Originally Posted by HERE_2_gamble_

what about having to post a blind when u sit, say theres 1 person on the table, you join , it instantly posts sb/bb and says game will start in 10 secs w/e. think it could stop bumhunting and all the highstakes sitting out and seems like it would be super easy to implement.

Originally Posted by Kanu

You mentioned something similar in your blog I think but I would also suggest a cap on the number of 1 person HU tables per limit. I think the key is to encourage action without shutting out everyone but the very best players at a limit from playing HU. The cap should therefore vary by stake. I would start by estimating maybe a cap of 5-10 tables at 25/50 HU, moving up to maybe 20 tables at much lower stakes and 3-5 tables at 50/100. Each player should only be able to take 1 table per limit. This doesn't force anyone to play the top HU players at a limit but does mean that if you want to sit HU you have to be prepared to actually generate some rake and action. It's probably not too difficult for stars to generate some algorithm based on their historical data for how many players sit HU atm which calculates how many tables to allow at different times of day at different stake levels to create this environment of forcing some action but not favouring the top players too much. Even some arbitrary number will improve things greatly though. Fwiw, (worth saying since I frequently see accusations of self-interest when things like this are suggested) this wouldn't particularly help me or other people who play anyone but struggle to get action as this would generate action between the weaker players at a limit to fight for the right to sit rather than get the best players action. Mainly this would benefit pokerstars by increasing rake generated and then pokerstars again as well as all players by reducing the embarrassing effect for a casual player of seeing 40 people all sitting waiting, not playing each other but queueing up to play him. If anyone doubts whether this will actually generate action, they have KOTH and a table cap on party and there is much more HU action there than there is on stars as far as I can see despite a smaller player pool and almost no 6max games being started between regs. The reason my proposed solution generates more action than KOTH if you get the table cap right is that on party, if I was to sit at all the 25/50 HU tables this would kill the HU action a lot of the time at 25/50 as a lot of players will play most people but not everyone.

Originally Posted by DonButtons

Idea to prevent headsup grimming

Before a HU match starts, have the poker site escrow 1 BB from each player. If a player leaves before allowing his opponent to play a equal amount of buttons, he forfeits his 1bb in escrow.

Originally Posted by DonButtons

Idea to prevent headsup grimming

Before a HU match starts, have the poker site escrow 1 BB from each player. If a player leaves before allowing his opponent to play a equal amount of buttons, he forfeits his 1bb in escrow.

Originally Posted by humpf

i dont like rules which forces players to play in lineups they dont want. everyone should be able to sit on the tables he wants to and play the lineups he likes. so i dont like must-move tables and i also dont like a "break"-system". besides that there would be a big problem with players abusing (sitting in/out) on these must-move tables.

i like the idea of not being able to quit the bb in hu very much, grimming is imo the biggest problem on the highstakes right now. not being able to sit out the bb in 6max seems a good idea, although i havent thought it through.

Originally Posted by urubu111

this + 2nd player who join the table has the button. who is sitting alone at table should be big blind always.

Originally Posted by Jman28

This would be the best solution if only people like us played. For recreational players and semi-pros, I think this would be too confusing/weird.

Originally Posted by DonButtons

Idea to prevent headsup grimming

Before a HU match starts, have the poker site escrow 1 BB from each player. If a player leaves before allowing his opponent to play a equal amount of buttons, he forfeits his 1bb in escrow.

Originally Posted by tcorbin16

I like this idea. It becomes a pain to have to write emails reporting people and it's dumb to be losing EV because people grim nonstop. This seems like a great fix.

Jman - couldn't stars have a pop-up at the table when you join HU table explaining this and then the ability to just "check to not see this message again"? I think any type of player would see this as fair.


Must move tables sounds cool to fix the waitlist problem.
Ending 6max games where you have to finish your BB first is cool.

Not sure if I read it properly, but how will this affect sitting out if you need to go to the bathroom and the game is still running? Still need to play your BB or no?

If stars goes koth route and it's capped at 1-2 tables per limit then you really need to make sure to get the amount of open seats accurate.

For 50-100, if you capped it at 5 or for 5-10 cap it at 30... Does it really even change anything? I don't think so. There's no more than 5 regs sitting at 50100 and prob not more than 20-25 at 510 at any given time. If you don't cap the tables properly you won't actually be creating any extra action to fight for tables because the amount of regs online that want a table never exceeds the amount of tables available.

50-100 1-2 tables
25-50 4-5
10-20 6-8
5-10 10
3-6 12
2-4 14
1/2 and below 15-20?

Not 100% sure on these amount of tables but it seems fair. Completely open to hearing what other people think is a fair amount of tables per limit. Also make one standard table instead of short/deep/regular.

Originally Posted by Jman28

To those who say posting BB to leave is unfair: What is unfair about it? The rule is the same for everyone at the table. It sounds like you pay more, but since others pay the same, you will be profiting when they leave. It's not as if EVERYONE is now losing an extra BB per table they play. It's zero sum.