Say I'm eating a snack and want to cut down my tables for a few mins til im done?

Or if I hate playing 3-handed but want to continue playing in the game as soon as more people join?

Or if I have too many tables going and want to sit out of the not-so-great ones for a second and figure out which ones I want to keep?

I mean, it doesn't matter anyway because the problem is table blocking not taking breaks from individual tables, and it can easily be solved with option 3.

edit: furthermore, option 2 does nothing to penalize players who are bumhunting across every site and only playing (blocking) on stars when specific fish are around. Option 3 isn't even harsh enough. I can't think of a good reason for sitting out at a table where a game isn't running, ever. It just shouldn't be an option at all.

Just have a 5min sit out thingie like it is now(?). Add a ban from the table for 20min or something like that, then you can join again..

Why not sit out at all of your tables while you eat your snack? You'll enjoy it more anyways

This type of behaviour is in-line with the other types of things we are trying to get rid of imo. Sitting out at a table while 2 regs are trying to get a game going is definitely not a good reason to not implement this idea. In fact, this could be a reason it should be implemented.


True, I can definitely see this being an issue if it made u insta-sitout at all tables. I think that when you sit-out at 1 table it should auto-select "sit out at next bb" on all tables. So there should be a buffer zone in which to get sorted.

Good points, the solution is definitely not perfect. I think the best solution for this problem implementing both of the solutions. I mean, if someone wants to play a single other table they can't block any tables....so if they were in an MTT or STT or there was another juicy cashgame, the bumhunter wouldn't be able to block any tables.

This feature also has some really positive affects on some of the other problems that people are voting on (clogged waitlists and people sitting out when a fish sits out)

.

I agree with cowpig. My current bathroom break method when I'm 12 tabling is sit out of about half the tables, including all the ones with less than 4 players, then make a run for it and try to not miss any hands.

Sometimes I get a phone call and want to sit out of some of my games, but not all of them.

Sometimes I just need a second to decide if I want to play on a table or not.

When I end a session, I start sitting out at 9max tables, then 6max, then HU. This is just plain efficient and lets me keep up a reasonable hands per hour pace during the last few minutes of a session.

Not only are there plenty of legit reasons to sit out of some but not all of your tables, but option #2 doesn't work because of timing out, going bust, and other logistical reasons.

Some variation of #3 would be best IMO.

I agree, but I think if you have 1 or 2 minutes after sitting out on 1 table before you get forced to sitout on your other tables then this prob improves the current situation somewhat while eliminating your concerns?

That would be abusable. Sit out right before your bb, then wait for bb and you have more than enough time.

I think no matter how this is implemented there would be consequences far bigger than the original problem

What about a manual solution? If you are the only person sitting in at a table, you can manually give someone 2 minutes to play a hand or they are booted for 10 min?

This would need to be coupled with people getting kicked off of tables with only 2 people playing.

I also think "kick off the table" timers need to be adjusted. Some ones you get kicked off a 3 handed game in 5 minutes and some times you have 25 minutes in a full game.

I think it's ridiculous that someone could be playing for 8 hours and get kicked off for a 5 min break. Ideally a formula should factor in how much time you've been at the table.

An overall sit out timer would fix a lot of these problems. It starts with 2 min, it goes up to 8 min as soon as you play your 10th hand, and then you get 1 min added for every 10 min that goes by without sitting out. As soon as you hit "sit in next bb" the timer stops counting down, but if you hit sit out before that bb and miss it, you lose all that time. Going bust auto adds 2 min to your sit out timer.

Something along those lines sound reasonable? Times can obv be adjusted.

Personally I find that when I take a bathroom break after having played 4 hours straight and I sit out next BB on all, finish orbits and come back after rushing to the bathroom and pooring a quick drink, I've been booted from some of them for having missed 3 orbits at the tables where I finished the orbits fastest, so shortening the sit-out timers in the current system would be a bad thing. So here are a couple of thoughts:

1) Some sort of sit-out timebank that increases the longer you've been playing, but is very short when you just start a session. The timebank only activates when you sit out on all tables. When you keep playing some you have the regular 3 orbits/timer/whatever. This will also make it possible for the regular times to be shortened a bit, which reduces the time a bumhunter can sit out at your table without it being harmful to the "real" players. It seems reasonable that someone playing for several hours straight can take up to a 10 minute break without being booted from the tables. This timebank could also be increased based on how many VPPs the player has (bumhunters have lower volume in general from multi-siting or not playing other regs in general).

2) As soon as there are more than 2 players at a table, the "I don't want to play HU" excuse doesn't fly anymore so the timer gets shortened or they get forced to play as long as they are actively playing at other tables too (like a pop-up with a 1 minute timer asking if they want to play or leave the table, no other option). This way if 2 bumhunters sit with a single reg that's sitting in, both of them get this popup and are either forced to play or to leave (and not being allowed to sit back in for 5 minutes or something).

3) You are only allowed to sit down without sitting in at a 6 max table with 1 opponent on it, as long as you sit directly across the player. If you want to take any other seat, you have to play (and once you've played some you get a shorter timer for how long you can sit out that increases the longer you've played that table). This way the table starter will only have one bumhunter max sitting out at his table that, that if 2) is implemented as well is forced to play or leave as soon as another reg sits. This prevents people from sitting either on your direct left or direct right assuring either direct position on you or blocking the recreational player from being directly OOP to the table starter and the bumhunter having guaranteed position on the recreational player 3 handed.

+1 to a sit-out-time-bank that increases the more you play.

Also, it seems fair that if you prefer not to play until a game is n-handed, you shouldn't be allowed to choose a seat at the table. There should be a feature on each table where you can just click "willing to play [n]-handed," and stars automatically sits you (in a random seat or whatever) once the game gets n players.

I think this idea addresses Grindcore's points 2 and 3 in a simple fashion.

it has to be sit out one sit out all but increase the timebank when sitting out at all tables.

if you want to sit out and leave a certain game that should be an option but you shouldn't be able to just sit out in one game while other regs are playing eachother blocking fishes seat or someone who actually wants to play and stealing regs ev who are battling it out, risking their money and paying rake. if you don't want to play in a certain game just leave and let others on the tables.

sit out one sit out all imo

you should be able to sit out headsup but asked if you want to play or leave when a third peson sits