I actually think player pools should be shown although I could be convinced otherwise maybe. I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at a player pool before deciding if you want to play. There is an issue with player pools ballooning and emptyiing but you could maybe have it so that you can see the playerpool before you join but not while you play or something. Would need more thought. Also, from stars' point of view they want as many hands played as possible ofc and showing the player pool will make more hands happen than not.

Maybe you should read my post again. I don't think it's unreasonable to think about the risk of certain stakes not running at all anymore. Common sense helps understanding the problem!

and you are?

I'm only encouraging change in the system because im struggling to win the way things are right now. I eat with disposable cutlery, not kidding, looking to upgrade and im hoping this change can help me cross that line

Hide usernames

i guess it just depends what ur trying to achieve.

if ur goal is to let ppl play who r otherwise just waitlisting, then zoom with usernames is a small change to the current state and will not eliminate bumhunting

if ur goal is to eliminate bumhunting, then zoom without usernames is the way to go

Zoom with usernames is far from a small change to the current state. No usernames takes away a big part of poker which is adjusting to your opponents and building up history. Can't see that being too popular with recreational players or most regs.

Taking away usernames is insane and a terrible idea. Zoom will have the significant improvement on taking away the advantage that the superbumhunters have (think mas.oren), because if there is someone terrible on, there will be more than 5 people wanting to play. And everyone gets a fair shot. As far as fair goes, zoom is certainly an improvement on the current state of things. Maybe will post more thoughts later. It feels like it would be hard to orchestrate and could take a while to get past all the exploits.

I could be wrong, but isn't it true that the HSNL games aren't really good for poker sites efficiency wise and instead are primarily used to attract users to the site to watch the highstakes/nosebleeds action?

If thats the case, they need to have a way to observe these zoom games to make it worth while, no?

I agree with the first part, but highstakes games like 10/20 or 25/50, that have a sufficient player pool for zoom do not get a lot of attention from the railbirds, they are not really interesting to watch. Stars could make these unobservable to prevent bumhunting. If I am right, there is software available that scans tables for fish. By making the zoom games unobservable with hidden playerpools, the software would be worthless.

I really hope that Stars is courageous enough to make some fundamental changes.

personally, i think not having usernames is a good idea - getting regs to play against each other (even if intermittently) means there's more likely to be games for the fish to join in the first place, which is what encourages even more people to play. i think it's hard to say for sure which would work best, but that's my preference.

if there were no usernames, would a number of players and/or number of entries be helpful? this can give a player some kind of clue about the state of the tables before sitting. but is it bad to advertise when the player pool is low?

i am assuming 10/20 - 50/100 would be the stakes using zoom - that covers all the cap tables which i assume would be best not split up... or then again that could be a good thing?

i dont mean no usernames on the tables. imean in the list of players in the pool. the former is obviously rubbish

kk glad we cleared that up

ditto!

its hilarious how much some hate bumhunters here that they just want to ruin it for them and dont seem to care that they ruin the games in the process too lol. Either that or your just stupid. I mean annonymous games? are you ***** joking lol???? This will be more intimidating for the fish I think, and it will ruin railing the games, which should still be made possible I think. There are probably a decent amount of fish who went to play high stakes by railing the games first, then getting excited and wanting to play themselves, either right that moment or later on when they shipped a tournament im bolding this because i think its important . You guys need to think about advertisement here lol, if high stakes is some annonymous blob from the outside it will entice fish less to play. Dont forget that you need fish, and also without fish mediocre players will leave, and there will be no one to prey on for the good players.

How about not being able to leave and rejoin more then 2-3 times in an hour or so? or in 2 hours. Fish will stay anyway, the only ones who would pop in and out are bumhunters. Lets say that in a time when games are good they want to pop out because currently there are no fish, they choose to stay instead for a little while because its likely that some fish will join in pretty fast.

You cannot completly ruin it for bumhunters, and that shouldnt be the goal, it should just be harder. Trying to make it completly impossible to gameselect is selfish from the really good players and will ruin the games in the process.

pretty much agree with this