Problem #2: Clogged waitlists

Clogged waitlists occur in two ways. The first is when waitlists go as high as 20-30 players in games where there is a large, well known, fish playing. The second is when waitlists get clogged as players run automated software to automatically waitlist them at every or most tables at their limit whether or not they are even at their computer so that they can sit in at any time. The first form of clogging is a large problem at high stakes, the second at midstakes.

Poll Options:

(1) 'No Change'

(2) 'Must Move Games'
-If more than some number of players (say 3) are on a waitlist for a 6max or 9max game, a second, "must move" game is created for the three of them. All players joining the must move game get on the waitlist for the maingame in the order that they join. There is no limit to the number of must move games which can be chained up.

(3) 'Cap the waitlist'
-Set a cap on the number of players on a waitlist

(4) 'Only allow waitlisting when playing in another game.'
-Only allow a player to waitlist when that player is playing in at least one other game.

Must-move solves this and other problems regarding ring games.

But tbh, I'm not sure clogged waitlists is as big a problem as things like everyone leaving right when the fish sits out, or HU bumhunting. The big problems are those that involve worsening a fish's experience, and those that allow unnecessary game selection.

If the argument is that fish get self conscious when their waitlist is always 30+, then at a minimum the wait list should be capped. It's not like more than a few people (if any) ever get to play in the game before it breaks when it's run around a big fish.

Also, the problem with #4 is that 1-tabling fish can't get on waitlists. If you think there isn't a very large player base of 1-tabling guys who like to hop on wait lists for their only game, then this might be ok. Must-move is my vote, though.

I dislike mustmoves. Just cap the waitlist t 5 players though.

I don't understand how capping the waitlists can help. Those with bots will just make it so no one else can ever get on a waitlist.

i dont like "capping the waitlist" idea... Because it will make mass-multitablers "more stress" getting on every game at a given times. Since when SNE chasers start up session they just put theyselves on everywaitlist available and games popup when there is an empty seat, but if lets say the waitinglists is capped, so you cant get on everylist. You basicly will have to check the lobby pretty often to get a seat/waitlist in every game. tho, The "must move games" will probably solve this issue...

I would like to see another opinion here: (5): You cant see who is on the waitlist and how many players it is.

#4 should be:

'Only allow waitlisting when playing in another game at same stakes.'

Otherwise, everyone will just join some microstakes game to join the waitlist and will be even more faster in doing it than normal regs opposed to current situation.

Also, it would make bumhunters start tables in order to get on the waitlist for the fish. There would have to be a rule that they get kicked off the waitlist if they quit playing in all other games or something like that. This idea should be brainstormed a bit more.

must move games are the best idea

must move games are a very badly thought through idea that opens up unlimited amounts of "unwanted" consequences.

here is some of the thoughts i posted in the HSLHE thread that apply more to LHE(since we dont have fish waitlisting, most of our fish are willing to play HU)

disclaimer: lots of rambling


but let's look at your scenario. say a random 6max table going, 3 people on the waitlist, scout, 56 more.(obviously the waitlists wouldnt get that long with must moves but thats beside the point)


1. so the players playing the actual game are ****ed, theyre not gonna play a hand with scout, since nobody will want to leave the game first(hello, prisoner's dilemma)
2. 25 non-scout must-moves will start and have 0-1 hands played
3. think of what the bumhunters will do. constantly waitlisting every table at high stakes for the offchance to get into a must-move with scout. OH DEM BUMHUNTERS

the most reasoanble suggestion i've seen to hide the names on the waitlist. it should be party-like, where it just tells u youre #3 on the list

What happened to global waitlists? I like that better than must move, but as is, i voted must move.

You explained how clogged waitlists occur without explaining how it is an actual problem. How are "clogged" waitlists a problem?

I don't see any problem with this. Player #10+ on the list is never going to get to play in this game, so a lot of the clogging is by appearance alone. If the issue is that the fish may feel self-conscious about a large waitlist, then do the following:

(1.) Change how the # of players on the waitlist is displayed in the lobby. If there are 15 players on the waitlist, then make it say 5+ or 8+, 10+, etc. I would suggest choosing a number equal to the number of seats at the table. For example, 6+ for 6-max, 9+ for 9-max.
(2.) Remove the displayed names of players on the waiting list in the lobby. This would work in line with change #1, so players couldn't determine the actual number by looking at the names on the list. This would also address people bumhunting waitlists when they see the name of a large fish on the list. I see no reason why a player's name should be on a waiting list.
(3.) If a player is on the waiting list, do not tell them the total players in the waiting list. For example, if there are 15 players on the waiting list and player A is #7, then any sort of information displayed about his position would say, "You are 7th on the waiting list," and not "You are 7th of 15 on the waiting list."

These changes are straightforward and if Stars implemented them, they would easily be able to monitor their impact on the games. If they have negative consequences on the games, then they could easily be rolled back. When addressing any of the problems plaguing the games today, I think it's generally best to start with small changes and increase the degree of change only as needed.

How is this a problem? It seems to me that this practice helps keeps games running which is something beneficial for the games. If my suggestions above were implemented, would you still perceive this to be a problem?

Also, "Other" should be added as an option in the poll.

I have a suggestion:

a player who played most hands in the last let's say 3 months at the given stake gets on the top of the waitlist right away. Or something like that, you should have advantage over players who played a lot less hands than you, but no advantage over players who played only a few hand less.

Is it plausible for stars to disallow/disable software that auto-joins waitlists?

Well must-move games seem to be a big favorite (I voted for them).

Curious A) what are the biggest arguments against them?


B) For people that support them:

1B) How many people should be on a 6m waitlist before a must move game is created?
2B) Should players in the main game get first dibs on a chance at the new table?
3B) How many players need to be dealt into a hand before the waitlist is cleared?



My personal answers:

1B) 6?

2B) Yes is my current thought. The downside I see to that is the fish get less spread out if they want to multi table. The problem with the no answer is the players that started the game will now get shut out of games they wouldn't have because of must move. I'm torn on this issue but leaning towards yes. Maybe there's some compromise where 2 must move games can sometimes be started at the same time if all the starters of the game want to play more?

3B) 4 (maybe 5). I don't think players should ever be forced to play 3 handed to get into a 6 max game. If the answer to 2B is yes, then it should probably be 5.

A) I'm not sure. "They are different" is unconvincing. There are probably better arguments though.

1B) 6, but give people a setting to start a table with 2/3/4/5. If there are four in the list and they all are willing to play 4handed, start another game.

2B) My understanding of must-move is that when you keep filtering players closer and closer to the "main game", which is the longest-running game. In a live setting, what you're talking about would be irrelevant because you can't leave the main game. Since online players multitable, you can keep getting onto the wait list in order to get into new games even when you are playing at the "main game" (or any game, for that matter).

If this accurately identifies what you're considering, then I don't see what the solution could be other than simply letting people continue signing up for the wait list and having games start when 6 players are listed, or the <6 agree to play in that X-handed game.

3B) I'm not really sure what you're asking here. I'm not as opinionated on the changes to 6max/must-move as I am to HU/KOTH; probably because I don't understand the issue as deeply. Happy to consider it though.