I'd gladly play a 6 handed 1/2 game with Tpir-KPR-Zziggy-St1ck-Schaafsheep (or whatever 5 winning regs are around) if the next highest game around was 10/20. But you **** are so incredibly obsessed with grinding out whatever miniscule amount of Sklansky bucks can be squeezed out of every situation that you forget that you are playing a gambling game.

BAN PTR
BAN HUDS
BAN 2P2
**** YOU

The force is strong with this one.

I am in U.S. and not allowed to play on Pokerstars but was still curious if this situation has improved?

Not really. This is earning a living by playing a skill game for many of the long-term posters in this forum.

Cheers,

--
Kahn

Learned something new today that i thought was worth sharing; Apparently it is never allowed to sit out on just some of your tables. If you sit out on one you have to immediately sit out on all tables according to PS support. Even if you are first and only one to sit out.

Correct Baard?

I'm far from convinced that it's the right solution (says this American who doesn't play Stars any more) but it does have a certain elegance to it.

i do not like this if true.

if it is i really want to know the reasoning behind it because it sounds pointless and yet another thing that is basically impossible to consistently enforce

Is that what you were arguing about with otterkopf yesterday, henholland?

I love it tbh. Play or leave. It's just fair to leave and make room for other players who are willing to play and keep a game going.


Great to be back
BRAZZMONKEY

dunno who did it, but i got reported for taking 2 (i think) breaks at strategically favorable times when recreational player got short on funds. They were short legitimate breaks though, where i sat out as first player on both occasions and i have cleared the air with PS support so its not something to make a fuzz about.

I also welcome this rule btw. No reason you should sit out on one tbl and continue at others

you really willing to just give up your seats on good tables with waitlists if you get HU action from some random who's likely to hit and run? they already boot you after missing 3 orbits. that should be enough imo.

what henholland describes is at least consistent with the current rule though, i do agree with that.

u mean if i sitout at the 6max table while i focus on HU instead? If so, then i think that definitely should be reason to boot me yes

meh, well i disagree ( i think getting booted after 3 orbits is sufficient).... but its a rather minor nitpick anyway

I believe it's 4 orbits now, that changed recently. I think the rule makes sense for people that are keeping extra tables but only playing intermittently on them. Like say my max is 4 tables but I have 6 tables going and play 1-2 orbits on 2 of them, sit out and then swap in the other two I was sitting out at and repeat this process.

I doubt they mean that you have to instantly sit out at all tables when you want to take a break, that makes no sense. There's always going to be a period of seconds to a minute or two while you wait for the blinds to get to you before sitting out. You've got NL players 24 tabling, it would cost them a fortune if that was ever the case.

In case it wasnt clear... By sitout instantly i meant: within one orbit

Yeah I guess I misunderstood what Tryp initially posted. I don't think you should be sitting out at tables intentionally while playing at others. It's not fair to people on the waiting lists. Why should they wait because someone has a good heads up game on another table and can't play X number of tables at one time? And if you are allowed to sit out at tables while playing at others, it opens the door for abuse that I described above.

I think it's a good rule if it is in fact a rule.