Until now, I just read the forum, but as I read this... I dont find non-stupid words for this.

At first I thought you MUST be stupid, but then I thought, you get paid by STARS and thats the point I think.

Lets think about your "problem". A "well-known" fish sits on a table, who does that know? -> Regulars, right, good boy.

What happens if we got "Must-Move" tables to be able to sit in that waitinglist? -> Our regulars are now sitting at the same table to get the opportunity to play against the fish.

So where the heck is my fu** problem? Maybe its because we got now only two winners in this situation.
The first winner is cpt. obvious (STARS), more tables, more rake, more money, yummi, yummi, yummi...
And whos the snd one? Uhhhh Top 10 regs. Wait, who has made that deal because of the rake changes, uhhhh the top 10 regs, maybe someone is able to see some parallels.
The rest will play BE, pay a lot more rake and that just because they want to play a fish.

Cliffs:
- Two winners of Must-Move-Tables
* STARS
* Sauce123, Galfond, other top10 regs
- The others just pay rake to play BE or worse for nothing

majinv: **** you.

Seriously people, poker is a game of skill. All you retarded bumhunters are ruining online poker by the day, with your pathetic etiquettes. Its funny that microgaming is leading the way when it comes to Ring/NLHU. Removing waiting lists completely(like ongame and microgaming) creates ALOT more action. They also have a KOTH system with 10 tables of each stakes, which is awesome, and should be implemented ASAP on every site(in some variation). Also the must move idea is great solution to the problem aswell, and will make it alot easier for people who actually wants to play, and not just sit out all day.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUU BUMHUNTERS

-Sincerely tilted norwegian.

Let's say there's a juicy live game with a waitlist of 20 people. They call names for a must move table. If 6 of those players show up and play a hand, they now have a must move game, and the entire waitlist is cleared.

If only 3 players show up and start playing, the casinos don't want to force people to play shorthanded, so they won't clear the waitlist for the main table, and the new table won't officially be a must-move game yet.

+1. Totally agree.

Ah ok. So the problem is if you have 6 on the wait list, you'd like to communicate to all of them that they can now play in a 6-handed game, but only if all of them still want to. I've seen what you're describing happen in a live setting, and I don't know if there's a very neat way to fix this. I guess what you could do it sit them all down and allow them to check "start now" if they want, or else have them wait at the table until all the seats are filled. Perhaps the best way for them to articulate what they want to do is letting them identify the minimum # of players they would be willing to start a game with. Once they identify this, they are automatically sat in once that number of players is at the table. Otherwise, they have a "sit in now" button where they can change their minds if they want.

So for example, say there are 6 guys on the wait list. You tell them all that their table is ready, and they can go to it or not. Four guys sit, and two of them check that they'll play 2/3/4/5/6 handed. The other two check 6 handed. A HU match starts between the first two, and the other two are sat out. Another player joins the wait list and says he'll only play 5/6 handed. Then one of the two guys who originally checked "6 handed only" decides he'll play 3 handed so he checks "sit in now". The game is now 3 handed, with one guy waiting for 6 handed and another guy waiting for 5/6 handed. Another player gets on the wait list who is willing to play 2/3/4/5/6 handed, and he's sat in immediately. Now it's 4 handed, and the 5/6 handed guy gets sat in, so it's 5 handed and the last guy who was waiting for 6 handed is now sat in.

agree, why is there no remove waitlists completely option?

Why should someone who has played more hands have an advantage over someone who is played less?

Absolutely have must move games. There are times when I look at 5/10nl and there are maybe three or four games running with 18 person waitlists. Consider you are a recreational player that comes online but doesn't want to play HU and wants to join a full table, with must move games the player can easily join a waitlist and get into a game without having to sit at a table and sitout until it fills up. There's also Im sure a lot of players who just want to play and not have to wait 10-15 mins to get into a game and this will alleviate that problem.

I think one of the main issues with must moves, mentioned above by another poster, is how bad the must move etiquette could become without the proper rules in place. Imagine a bunch of players who get onto a must move and keep sitting out or playing the bare minimum of hands before sitting out again etc. obviously there's not a lot that can be done about that, but maybe put a timer on how long a player can sit out. Eg. Sitting out for 15-20 mins per hour is allowed and anymore than that, the player will be removed from the game. I think that is a pretty reasonable amount of time for someone to have a smoke, go to the washroom etc.

I think waitlists for HU matches often get huge when a big fish sits down and this will help decrease the waitlist line and also help keep the fish from being embarassed that there is a long lineup that suddenly occurs the moment he sits down.

I think must moves will be great for the games though and should be implemented without a doubt

must move. and sauce you and durrrr are great for poker. great to see there are a few stand up guys left in the poker world

This is why sit out at one, sit out at all needs to be installed. Its not a perfect solution for any 1 problem but it goes a long way in helping in a lot of situations. -Sitting out when a fish sits out, Table Blocking, and it would obv help in Must-Move games. You can add timers as well and tweak the idea but I think overall its a no-brainer that this should be implemented in some form.

I'm also pro-must move tables, since this is the must-move table thread.

I just got an idea. How about players from the waitlist get moved to play on another table, BUT they still keep their place in the waitlist. When it's their turn to play on the waitlist table, they get asked if they still want to join. However, if they, for some reason, stop playing at the table they're moved to, they lose their spot in the waitlist.

i like this

antidote argues that longer waitlists full of script-runners keep games running. i don't think there is any merit to this and would argue the opposite-the players running such tools are less likely to take a seat than an average player. the mechanized waitlisting only makes them appear to contribute to games' running.

+1 to sitout all BUT this requires the addition of 'sitout BB and leave' option so ppl can exit single tables (and not merely camp)

+1

thats the only way people would actually want to play.

I honestly doubt it, but at least those who won't won't be able to get on the table with the fish.