**Official PokerStars Heads Up SNG Improvement Thread**

[ShaneO19]

Originally Posted by ChicagoRy

Because when FTP was around, people that hated unlimited lobbies at the high stakes could just go play Stars.

I am not sure what you consider high stakes but there was certainly no problem with long lists of regs waiting in line at 1k plus. If someone saw livb or H2Olga registered they would not try sitting below them without getting joined.

[kingkong32]

Originally Posted by att

First off all i think your observation of the situation is wrong.
There are many Regs who are chasing other regs if they see them in the lobby. Some to the point where they dont care who is sitting in the lobby, just to get an empty seat. Likes of Harthor and Siervos for example. Other Regs for example have some specific Regs which they will join to get an empty lobby.
What you mentioned that no one is sitting other regs on purpose is just wrong. Maybe it is not as often as it should be but i think the more Regs that come the more often this will happen.

*With the current lobby situation it can be profitable to join a reg if you only have 0% ROI or even with -0,5% because after joining your chance for the next empty lobby is much higher so your chance for the next Fish is much higher... so more future EV.*

All of this would be dramatically reduced if there would be unlimited lobbies.


The next point is you arguing that with unlimited lobbies it would be easy for a 200 Reg to have 3 games running all the time after a little while. This dosnt make any sense to me.
With the current system in general there will be more games than with the unlimited system because of reg vs reg (same time sit mostly). I think this is a clear fact. Agree?

So right now a 200-300 reg has not always 3 games running. Then how could it be possible, if change to unlimited, that he always has 3 games running but the total number of games goes down.

The next point is you mentioning more regs so we need less lobbies = LOL.
Let me explain it:
Back in the FTP days there were like 5-10 open lobbies at the 200 limit. I dont remember exactly. So the chance to get a fish was 10-20%. Today i can name you ~50 or more 200 Regs. On prime times there will be 30+ empty lobbies and with every month it would get worse. Now how many fishies would you get?
We have to be very careful that it will not become another HU-Cash, which in the current state is (almost) dead...


* This brings me to an improvement which will also increase the reg vs reg action.
Give the player who joins second the chance to automatically get the next empty lobby. Maybe with a check box in the registration window: [ ] take next empty lobby.

+1

[Cog Dissonance]

Originally Posted by ChicagoRy

......What if you reduced or removed VPPs on chopped tables only for players with 500k+ VPPs (anything less would be giving up too much to get to the next tier level, right?).

A very good suggestion. Overall, a chop will benefit Stars (extra rake) and keep players happy. You could easily police the few people who wanted to abuse the system.

[TakeHerOnACruise]

I don't know why everyone is so concerned with reg v reg action and the like. The current system does make it harder for regs to maintain a lobby but it's not that hard at higher stakes and Lotte Lenya/Skai are still able to maintain the high stakes lobbies. There's also plenty of reg v reg action because of same time sits. It is frustrating though when you sit a reg and someone else jumps in the gap you've opened up.

Testing out the 3-4 lobby option at stakes like 100/200 would be cool because they're so traffic intensive. People who are worried about it becoming a hu cash situation are exaggerating the downsides. You can't deny action in a husng so the better regs would sift through the lines playing the weaker regs and the usual reaction would be to not sit again.

I'm really not sure what is best though regarding this. The games have changed a fair bit since FTP. There are more regs and less fish so maybe the current situation is okay.

HUSNG leaderboard like the one they had on FTP towards the end would be cool. It rewarded you for beating multiple opponents which stimulated action vs regs. Cash rewards as prizes, I think 1st place was like 5k or something so an amount that is actually meaningful rather than like a $200 bonus.

Also more promotion of husng's. The banners on the lobby are always like 75th billionth hand or MTT madness or w/e. There's never anything directing recreational players to husng's they just have to find their own way.

In the chat box they have prompts for MTTs, maybe they could incorporate prompts for husngs like "why not try a single table heads up tournament?" and a link to a husng lobby. I pretty much reg for 50% of mtt's i've played because of those prompts lol Something along those lines.

I feel like husng players pay a lot of rake and we don't really get anything in return. There needs to be way more promotion of the husng's to recreational players. Maybe some big challenge or published event where they play husng's. More reporting on Isildur's adventures in 5ks would draw attention to these games. Maybe Isildur could set an open challenge at 5k husng's and stars could promote it. All the big promo events like nanoko's challenge are done in cash or 9 man sng formats.

[emotionx]

//Incase the rep isnt aware: there is a lot of regular volume at higher stakes, which forces a lot of us to simultanously sit by ERROR when they click same lobby eachother, without the willing to do so. //

The main point is its really unfair when Two people (aka regs) reg and both of them dont want to play together and lobby issues makes them play eachother just because they clicked the same time, thats completely unfair, since both of them DONT want to play together, and the software is forcing them to do it by -ERROR-, that should be totally unacceptable in any Client based software. Its really basic. It might sound extreme but i even feel scammed when this happens.

--**NOTE**: when you reg empty lobby its totally FAIR someone desiredly sits you. When you open empty lobby and someone else regs at the same time, and he wouldnt be willing to sit you , thats now, really unfair. (2 persons forced by a software to play unwantedly, yay more rake for stars , sounds awesome!)

I dont mind 2 lobbies if you fix the current increasing "Simultaneous sit" problem between regs.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

- Option to ban a player from playing with you in HU game if he ALSO accepts. (Like when 2 players get banned to not play eachother anymore if team 4mans)

- Simply, add a a small delay (2-3 secs) when someone regs into an empty lobby, make it wait 2 secs before someone can sit in. This would fix all problems imo. Simple and effective.

[TakeHerOnACruise]

Originally Posted by damanrico

Good to see that PokerStars is joining the discussion. I'll also add some of my thoughts, of which some are a bit general:

- You (Steve) said PokerStars shortened the waiting time before the game starts, this is true and that's great. But the delay after the first hand is still there. Meaning that the first hand gets dealt and when the hands ends there's a 5 second delay before the 2nd hand gets dealt, after the 2nd hand the cards to get dealt at the usual speed.

- Adding to my previous point: when the blinds go up there's also a delay. Back in the days on Full Tilt Poker the announcement of the blinds going up would not delay the game, which makes for a much more smooth gameflow experience. On PokerStars the dealing of the next hand gets delayed by 3-4 seconds.

- Recently I've noticed, usually during peak hours, that the lobby system is very laggy. New lobbies show up late, while full lobbies can take a few seconds to disappear. This can make it tough to join a new lobby (especially on the lower limits where lobbies fill up quick). Because of the delay and also the lag of seeing if someone is already sitting a lobby, it's a little tough to get an empty lobby instead of joining another regular which you'd like to dodge.

- An option to chop / deal.

- A way to add a color note to someone sitting a lobby. So the option to rightclick on his name and add the color note.

Thanks for taking our suggestions in concern.

Also agree with all of this

[nochtm]

Is it possible for stars to make some sort of list for HUSNGS, where you can add screen names of people you don't want to play, so if you register second and a person from your list is already registered, it doesn't let you register? That would solve the reg vs reg by mistake action.

[emotionx]

^
this sounds nice but its a lot of effort for stars to implement that option, if u simply add a 1-3 sec delay needed for someone to play you when you reg new lobby, that would stop all simultaneous sits, and its very simple, and has 0 downsides

[Sunshine Bill Wrigly]

+1 more lobbies

[TuckinFypo]

4 lobbies at hypers!!

[Radish]

Originally Posted by emotionx

//Incase the rep isnt aware: there is a lot of regular volume at higher stakes, which forces a lot of us to simultanously sit by ERROR when they click same lobby eachother, without the willing to do so. //

The main point is its really unfair when Two people (aka regs) reg and both of them dont want to play together and lobby issues makes them play eachother just because they clicked the same time, thats completely unfair, since both of them DONT want to play together, and the software is forcing them to do it by -ERROR-, that should be totally unacceptable in any Client based software. Its really basic. It might sound extreme but i even feel scammed when this happens.

--**NOTE**: when you reg empty lobby its totally FAIR someone desiredly sits you. When you open empty lobby and someone else regs at the same time, and he wouldnt be willing to sit you , thats now, really unfair. (2 persons forced by a software to play unwantedly, yay more rake for stars , sounds awesome!)

I dont mind 2 lobbies if you fix the current increasing "Simultaneous sit" problem between regs.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

- Option to ban a player from playing with you in HU game if he ALSO accepts. (Like when 2 players get banned to not play eachother anymore if team 4mans)

- Simply, add a a small delay (2-3 secs) when someone regs into an empty lobby, make it wait 2 secs before someone can sit in. This would fix all problems imo. Simple and effective.

great idea emi!

[Chumplestultz]

mmm fastcold and others make some good points, making me kinda want to support more lobbies. don't really have anything groundbreaking to add but:

grinding the lobbies has def become part of the game now and agree with others that this takes away focus from games for those wanting to multi-table. this isn't really a massive argument for or against more lobbies, it's just how it is at the moment and adapt or suffer i guess. my only issue is for those of us with slightly laggy net we get owned but again, gots to be good at the internets as well as poker i guess

those who point to the lack of action right now and say more lobbies would increase wait times need to consider that for people willing to play fishregs it could drastically reduce wait times. for example imagine at the $300 level "Really Solid Reg A" and "Really Solid Reg B" are sitting the two lobbies. There's another 15 regs staring at the screen waiting for a fish to sit so they can join the next lobby. This can continue for 10-15 minutes with no games running.

BUT of these 15 waiting regs, there's probably about 5 who are willing to sit a bunch of the others. If a few extra lobbies were available then there would be more games running because the regs willing to sit other worse regs would have more chance to get at them. It's almost like the empty lobby is bait and the regs who aren't good enough for that stake level will constantly be sat by those who are better and don't want to wait for action.

And I kind of like the idea of being able to register for some games and then do something else while I wait - go through HHs, browse 2p2, get a coffee, whatever. At the moment my time in between games is spent staring at the lobby trying to win the mouse-clicking race and losing to guys with auto scripts and stuff.

At the end of the day the system is what it is and there's an edge to be had for those who are better at it I guess. Is it not possible to at least trial a different lobby system for a week or two though? Would be interested if people who are strongly against more lobbies really notice a big difference.

[Chumplestultz]

also agree with a lot of emox's thoughts.

i think the calls for a chop button and the calls for more lobbies are more than likely coming from the fact that people who don't want to play each other frequently end up playing each other.

[emotionx]

Originally Posted by Chumplestultz

i think the calls for a chop button and the calls for more lobbies are more than likely coming from the fact that people who don't want to play each other frequently end up playing each other.

this

[chesslw]

Originally Posted by nochtm

Is it possible for stars to make some sort of list for HUSNGS, where you can add screen names of people you don't want to play, so if you register second and a person from your list is already registered, it doesn't let you register? That would solve the reg vs reg by mistake action.

This is a terrible idea imo. Imagine the consequences- fish start blocking regs etc etc. And the list of ppl you don't want to play is always going to increase for everyone most of the time. In the end, this is just going to be like the HU cash situation... You only get to play some fish who doesn't care/know about playing regs etc. Another thing- I can just imagine the posts in the regs thread lol with ppl calling each other out for not agreeing to play each other. It can turn ugly when action starts drying.

Also props to emotionx's idea- the 2 sec delay thing is brilliant. Though it still doesn't remove the fact that grinding the lobbies is going to be the most important factor in your hourly. In fact this rewards the so called "bumhunters" even more now as there is even less incentive for the regs to play them (since it is easier to avoid reg vs reg action altogether).

Tbh more or less lobbies doesn't really change much, as more and more regs come into the game (obviously for those who grind for a living now- it's going to increase your hourly short term). The idea that extra lobbies is going to be "bait" for the weaker regs to be insta-sat by stronger ones is rediculous. Why isn't the 2 lobbies "bait"? Who would rather play regfish and not sit a new lobby for fish?

The fundamental problem is there is no incentive to play weaker regs and police the lobbies- so I still support att's idea of having the option of sitting the next lobby instantly after you sit someone as the best one ITT.