Why are gold diggers socially accepted and prostitution isn't? Give the same activity another name and suddenly many people develop a different opinion on the matter.

If anything the capability of buying hands gives everyone equal chances to analyze their opponents better. If it wasn't possible the guys with better social capabilities would be rewarded in a vastly superior way. So if we want poker to be a game were the most skilled players in the actual game are rewarded then hand histories should be available to everyone.

If there was a way to prevent everyone from sharing databases it would be a better solution because it would greatly improve the longevity of many poker ecosystems. But of course that's not possible.

Should combining databases be against TOS?

Observation about lawmaking in general: Rules/laws that can not be enforced serve no purpose.

-Where are you guys on this issue?

The TOS issue does not compute for me (as the aforementioned observation renders the question meaningless to me). That said, sharing or buying hand histories to exploit the field feels wrong to me, I dont do it, and I would prefer others didn't.

How can we really draw a clear line between what's ok and what's not, and how rational is that line?

We sometimes can't. Then we are down to individual ethics (what feels right) and integrity (do what you think is right, also when nobody is looking).

How much difference do you see between this, and straight up buying batches of hands?

None. Sharing is buying for zero cost.

So if we want poker to be a game were the most skilled players in the actual game are rewarded then hand histories should be available to everyone.

Agree, since an unenforceable TOS would punish those who follow it and reward those who break it with zero consequences. The sites could let everyone download obfuscated hand histories for free for those who wanted to study player pool tendencies.

Many will have tendency to bend the rules or circumvent them as much as possible for personal gain even without considering the morals and ethics , and some others will find excuses why they have to do the same ...like: everyone else is doing it, why would I be at disadvantage for not doing what everyone else is doing, or...smart person will always find a good excuse to do the unethical thing without guilty conscious over it ( brain will smoothen over it in forms of all possible reasonable and even SF excuses)
Most morale people will contemplate the issue and how to approach the problem, but that usually doesn't lead anywhere except a little futile philosophical exercise.
When we start to be hurt by indecent behaviour in large enough numbers, the urgency for problem solving will eventually reach the responsible instances , and hopefully be solved .
When there is room for rule bending, they will be bent, and it takes time for decency to take over the short term gains that eventually hurt us back.
Online poker is young, it takes time :-)

True. Which brings up a philosophical question (to sidetrack a
little): If a TOS rule is unenforceable, and therefore pointless, and
you break it with zero consequences, have you then done something
wrong?

Love it! New question:

Is the rule rooted in integrity, or protecting bias out of fear?

First, it seems to be protecting fish, and regs who haven't played enough to build a large database.

This isn't sustainable protection though, because competitive regs will eventually build a large enough personal database anyway.

So there's actually only one real factor left, and it's time. The TOS serves to prolong the inevitable. (It also ensures that your database consists of only hands from your own tables, but that doesn't seem very relevant when we're dealing with large samples to begin with.)

in 2009 players in casinos would talk about how "there's these guys making a killing online just by playing the HUD numbers!". That's a massive under-assessment of the skill still necessary to optimize after gaining vision over an environment, especially one as complex as poker. A lot of people with HUD's suck. A lot of people with large databases suck. The success barriers are thick regardless of your vision over the pools.

The TOS is basically saying "it's ok to optimize your winrate vs. fish and lazy regs, as long as you wait 6 months to build your own database!" That doesn't protect anything from a place of integrity. Integrity is binary, you can't make it conditional on a count-down. It doesn't become "ok" to manipulate someone just because you waited your turn. I think you have to eliminate tracking software altogether, or encourage it and let the cream rise to the top a little faster. Sites that protect fish and bad regs at the expense of the best regs are shady as fuck. Like, it's 2016 and we are still trying protect people from finding out this is a skill game? It's just bad business. Fuck Pokerstars, I hope they're serving Phil tea on a blanket some day. I didn't expect to get all turnt up but now i've gone and done it to myself!

i wish i wouldve said feeding Phil grapes on a blanket.

I don't get what is the problem? I buy hands by the millions from hhsmithy.com

I dont see a problem with it, especially on the anonymous sites.
Agree with CLoud :D good points

Another RIO user and myself got into a big argument about this a few months ago, nice topic Nick!

The TOS is basically saying "it's ok to optimize your winrate vs. fish and lazy regs, as long as you wait 6 months to build your own database!" That doesn't protect anything from a place of integrity. Integrity is binary, you can't make it conditional on a count-down. It doesn't become "ok" to manipulate someone just because you waited your turn. I think you have to eliminate tracking software altogether, or encourage it and let the cream rise to the top a little faster.

-- Applause --

I can't see any flaw in this reasoning, and it seems to me the only logical conclusion we can reach. Either keep the TOS free of ineffective rules and stop pretending anybody is being protected, or forbid tracking software altogether and let the sites' tech departments work hard to enforce that.

I'm not a tech wizard, but I assume that forbidding tracking software would only reward those with the tech skills to circumvent it (I refuse to believe that it's hard). Hence, removing TOS rules regarding sharing of hand histories seems better.

To aid the non-tech-savvy recs in their plight against the regs, the sites can implement simple client HUDs (that can read from the hand history folder to accumulate history on your opponents) as a table option with a FAQ to help them use it. Yes, we all know that this would only serve as an illusion that the battle field has been levelled, but at least it would be an act of integrity.

A very interesting topic when put like that. Discussing and sharing between friends I feel is fine, personally, but I do find being able to purchase hands somewhat morally suspect.

Agree. I think sites that sell hand histories have to get cut out of the picture . if the poker sites took full responsibility for making all hands available, it would clean things up a lot. The site could even charge a small fee, and it would still feel less sketchy, b/c there's no middle man.

Charging a fee isn't conductive to a fair game.

Personally, I think sites should provide it all. At the moment we have a similar situation where guns are illegal, so only criminals have guns.

Buying hand histories and sharing dbs seems a bit shady for the same reasons as MAing - you play people when you know a lot about their game and they don't necessarily know anything about yours.

If I could find someone kind enough to share their big, recent database with me so I can do some population work I would be very happy. One of those all hole cards exposed databases would be especially fruitful. I would share my findings with that person or send them a bunch of flowers.

Haven't read most of the other replies. My standard answer is that db merging is completely undetectable and unenforceable so therefore it should not be against TOS. However, I believe that ghosting (playing on someone else's account or instructing someone how to play through something like teamviewer) should pretty clearly be against TOS, even though this is also essentiallly undetectable and unenforceable. Where to draw the line here is a difficult decision.

I think that anything but seeing holecards in real time at the tables is just kind of "meh" in terms of some having edge over others. Do you play the same now as last week? Probably not, players change their game continously and as your sample size grows the more it will mask their new style/tendencies.

Sure being able to update a full player pool db anytime you wish would hurt the ecosystem a bit since regs could exploit the lesser players a bit faster. I guess the effect gets bigger the higher you move in stakes since the all the regs will be sharks hunting for any slim edge thet can find.

After having played on Unibet I think the best would be if poker rooms could provide an environment without huds or trackers. Just level the playing field and reward the players that actually go the extra mile to analyse their game. Best way is just give players the option to change their nick as often they want, then database/huds are quite useless.

Nick said : "They merge their databases to press variance. Big problem."

I would just ask, are you playing online?

Nick leads us down the path of "No big deal...." and it seems like each is very similar to the other.

But there is one HUGE difference: You have agreed to the TOS.

You go to bed with beautiful women before you are married (perhaps as often as possible?)

You go to bed with beautiful women after you are married (perhaps as often as possible?)

no problem right? (assuming not an open marriage)

So Nick, what is your word worth?

I don't play on PokerStars , so their TOS don't apply to me. No one ever debates that part.
Why is there a debate about the TOS of sites I DO play on?

Because it becomes inconvenient for me to follow the TOS.

TK

Zenfish writes: "Observation about lawmaking in general: Rules/laws that can not be enforced serve no purpose."

I totally disagree with this.

As a society we decide what is moral, and of that we consider immoral, what we attempt to enforce by rules/law.

Zen is smart enough that I know it is probably not as simple as he states, but just in case....

enforcement is a continuum. It is not absolute. Most people in the US speed. If the limit is 40, on average, the population goes faster. Sometimes a lot faster. There are also laws to enforce going too slow. Very few tickets for that :)

If 50 percent of all speeders are never caught is it worth still enforcing? What about 80%? What about 99.9% ?

Where do you draw the line on what becomes meaningless?

How many murders are solved in the United States?

Hate crimes according to Mother Jones (first google site I clicked on) yield this...

"2013 study, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that only 4 percent of these (hate) crimes even result in an arrest."

so, should "hate crimes" be taken off the books?

Some rules/laws function as a reminder of our general ethical framework for the environment we are in.

TK

I'm against the sharing of databases. I don't mind that one person, put in blood, sweat, tears, and tons of time to play and compile their own database. I don't mind that another person did the same. But this is a competitive game, if we combine their efforts by combining their databases, that is collusion in my mind. Keep the fruits of your own labor but using those of another is taking it too far.

I feel it's the same as with chess databases. Everyone can look at other people's games, and everyone does it. You might just have to pay a little or torrent it.

You are just trying to rationalize cheating here. There is no gray area, it's a rule that you can look up. A poker site wants to protect their bottom line by making the ecosystem more healthy. They can do that within the rules of regulation, it's a (somewhat) free market.

Someone approached me on Discord to buy your video content for a fraction of the price. Your rule might be 'no reselling', but what do you do to enforce that rule? Things are not okay just because you can get away with it. Imagine how the modern world would look if everyone would act out that premise?

I've seen some of your content and it's valuable for sure. But your narcissism makes it somewhat hard to get to get through. You don't need to use a broad vocabulary to explain all these simple concepts. When I found this thread I immediately recognized the same narcissism I heard in the videos. You are an intelligent guy, but you need to open your eyes to see that your ego is filtering out just the right things. You know you opened this topic because something was telling you people would agree and you feel better about yourself. This was probably right before you started selling that Night Vision pack and your conscience was nudging you something is wrong.

So tell me this, is what I just wrote complete bullshit? Do you really believe it's fair to gain this illegal advantage over everyone that doesn't do this just because you think a poker site doesn't have the right to treat you like this?