely lost me. Bodog had the softest games before the launch. This is all about Bodog viewing those who cash out as their competitors. Poker is a skill game and the objective is to win money. You can take away the top 1% but from there a new top 1% develops and gets stronger so therefore you can only imaginary take it away and put short ripples in the market. (some one will always be driving away the casual players).

Bodog is a little different than the other sites as it offers anything you can bet on in Vegas. Poker is offered to get people that would never deposit on a straight casino site to deposit where just like in Vegas, the good players will win consistently and contribute to the pit drop. Don't get me wrong, there are war stories about how great the Bodog games where on Sunday nights during the 06 NFL season, but you had a ton of legitimate marketing on US tv/radio bringing in the fish. The fish aren't coming in the numbers the company would like, getting killed faster because those sharps that have ripped on Bodog for years only to have it be one of three options post Black Friday aren't playing craps and this is their solution.

The attitude of the outrage of the sharps is similar to an obese man that destroys the $8 Chinese Lunch Buffet 6 days a week being asked to take his business elsewhere claiming it's a free country, he can do what he wants.

[SBR Lou]

You seem pretty gun ho about this anonymous poker stuff. So let me ask you. Why doesn't SBR implement anonymous poker? SBR is attempting to make their product better, why not make the tables anonymous? This is clearly what the masses want, right? You guys have the capabilities. Lets do it guys! Why not?

I actually don't feel as though I have a dog in this fight. I thought Monkeyf0cker and FuzzyD did a good job breaking things down.

There's always going to be extreme positions for or against. Looking at it through the eyes of a poker player who enjoys using third-party software, it's easy to see why the update isn't well received. Considering it from a business perspective, it's not tough to conclude that Bodog may not want their sportsbook players who may frequent the poker rooms to be hunted by poker sharps (maybe even SBRforum poker sharps ) using the aforementioned software.

No matter how you slice it, it's ultimately the book's right to disable, show, randomize or even capitalize the usernames. It's certainly a good and interesting discussion either way.

[lunchbawks]

Withdraw all funds, whenever these poker sites have a major security issue, things seem to snowball.

[icancount2one]

A statement from Jonas Ödman Vice President, Bodog Network
http://calvinayre.com/2011/12/01/pok...ftware-update/ (link provided by bodog becky)

We have talked about Bodog Recreational Poker Model for over two years, and I have noticed that many competitors nowadays say what we are saying: that recreational players are important. But in reality not much has changed, poker sites still run rake races and other promotions clearly aimed at attracting winning players. An example of not getting it quite right is how Party Poker and Microgaming have implemented Anonymous Tables. At those sites they are an alternative to normal tables. The problem with that is that the net depositing players who would benefit from playing anonymously do not realize that and sit down at the normal tables. The winning players then follow the net depositing players which means that nobody plays at the anonymous tables.

Cliffs:
They admit they only want losing players (net-depositing)

They admit that they cannot offer anonymity as optional, because when given a choice, players choose not to sit at the anonymous tables. EVEN THE LOSING ONES THEY CLAIM THEY ARE TRYING TO PROTECT.

Bodog, when there is more competition in the US poker market again, do you think anyone will choose to stay with you? You have a huge opportunity that you are squandering.

[donjuan]

I actually don't feel as though I have a dog in this fight. I thought Monkeyf0cker and FuzzyD did a good job breaking things down.

There's always going to be extreme positions for or against. Looking at it through the eyes of a poker player who enjoys using third-party software, it's easy to see why the update isn't well received. Considering it from a business perspective, it's not tough to conclude that Bodog may not want their sportsbook players who may frequent the poker rooms to be hunted by poker sharps (maybe even SBRforum poker sharps ) using the aforementioned software.

No matter how you slice it, it's ultimately the book's right to disable, show, randomize or even capitalize the usernames. It's certainly a good and interesting discussion either way.

Most of the anger has nothing to do with losing HUDs. I never used one. It has to do with the following:

-No oversight to track Bodog stealing via super-users. Given their Kahnawake connections, this would come as no surprise.
-No oversight to stop colluders. You just have to trust Bodog to catch them, which they are too inept to do.
-Claims the new software was safe and unhackable which were blatantly false
-After ease of hack was discovered, they deleted comments on Facebook related to that issue and rather than taking it seriously proceeded to make fun of the situation.
-They continue to lie about the security of the poker client
-The move to anonymous poker was done under the claim that it was to protect the rec players from people who aren't mindless idiots. How do you reconcile that with Bodog saying that if you want to hack their software, you are free to? Isn't that the opposite of protecting unaware rec players?

Edit: Don't pretend you don't have a dog on the fight. Those ads Bodog pays for at the top here pay you to spam the inboxes of SBR posters.

[RudyRuetigger]

Most of the anger has nothing to do with losing HUDs. I never used one. It has to do with the following:

-No oversight to track Bodog stealing via super-users. Given their Kahnawake connections, this would come as no surprise.
-No oversight to stop colluders. You just have to trust Bodog to catch them, which they are too inept to do.
-Claims the new software was safe and unhackable which were blatantly false
-After ease of hack was discovered, they deleted comments on Facebook related to that issue and rather than taking it seriously proceeded to make fun of the situation.
-They continue to lie about the security of the poker client
-The move to anonymous poker was done under the claim that it was to protect the rec players from people who aren't mindless idiots. How do you reconcile that with Bodog saying that if you want to hack their software, you are free to? Isn't that the opposite of protecting unaware rec players?

not sure how people can miss these points

[donjuan]

It should also be noted that HUDs are not banned by Bodog and if they wanted to get rid of HUDs they could have just banned them since Pokertracker doesn't allow HUDs on sites where they are against the TOS. But that solution wouldn't have given Bodog free reign to use super-users to steal millions from their players, would it?

[indio]

I'm curious as to which types of clients they want out, and which ones they want to stay. I'm a winning poker player who enjoys the strategic element of the game, who loses 40% of my poker winnings betting sports, golf, horses, and the occasional foray into the casino. I'm willing to bet into higher hold futures, and play sucker games like horses because I enjoy it and my money is already on site. I never deposit, but I spread my poker winnings around on their other products as entertainment. I really don't know if I'm wanted or not, but the less I make playing poker, the less I'm willing to play on the other games.

As far as the new software goes, it's terrible. I have never used a HUD, and I can understand wanting to get rid of HUD users. I do however have a HUGE problem with the fact that the hands are dealt so much slower now, that the blind levels increase with very few hands between levels, and the game gets so slow, it's a bore. I'm not joking when I say that by the time a Heads Up Sit and Go reaches the 50/100 level, the game is slower than a live dealer. And all the "recreational" and losing players I've talked to during games do not like the new software. So I really don't understand their intentions, and I wish they would make those much clearer without all the propoganda and public relations bs.

[Trident]

I'm curious as to which types of clients they want out, and which ones they want to stay.

Jonas Odman Vice president of Bodog Network

“Winning players are withdrawing players, and as a poker network, our revenue will increase the fewer withdrawing players we have.”

Pretty much says it all.

[BeerDog99]

Forget of all of this discussion about sharps/sharks and unfair software.... blah blah blah.

Even (try) to forget about the security issues/concerns/coverup..... blah blah blah.

What keeps getting glossed over and re-stated as if it was a fact is a basic tennant that is just not true..

Player against player 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...... is in NO WAY similar to like playing live AT ALL.

In live play, every player (good and bad), can and does make mental notes about the players at the table and what their tendancies and actions have been. Once you have been at a table for a few orbits, you get an idea of this and when someone stands up and leaves, you know the next player is new and the process (for that new user) starts again.

With these anonymous tables, you have absolutely no way of thinking and keeping track of a persons playing style because they all look alike with nothing really to tell them apart (other than a number). You dont know if somebody left and a new person or if they came back....etc.

To me, this comes ever so close to a basic casino table game because there is absolutely no way for your ability to outshine the luck factor.

Not to say the other issues are not important (they have already been covered by smarter people than I), it is just this basic point that this really changes the play of the game is missed overall by the people that are defending these Bodog changes.

[kyleb]

Most of the anger has nothing to do with losing HUDs. I never used one. It has to do with the following:

-No oversight to track Bodog stealing via super-users. Given their Kahnawake connections, this would come as no surprise.
-No oversight to stop colluders. You just have to trust Bodog to catch them, which they are too inept to do.
-Claims the new software was safe and unhackable which were blatantly false
-After ease of hack was discovered, they deleted comments on Facebook related to that issue and rather than taking it seriously proceeded to make fun of the situation.
-They continue to lie about the security of the poker client
-The move to anonymous poker was done under the claim that it was to protect the rec players from people who aren't mindless idiots. How do you reconcile that with Bodog saying that if you want to hack their software, you are free to? Isn't that the opposite of protecting unaware rec players?

This is pretty well stated.

BTW, if people couldn't figure it out, I'm the voice from the videos.

Thanks for giving this issue the attention it deserves.

[MonkeyF0cker]

And how was it found they were making strange plays incompatible with winning poker? From tracking sites who showed their play was completely incompatible with winning without cheating like this graph shows.



Beyond that, there are numerous problems with anonymous play online. You can play at a cash table for 10 minutes, stand up, go south and then sit back down without anyone knowing if you were the same guy sitting there before or not while you've watched and know the other people are still the same. Pretty big advantage for anyone who isn't the most ethical.

You say it's like playing in a casino where you don't know people but if you've ever been to a casino or card room you know very well that you see a lot of the same regs every day. And you certainly know if someone left and came back or not.

A much better way to go about this would be to let players change their screen names once every so often. That would help alleviate some of the other concerns while making HUDs much less effective.

The suspicion arose from single table play. The proof came from player tracking. However, the proof could also come from player logs. I do agree that there are certainly holes in the way they've implemented their anonymous tables. However, I do like the step it takes, and perhaps short term screen names would be something they'd consider.

[MonkeyF0cker]

It should also be noted that HUDs are not banned by Bodog and if they wanted to get rid of HUDs they could have just banned them since Pokertracker doesn't allow HUDs on sites where they are against the TOS. But that solution wouldn't have given Bodog free reign to use super-users to steal millions from their players, would it?

I just fail to see how they would need to take this step in order to steal money from players. They were already perfectly capable of creating and changing screen names (as any site is). If their motives were to actually steal millions, surely they wouldn't have needed to implement the anonymous tables.

[skrtelfan]

When I sit at a real game I know no one at the table has detailed stats on me. If they are not good enough players to read me with their own brain then they don't beat me as much.

If I've played with you before and you play especially poorly or especially well, I'll probably remember how you play. When I began playing online poker many years ago the tracking software didn't exist so I kept manual notes. At an anonymous table, I can't even do that. An anonymous table is completely unlike anything that exists in brick and mortar or anywhere online.

[BeerDog99]

if i've played with you before and you play especially poorly or especially well, i'll probably remember how you play. When i began playing online poker many years ago the tracking software didn't exist so i kept manual notes. At an anonymous table, i can't even do that. an anonymous table is completely unlike anything that exists in brick and mortar or anywhere online.

^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Optional]

An anonymous table is completely unlike anything that exists in brick and mortar or anywhere online.

So what?

I don't see your point. But a non-anonymous online game is much less like anything that exists in brick and mortar than an anon one. Shouldn't you like anon better then?

[BeerDog99]

So what?

I don't see your point. But a non-anonymous online game is much less like anything that exists in brick and mortar than an anon one. Shouldn't you like anon better then?

Thats not accurate, you are connecting two separate issues.

Granted non-anon tables online generally play differently than live games but it is generally different only in aspects of:

1) generally lower limits online (e.g. 25nl or 50nl) play at the same level of higher limits live (e.g. 200nl)
2) similar/connected to point 1, play is generally more aggressive and/or looser online than live.
3) there are few table changes live
4) Very rarely, if ever, does someone goes south in live games.

Otherwise, they are exactly the same game. Making online games anonymous is akin to making them like regular casino table games. The only reason anonymous helps fish is because there is more luck/gambling an therefore they stay in the money longer.... (and therefore more rake for Bodog )

But either way you look at it, live games are not anonymous and neither should be online games.

[Optional]

I shouldn't really argue as I'm a poker noob, but whether it is like live games or not is not really relevant imho. It's the inherent unfairness of some players having more information than others.

Personally, I'd be happy if the site itself provided HUDs and all the avialable info to all the players too.