Problem #3: Buttoning

There are two types of buttoning. The first is when a player sits hu with another planning only on stealing his blind and then leaving. The second is at a 6max table when the weakest player leaves and all players hit their 'sit out next bb' button. The player who wants to continue playing will always have to post the last bb, incentivizing him not to start tables.

Options:

(1) No Change

(2) High card for first BB
-Randomize who posts first

(3) Player seated first gets first SB

(4) Make players play some set number of hands
-At least 2 hands.

My take on 4:
Players must play an even number of hands unless over 15 hands have been played or a minimum buyin has been lost by the player that wants to sit out (for 100bb min tables, 25bb is probably enough as well)

I think it is important to be able to go whenever you like. And i also think recreational players value this option. So forcing players to play a number of hands is bad. I vote give seated player the first sb.

This results in bum hunters grimming people that want action, and others being afraid to sit because the likelihood of getting grimmed makes it inherently -ev to ever sit.

At ring games it usually happens the other way around and i think giving the table starter sb is better. Not a lot "no-ethics" bumhunters start tables there though. For hu, i m not the guy to comment on that.

I really like this because it makes absolutely no difference unless you are doing something scummy in the first place. A jovial hit-n-running fish might occasionally wonder what he did wrong, but that will be a rare exception. If you get the appropriate pop-up message, you need to be taught why what you're doing is unacceptable.

why cant hu matches always run for an even number of hands? buttoning is a huge problem (the hu case for me) but dont really like any of the poll options.

there would be a lot of regs seated that would always just play their button and then decide whether they want to play or not.

high card sounds fun and it doesn't favour anyone.

Grimmers are much less likely to try to grim if they have a 50% chance of being the BB. I don't like the idea of forcing recreational players to play hands, even though this solution would suit me best. High card ftw

High card, option 2, seems the most fair.

4 and 3 wont work. fish wont like either. especially since fish are never the ones sitting first.

highcard is best imo.

You need to expand the number of options int he poll to include changes you havent thought of and "make other changes not listed here".

I want changes but don't like any of the options so wont be voting

Are the people disagreeing with #4 envisioning a large number? Having to play one more hand isn't that big of a deal.

high card for who posts first won't eliminate buttoning it will just make it 50% less efficient..

Thats not true at all.

Say you're a bumhunter who likes to only play your button with someone sits with you whom you do not want to play. Since we high-card for the button now, when someone sits with you it does not mean you get to choose to only play your button the 50% of the time you get it and not play your BB.

Instead you have to decide first if you want to enter into the high-card game where you will have to play you BB 50% of the time - thus I think the person not wanting to play HU in this situation would be better served leaving the table/not entering into the high-card game.

High-carding for button seems the clear best choice because it is fair (other options are also fair) AND I cannot see any way to game the system or have high-carding produce unexpected exploits.

Requiring HU players to play for X number of hands is a cool idea when 2 professionals are involved, but from the recreational player's point of view it might seem unfair or confusing to them.