pls take me off the list as well.. seems to me it has zero chance of working out, except for maybe at 200/400+ where the player pool is small enough

Surprised St1ckman isn't on the list

Yeah, a lot of the regs were gambling over the past 2 days
and a LOT of people seemed to drop in during the course of it all.

Without a doubt; casual players are attracted to games that are already running.

Yea guys, make sure you inform people sitting out (when the non reg sits out) that it's now against the TOC. If you tell someone and they continue to do it, we should report them.

I wont be online very often the next 2 months and i think the biggest problem should be solved, if everyone is aware of the sit-out rule.
Therefore i follow heisenb3rgs example, meaning: im off the list, but

"I will however keep playing if someone "sits out" and theres a decent chance they'll sit back in.
Also, if their funds are getting low I wont sit out."

There is likely no player itt, that wouldn't love to play him...

Scheduled games sound intersesting though.

the 2nd part:this brings up a big possible angle.

casual players like to join games allready going yep, so how fair is it that lets say 3 sharks are playing, then the fishball sits in, and the 2 more SHARKS insta sit(obv they had table open without sitting and waiting for fish to sit) this is angling that idea, then when fish leaves they will leave... how can that be stopped? hows it fair that the original 3 sharks had to"gamble against each other" to just start the game , know what i mean?

Ok guys, let's just scrap the original proposal then. It's not going to work with 8 players or how many ever are left.

I'm glad something good came out of this thread, i.e. a better understanding of the sit out rules and the possibility of scheduled games. It seemed after this thread was started that the regs were more willing to play an orbit or two after the non-reg left and hopefully that continues in some capacity. As I mentioned there were a few games that restarted as a result and other players have mentioned the same.

When I get back in January, I will play as long as the game is 3-handed or more and if it gets to heads-up, I will always end on my big blind as I promised earlier in the thread. I'd encourage everyone to make an effort to play longer, even if it's only an orbit or whatever. Yeah, you might get buttoned here and there but we also may get some games to start that otherwise wouldn't.

Steve, can Stars please replace the 3 orbit rule by a kick after a certain time? The new sitout rule itself is great but it's not consistent at all with the 3 orbit rule. For now, is it within the rules if I sit out like an orbit or 2 after the nonreg sits out and play another reg hu if the game breaks?

To the other regs: Playing until the nonreg is kicked and break the game after is obviously dumb. I'd suggest that we continue 1 or 2 orbits (1 is safer I guess) and then 2 people play heads up. Finding two players for heads-up shouldnt be too difficult. I'd always be in except if i have too many games.

sometimes live when this happens we draw a card to see how many hands we're going play

maybe somehow stars could implement something like that, if 4 people have a box checked, randomly draw a number between 5 and 10 hands or something and everyone has to play at least that many?

just an idea

i like this idea.

And this should be triggered every time ANYONE leaves the game?

Yeah I think it was mentioned earlier that Stars isn't going to implement anything that differentiates between regs and non-regs and I can't say I blame them.

Steve, earlier in this thread there was a suggestion for implementing a rule which kicks someone if they sit out after another player is already sitting out. You said this would be discriminating to non reg players. Please could you explain why you think this as I don't see it. To me it's just a global seating rule that affects all players.

My view is that in fact this rule would be enforcing your new toc rules 10 & 11 of 'being willing to play'.

It's discriminating to all players. What if someone has to go to the bathroom? They get booted off cause someone else is sitting out?

Would be great to see 8sup get booted from the games when he has to take a ****. He gets pissed off and goes to NL

yeh you got a point, although it could be done in a user friendly way which would minimise the irritation factor. For ex when you check the 'sitout on next bb' box, and it gets to your bb, the software could give you a popup warning you that you will be kicked as there is already a player sitting out and give you a few seconds to sit back in and pay your blind if you wanted to.

it could be triggered everytime one player leave AND if 2(?) or more ppl then click sit-out next bb.

whatever stars think is a suitable "game is breaking" criteria

I'd suggest 4+ ppl having sit-out next bb as criteria, but I guess Stars isnt interested anyway.

We're likely to put effort into a 'solution' that might improve the 'fairness' of how immediately several players sit out when a certain opponent leaves the table.

Yesterday 5 regs were sitting out again for like an hour waiting for 8sup to sit in. I sent an email to highstakes@pokerstars immediately but nothing happenend. Yes I guess we need a solution to enforce these new rules about sitting out.

otterkopf

i wouldnt expect immediate results... iirc they've said they will likely start with warnings and only take it further for extreme or repeated violations.

This amounts to arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If the game is dependent on one player, the ship is eventually going down.

If you have skype, send your skype ID in and Nick/Baard will reply with theirs so you can get a more immediate response more often.

fyp

If I keep getting buttoned and stars won't do something, I'll def stop though.

FYP