Is there any time table for the implementation of this?

Everything you've set forth seems good, I don't really know what else there can possibly be to add other than what's been said in this and the other thread that's been open for several months. Let's get started and then make adjustments from there? High stakes on Stars is currently brutal because of the behaviour of some (actually, most), so how about we just start this trial.............pretty pls.

There are very few recreational players that are willing to play 4 handed but not 3 handed. Further, as soon as a fish sits the table will go from 3 handed to 6 handed in a matter of seconds anyway.

Sitting out while 2 people are playing HU gives you a positional advantage. If 2 people are playing HU and are across from each other, and you pick a seat with one of them immediately on your left, one of the players who is actually starting the game now has a 0% chance of being in position on the fish. This is unfair.

yeah doubled also gave u the correct answer, but way to be a dick about it

Has anyone ever thought about a "seat change" button? For example, the table starter get's 1st seat change, and second player gets 2nd seat change, etc. Once you use the seat change you get re-rolled to the back of the seat change priority. If the 3rd player that sits is a player that one of the table starters would like to have position on, they can use their seat change button to take it before anyone else that joins gets to choose a seat. I can see where people might be against it from a predatory standpoint, but it would definitely motivate players to start AND stay longer at tables. I don't think it would make recreational players feel any worse than seeing a table instantly fill or instantly all sit out when they come and go.

I don't really understand the post above. You realize that when you change your seat you are simultaneously kicking someone else out of theirs, right? Either way the chance of something like this being realistically implemented is close to 0. More importantly, Zoom implicitly takes care of this issue.

This thread has reverted back to a discussion of changing High Stakes to Zoom vs. keeping things the way they are, but there was already a long thread on that and everything is just getting regurgitated. Nobody is actually talking much about potential important exploits or the test that took place. Stalling is an issue but if that actually is going to take place then we can find solutions to it as it happens.

My point is that not only is little discussion taking place, it's going to be hard to take preventative measures against possible exploits by discussing what can theoretically happen in this thread. There are no horrific exploits that can happen, minor stuff can be patched up in progress, so I see no reason to put Zoom out. It is very easily reversible should it not work/diminish volume/become breeding ground for more scummy behaviour, so I don't see the risk.

Yea, you are right about the bold. If you are playing HU trying to start a table and a 3rd person joins, BEFORE the 4th person can sit you would get a pop up message asking if you would like to choose a different seat BEFORE the 4th person is allowed to sit. If you decline the 2nd player gets to choose a seat, if they decline the 3rd gets to choose a seat, and if you all decline then the 4th player can choose any seat. Also, if the table is full and a player leaves, if you are the first person with the seat change button would have a few seconds to decide whether or not you would like to take the newly available seat. This would probably take about 5-10 seconds each time a new player sat or a player left but it would actually promote starting tables (and staying to earn and keep the best seat) rather than the current system that makes it most profitable to wait for a table to start, and then try to steal the most profitable seat.

Guys, can we stick to the topic at hand? Seating at traditional tables is obviously irrelevant here...

It seems to me that the main problem with trying to sit with preferred opponents is the option of fold vs fold/wait. I think any method of dealing with this will be somewhat restrictive, but I think a necessary evil.

What about an option in settings that cannot be altered while sitting at the tables? (Perhaps all zoom settings could be implemented in this fashion - simply have the preferences in the menu greyed out while playing?)

Players could choose to either universally "fold and wait" or universally "fast fold". Is this too restrictive, or does it cause other problems? It seems to me that this would stop players from being able to time leaving the table to better match their preferred opponent.

On the other points, I'm not sure how easily timebank can be used to abuse this, but I don't see an issue with no timebank with no VPIP at highstakes. Although if it's implemented throughout zoom, I think lower stakes players may have difficulty since they're more likely to play more tables.

Not sure what to say about players and entries shown in the lobby except that I personally think limiting the info shown might be beneficial... but it seems a complicated subject to theorise on.

Just want to say I didn't participate in the test, so may have missed obvious points.

I hate this idea since I believe that many recs aswell as regs much rather watch the action live in certain spots (for example when 3b and so else 4b, you fold but you probably want to see what happens) than clicking the replayer after while already beeing dealt in a new hand.
"Fold and wait" for every hand makes the game really slow (by comparison) and destroys one big Zoom upside.

i dont think stalling willl be a big issue but if u do and want to fix id make it a shorter time till timebank is activated and a shorter preflop timebank rather than none. but then u still have issue of postflop timebanking and taking away that is a no no imo.

id like an option to have 2 fold buttons rather than watever u currently do (cnt + fold or something) since im sure to forget to hit control given i never play zoom and i imagine id like to see end of hand quite often.

Options, Zoom Options, Display Fold and Watch

This is ridiculous, you took a non-major issue and now you are trying to suggest an intricate system in order to patch it up. Are you aware that this pop-up prompting a seat change will appear for everyone? How do you think a recreational player would feel if they just sat in a game to play and now they have pop-ups asking if they want a seat change? Further, how do you think the 3rd person to sit would feel if all of a sudden people are moving around relative to their position? The goal should be to make a simple, fun interface so you can sit down and play.

Either way, as Stally pointed out this is outside of the scope of this thread, and nobody is contributing much to the issue at hand.

Baard, is there a rough ETA for HS Zoom?

This is the way I see stars plan on zoom-only high-stakes.

a) Stars is killing high stakes on purpose. Losing players will drain their bankroll slower and highstakes players who are accustomed to a certain kind of lifestyle are forced to put in a lot more hands at lower stakes.

b) Stars management is frighteningly clueless and think this will actually work. Players will inevitably lose their rolls stuck on the site because the owners ran the site to the ground.

c) Stars management is pure genius, they will somehow manage to get every fortune 500 company owner to move to a country where online poker is allowed and play zoom on stars at all times of the day.

I think highstakes poker with all the bumhunting and miniscule amount of rake generated while the money changes hands quickly has been a pain in the ass to every site since the economy stopped booming and some of the countries that supply the most fish have restricted online poker. Now, after accidentally killing most of the games at nl200+ fullring introducing zoom (which never runs) stars figured they could do the same with highstakes and amazingly the regulars won't cause an uproar.

The benefits of zoom are clear: start a session instantly, no need to check the lobby every 15 seconds, bumhunting is less obvious. But there just isn't enough volume (read:fish) at high stakes to keep the game going, especially non-peak euro times without the help of USA and most asian countries that have banned online poker. What will actually happen is zoom gets launched, reg X joins, kanu joins right after, but after 10 minutes of HU (because no other reg is joining a tough HU game and no rich fish is online) its clear kanu's edge is too big, reg X sits out and it will always be the toughest reg online sitting alone, waiting for a fish. It's like a KOTH for ring games that punishes the best players, because when the fish joins he will have to share the fish with ~14 players instead of the current 4. Not to mention the downsides of zoom, disabling table dynamics and gathering reads slower.

ur reg X sits out scenario is no different to the current climate. no loss there then

on the other hand, being able to start a session instantly is ****ing huge. in the old days if i ever thought "jeez, i feel like playing some poker", i would log on and sure enough in a few minutes id be playing poker.

now its like "jeez, i feel like playing some poker, lets check what time it is". then "oh damn its not peak time lets try later". then when later arrives its "jeez every table is full with an 8 person waitlist, guess ill try next week".

no poker is played

Dude seriously? I just went to Stars lobby and counted NINETEEN fullring 200nl games, seven fr 400nl games and four fr 600nl games, that's not even counting deep or cap and the games that were playing shorthanded with 7 or 8 players, of which there was a bunch more.

You are seriously delusional if you think zoom has killed off midstakes FR on stars.

^^^^ i honestly would love to see some winrates at 1/2 2/5 zoom 6max over a decent sample.

friend of mine, rush lover and zoom proponent, put in some x0k hands at 200zoom 6max and said the games looked pretty tough (and he plays up 10/20 and is the complete opposite from a bumhunter).