Anonymous Reasons

InsidePoker Business: Why was the decision made to make all tables anonymous?

Jonas Odman: We wanted to effectively stop players from using automated tools to track other players' style of play and using that information to their advantage. We call our strategy Bodog Recreational Poker Model and our focus is on the recreational, net depositing players. These tools used against them made the casual players’ experience worse and worse without them understanding why they lost their money so quickly. We want to give them more value for their money, and introducing Anonymous Tables accomplished that.

IPB: What effect has the change had on liquidity and player yields?

JO: After we launched Anonymous Tables we saw a drop in player numbers but the loss was lower than expected and what we are now seeing is the sharper (withdrawing) players that left are being replaced with exactly the type of players we are trying to attract.

IPB:Why was the option not left to the players, for example in permitting name changes?

JO: The players we are trying to protect do not know what they needed protection from. I personally change my screen name as often as I am allowed to when I play on competitors’ sites. I play to win and I know being unknown to fellow winning players will help me. But why would a recreational player change their screen name? They do not know the lengths some players will go to in order to get an edge on them. It is exactly the same as offering anonymous tables only as an option. The players who would benefit from playing anonymously won't play there because they do not know about the tools other players use against them.

IPB:To what extent do you risk taking the 'fun and social' element out of online poker?

JO: Online poker used to be social in the early days but not anymore. How much socializing is going on, really? We still allow players to chat with each other so they can still discuss hands so I do not think we are taking away much.

IPB:What is so bad about external third party tools and why are they bad for the industry?

JO: They are bad because they are helping winning players win money from net depositing players quicker than they otherwise would. Winning players will still win without them but at a slower rate and that gives the net depositing players more entertainment for their money, and that in turn will reduce churn and increase second deposits which are so vital to the eco-system.

IPB:Are you not attempting to put the genie back into the bottle when use of sites such as PTR, tools such as pokertracker and even pokerscout is so widespread?

JO: We have found a very efficient way of stopping the tools now so the genie (or more accurately, gremlin) is gone from the Bodog Network. Now winning players will have to start playing poker again!

IPB:To what extent is the industry, and Bodog in particular, now moving too far in favour of 'handicapping' the game in favour of the fish?

JO: It is the other way around. The unfair tools have handicapped the game in favour of winning players, and we have now managed to stop that. I am sure other poker rooms will follow in our footsteps, or join our network, especially those who are a sportsbook first and foremost, as they do not want their players losing on poker all the time.

IPB:What else needs to change in online poker to make it more recreationally friendly?

JO: The key question is why recreational players play. Most competitors seem to think it is because they 'hope to win’ and build their campaigns around that. I disagree, I think they want to have fun and be entertained and are actually willing to pay for that entertainment. Inevitably part of that experience is winning from time to time but it’s not the primary driver. Our job in the industry is to focus even more on the entertainment aspect, otherwise these players will choose other forms of entertainment.