Ok actually there can still be quite some counter arguments like zoom isn't 'real' poker
and personally I can only imagine feeling dizzy after a while getting a different player every hand.
Tho it would get rid of the extreme bumhunting.

Why not have some regtable/zoom hybrid?
You got a global zoom pool and after joining you get seated with one opponent for 10-20 hands or w/e (amount should be smallish for rec players).
That would get rid of the bumhunting and be more enjoyable than normal zoom tables for recs & regs alike I'd assume.
Recs can chat better than @ zoom if they desire and regs can play more volume w/o getting a headache and more importantly, get action.

Obv there will be a mechanic/punishment required for leaving/disconnecting during a match, one that is just enough to make it unprofitable leaving a match early.

all big boys here, still most of you just playing fish by themself... or are b/e since ages cause they are so cool to battle "everyone", sitout immediatly at 6max table when fish leaves, are not willing to build tables etc. etc.

bumhunting/tableselection is part of the games and guess what there are still fishes willing to play even when they realize they are hunted! Or do you guys rly think everyone who sucks at poker is so dumb to dont realize the obv?!

Ok TrollAccount

That seems really over complicated and unnecessary.

Zoom only also sounds pretty horrible.

I'd vote to just reduce the number of max tables at a given stake if you want to promote action...

Yeah I think 5 to 10 open tables that you have to fight to get (eg King of the Hill), and zoom at all levels. That way if you want to battle out versus 1 person specifically you get to do it, but most of the action should be at zoom.

Zoom gets regs playing each other, usually 1 fish joining gets each reg joining many tables to get most hands vs the fish, which ends in battling (which is a good thing).

FWIW of the ~ 50 to 70 400->1k HUPLO bumhunters about 5 to 10 actually play zoom (even when there is a fish)

Glad to see that most people agree that addressing rake is the number #1 priority. Does anybody know if 6m plo is different than hu rake? In the past 2 months i've played a bunch of huplo at small stakes and over the sample 41bb/100 is being raked out of games at the .25/.50 level and 26bb/100 raked out of games at .5/1

CV-thread is open, voting will start next week afaik

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...-only-1432844/

Does asking to lower the low stakes rake mean we are asking to raise the high stakes rake?

no?

afaik, high stakes rake is a pretty low portion of Stars' overall profit anyways

yes. this is what happened the last time low stakes rake was lowered.

+1

Also, add "add table" button.

Limited KotH + HU Zoom seems smart for midstakes+. Is there someone opposed to it, or should I bring it up at the meeting?

I think forcing HU to be zoom only is very bad idea. People should be able to battle specific players when they want to. I think the HU lobby is close to perfect now, they just need an add table button.

Was referring to this, not zoom-only.

Obv, if there's no consensus it's not worth the time

Ban HUDs once and for all. And if you don't want to ban them, then Pokerstars should add every single statistic known to man right at the table. Either allow and add them into the software or ban them altogether. There is no reason anyone should gain advantage learning 3rd party software.

Obviously this will never happen. You got my vote though.

Not zoom only, but zoom focused. Huge difference. 5 to 10 bumhunter tables (as I call them), and zoom at all levels up to nosebleeds. Action would be focused in zoom instead of the bumhunting, which is rampant still. I don't know if you checked, but 50 people sitting in a lobby with 1 table running is not anything in the remote proximity of "close to perfect"

Other features are the "add a table" button, which I agree with.

We can also possibly have some sort of "request HU match" software feature, so that you don't have to fight for a table on the KotH system to get a HU match agaisnt a particular player. I am only raising this idea because there are certain people (you know who you are) that don't respect people wanting to play HU at deep/ante tables.

I have to agree with this. We've had numerous PLO player reps in the past and even dedicated PLO reps at the IOM just to discuss PLO and a rake reduction was not on the table.

I think promotions designed to increase the popularity amongst recreational players is a much more effective (and realistic) way of putting money in the pockets of PLO regulars. The higher percentage of recs per table will soften the games.

Pokerstars has shown that they won't put an extra emphasis on one game type over others... (except zoom of course ) so why not a mission free roll type promo where players can get included into one of 4 escalating prize pool free rolls by completing a challenge of:

Play 1 hand of 3 different game types during this week
Play 10 hands of 3 different game types during this week
Play 100 hands of 3 different game types during this week
Play 500 hands of 3 different game types during this week

The higher the challenge the higher the prizepool.
This type of promo would attract players to try out new game types and they may decide at the end of the week that they've enjoyed the game and will stick with it.

If you want it on the table you got to understand first why it's not.

I would have to assume the past 10 reps know the answer and I don't think it's time well spent for the next batch of reps to add to that total as nothing will get accomplished.

Then please -someone- tell me what the answer is.

Rake reduction not on the table?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...-rake-1346788/

While the results were insufficient, doesn't mean there's no hope, nor that Stars isn't willing to listen.

PLO rake has to be on the table, and, at the risk of sounding populist, I'll put it there if it's not.

Heh.. I remember back in summor of 2013 (or was it earlier.. cant remember) I got a phone call from some pokerstars rep talking about how they had "lowered rake by 3%" and I should come play again.

"Oh, so instead of paying $1000 in rake per month as a platinum star I now only pay $970? Sick, one cheeseburger reduction daily"

this man has my vote

Micro PLO rake is still ridic high.

Let's look at these numbers (rake per 100 hands) in a broader perspective:

Stake	FLH	NLH	PLO
2NL	--	0.25	0.50
5NL	0.14	0.52	1.13
10NL	0.43	1.02	1.95
25NL	0.86	2.35	4.59
50NL	1.80	4.23	7.94
100NL	4.95	6.91	12.77
200NL	6.23	10.02	18.79
400NL	9.56	13.03	24.70

How much rake do you think NLO8 players pay?


Indeed, the problem is on our side; we keep playing the same record and ignore what they say.
If we want to achieve anything at least we should understand their arguments as well as ours and change our tune accordingly.