Bastardising poker?

Recently Bodog introduced Anonymous Tables across its poker network. This has caused some controversy among industry commentators. While not everyone is opposed to anonymising player data, some feel this should not be forced onto players as it has unintended consequences on the poker ecosystem.

One view is that removing third-party tools handicaps the game in favour of the fish. I've written in the past about the dangers of using terms like 'fish' and 'sharks' and this is a perfect example. Removing the use of third party tools does not favour fish. It favours a type of player that does not rely on or have access to the kind of data and analysis such tools provide. Is a player that plays better without those tools automatically a fish? I doubt it.

The intention of feature releases should always be to change game experience in a direction that makes the game more fun, engaging and rewarding for players to play. Any change is likely to favour those who thrives under the new game conditions, just like other players thrived under the old. So the game isn’t necessarily any more handicapping after the change than before the change. Changing the criteria for success is not the same as unfairly balancing the game in anyone's favour.

Open to all?

A second more pervasive argument is that these tools are based on data from the site and simply offer a natural extension of the game available to everyone. I have no problem with the argument that offering players extensive data to use to their advantage may make online poker a more engaging game. But my opinion is that doing it the way the industry does it now is wrong because these tools are not, in fact, available to everyone.

That players have to assume that someone else playing the game may have read a book or two about the game that they have not, is reasonable. Having to assume that valuable game data that affects gameplay (but is not featured in the game software) is actually available somewhere else and allowed to be used, is not. Companies like video game developer Blizzard struggle with this all the time. But they've come further in terms of addressing it.

It is perfectly fine for a game developer to decide there are aspects of a game better left for third parties and users to play around with. But that just shifts the developer's responsibility from developing tools and add-ons to policing and spreading information about such additions. Players cannot be expected to search the internet for information regarding key components of a game not built into the game itself. And it is not sufficient to explain in a T&C clause where the line is drawn as far as a site is concerned. Bodog, in this case, are at least are trying to follow through on what they believe is the right approach towards managing the data generated by the game.

Bastardising poker

Lastly there's the argument that removing this skill component from the game bastardises it to the point where it is no longer poker. I am not a poker purist and have been part of releasing some things over the years that have definitely not followed the traditions of poker. Obviously I agree that you walk a fine line once you start eliminating all possible ways in which players can outplay opponents. But one can't limit the discussion to just one of the many ways in which design decisions can affect players' ability to be good at playing the game. In game design circles this is referred to as 'abstraction of skill'.

The way you hold or protect your cards and physically react to events at the table, are two examples of common sources of edge in live poker that are abstracted online. Online poker games, in general, level the playing field by not requiring anything from the player that reflects his or her understanding of how to protect cards or maintaining composure. Another interesting example is the existence of various bet pot buttons. Their very presence help less knowledgeable players make bets that are strategically better than those they may be capable of making on their own.

Some software also displays all-in winning percentages. This is crucial strategic information that does not have to be revealed in order to keep games fair, but definitely helps players understand true hand strength and outs without effort. So the question of whether the game is being manipulated in a fashion that no longer merits it being called poker is a much bigger discussion than third party data mining and real time info display tools.

Levelling the playing field

I don't think there is a right or wrong. It's probably a bad idea to abolish all ways superior knowledge, instincts, guts and wits can provide a leg up. But other than that, different skill abstraction design philosophies represent an excellent and untapped source of true diversification within the industry. As a means of limiting the use of third party tools, anonymous tables can definitely be questioned as can the other effects on the game experience. But whether this feature is wrong is a discussion I believe the industry needs to address in more complex terms than its impact on sharks and fish.