Running for the red line

Microgaming have made a bold move to eliminate Datamining for users on their network. They’ve blocked hand histories completely.

http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/microgaming-network-attempts-to-curb-online-poker-datamining-7609/

From the article

Players are no longer rewarded for their hard-work: instead, players are rewarded for spending $50 to $100 and receiving data in return. Tracking software has turned breakeven or slight losers into winners by negating the advantage that decent winning players held over them: Work ethic and focus. Poker is equal parts strategy, psychology, and hard work; datamining eliminates the need for the third part.

This is a statement I find difficult to understand. Using a HUD may give a player some additional information and so an edge, but it will never be a substitute for effective observation, and not even close to replacing an ingrained understanding of poker theory.

Also I personally object to the suggestion that a HUD eliminates the need for hard work. I find playing my A game is always hard work.

Is a player playing 30/9 ever going to be on a level playing field against an ABC TAG who’s spent even a short amount of time aquanitng himself with basic strategy?

Is an ABC Tag going to become competitive against a creative and imaginative professional just by using a HUD? .

Fish will always Gamble and the house will always be there to offer them a game on the houses terms. I don’t believe pro grinders are overfishing the waters, and I don’t believe fish need to be a protected species.

From a commercial point of view – the fact that winning players are agressive players, and agressive players build bigger pots that generate more rake, how is it a sound commercial decision to take steps to make your network less appealing to this type of player?

I find it confusing that any poker network would feel that winning players need handicapping in some way. If they subscribe to this theory can we expect them to return to a single deck for blackjack, dealer hits on soft 17 and blackjack pays 3:2? Unlikely!

Maybe a network full of fish is more valuable because they are inclined to play Casino table games.

Edit:
Someone pointed out that players playing 16 tables are much more relient on their HUD
Also this is a good response to the issue