Just for reference:

Fast tables now allow 18 seconds and Normal speed allow 35 seconds to act.

Baard

fine with me.

So is there any difference between this new table and a current fast table? It would really suck if all tables were fast.

I don't see the point in making every table a fast table. Nothing is gained for players who prefer fast tables anyway, but those who don't will annoyed by the changes. I don't like it.

A full 35 seconds to act has always been excessive for limit games especially when there's a time bank available. Need more time? Press your time bank. Simple (is there a tutorial available discussing the time bank and how seconds are added? If not that's a suggestion for beginner info.)

I think this is a good change that will hopefully discourage people from playing too many tables that they slow up the action too much, or just abusing the time to annoy people (which seems to happen way too often on the playground that is often high stakes).

I'd prefer 10 and 10 be the default for all LHE tables. When playing like 5-6 tables, I know if I was on a fast table I had my hands mucked way more often than non-fast ones. An extra couple of seconds would've made a world of difference, especially for after hearing the warning beep (sometimes it takes a few seconds to find the table that was beeping).

Unless of course, it's your company's goal to discourage people from playing so many tables... If that's the case, I understand there are some benefits to doing so (debatable whether those benefits offset the decrease in rake that will be generated by people playing less tables).

This may come as a surprise to some but I think 18 seconds (with a time-bank) is more than enough for limit decisions. I'd actually prefer even less time like ten or fifteen seconds (no I'm not kidding).

Hasu's point is valid, I think it may upset a few people but I can't imagine it would be too many. I think the vast majority won't even notice particularly at high limits. Low limits might be a different story though. I know when I first started playing and saw fast tables, I thought they were really fast and now I don't even notice.

I think a good option would be to extend the time bank. Even if you extend time bank by 50% or something, I think on average, it would affect the speed of play less than if you added 5 extra seconds to everyone's normal time limit. My point being that you don't really use time bank that often, and you only use it when you really need it, but it's really helpful in those spots. And I think also an under-valued factor like Schneids said is the amount of time between alarm beep, and your hand being mucked. That should stay longer even if total time is cut down. Because you start looking for the correct table at alarm beep, and you still then need some time to make your decision.

Yes. Please increase the timebank then all would be good otherwise with the tablespeed. The timebank-system btw is probably the thing I appreciate most with stars. The only thing stars made a lot better than other sites.

Hello all,

In the beginning of august we floated the idea of combining the fast- and normal speed tables into one singular table type.

After listening to feedback from the players, we have now come up with a proposal that we think would go over well with most players, but before implementing it, we again ask for your feedback.



Thanks,
Baard

Please post this also in SSSH and Micros subforum.

looks good.

loooks good to me

Looks solid though I'd still prefer another 1 or 2 seconds on the warning timer.

At least for me when having 6 tables going (on my laptop with overlap), with fast tables it wasn't that 15 seconds wasn't enough time, it was that the warning timer only left you with 8 seconds to figure out where the table was, what the action leading up to me was, then make a decision. Even one or two extra seconds for me to know I have to find this table and make my move would've really cut down on the number of time outs I had where I'd be focused on the correct table, just about to click my action and then boom it times out.

If I'm in the minority so be it -- just figured I'd say it in case anyone else who's played a lot of tables on a non huge screen might agree.

I just wanted to share my opinion on this...

I spent a month on Stars a couple weeks back, and the highest games that ran regularly were 30/60. There was some 50/100, but very little higher. And that's across the whole internet, not just Stars.

So asking people to play 100/200 hu matches seems a little extreme. For starters, one player is likely going to get buried pretty bad and won't have any good way to make up the losses in the near future.

Also, this is LHE... bots/cheating is a major issue, especially hu. You need to really trust your opponent.

I just think this would work a lot better if you made 50/100 (or even 30/60) an option and gave people the chance to play grudge matches or friend matches. I know KPR and ZZeigler, for example, have a rivalry and sometimes play each other at 1/2+ huhu for fun. Those are 2 extremely strong, well known players.

I just think this proposal was overall very unclear and unrealistic. A confused mind says "no". Make sure people understand the terms of the match, how long it will go on, the structure, and most importantly... give people the chance to choose their opponents. It's not like it used to be, but there are still enough strong LHE players who like to rip each others' throats out to get these promotional matches going imo. Why is it necessary to jump right into 100/200+ matches? Gotta start somewhere