Originally Posted by BigBadBabar

wasn't it agreed that rush poker was Bad? how will zoom poker be different?

Originally Posted by Fergastra

But is the player pool above .5/1 (or even .25/.5) large enough to be divided?

Originally Posted by pg_780

I hate the idea of rush poker for FL. Not only cause of the already small pool, but it takes away from so much of the game.

Originally Posted by daiquiri

+1 it's gonna suck big time but looks like it's gonna go ahead anyway, nothing we can do

Originally Posted by Hood

it's no certainty it will come to FL if the community comes to a consensus that it's not good for the games, i brought it up during the meetings and voiced the concern to the PS team who were receptive to the issue

Originally Posted by jspill

LHE is supposed to be a fun, laid-back, play every hand, call down and see who wins type game for recreational players

even .25/.50 LHE Rush on FTP was super-aggro with 1/2+ regs multi-tabling it for rakeback, didn't feel very fun for the fish, and i hate the idea of them being encouraged to click quick-fold with their suited connectors instead of just throwing in the limp

Originally Posted by bellatrix

+1 to "no rush/zoom"

Originally Posted by das_wunderkind

agree it sucks for LHE

Originally Posted by pg_780

Yeah let's make a poll or do whatever we can to help keep zoom away from LHE.

They've just made changes to try and reduce the nit fest, zoom would be a step in the wrong direction.

Originally Posted by GiantBuddha

I personally think they should get rid of all regular games and replace them with unobservable zoom tables with invisible player pools. It solves almost everything.

Originally Posted by ant___z

I do not like anything that potentially would split the field further (like zoom at FL for example) cause it is so tiny by now, specially at certain hours. That's the way to die, I saw that happening with tables drying rapidly once the volume is too low on other poker rooms and it is sad. Even more cause the recreational players are the ones that leave easily when they see it empty (regs stick more around, waiting for the fish to comeback cause well that's a "living" for them and/or they have vip deals with the poker and etc).

Originally Posted by Hood

Basically nothing definite, i raised concerns that the community had over further segregating pool, PS reps said they would take it in board and would consider things carefully before rolling it out anywhere in FL.

Since, one or two players have said they would like rush FL at low stakes, and there is the + that all rush games would be full tables so a little less rake (6-handed has the biggest decreased with the rake change).

So basically, it's still an open question and the community should discuss it. I know Steve and other reps will monitor this thread and take seriously any considerations or consensus.

Originally Posted by Hood

I think the community should be discussion things like:
Zoom poker (rush-like): should this be tried at some stakes? which ones? benefits/issues?
Zoom ONLY at high stakes - here Steve discusses (note disclaimer: this post does not indicate any future plans for PokerStars games.) the radical idea of removing all high stakes games and replacing it with a rush-like game. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Tryptamean

heh, saw that too.. agreed. he tossed around a few half baked ideas in that thread, hopefully it was just a bit of brainstorming.

Originally Posted by G1lius

Zoom on highstakes would solve a big number of the issues there, but I'm not playing there so I'm not the one to say it's good or bad.
Personally I don't like the ever changing positions which comes with rush/zoom, but if it solves some problems it might be worth it.
One thing to note though is that although rush was pretty popular among weaker players, weaker highstakes players might not be so happy about a fast paced game, which makes them lose faster. Obviously some people have money to burn, but it might matter.
@ highstakes regs: it would really help if you state why you think it's a bad idea.

I've already given the downsides of 'must move' and 'global waitlist', in short: Regs will insta-leave a table full of regs and join the waitlist again. Meaning you get a table starting and immediately breaking once every minute or so, which comes off very strange to amateur players.

Originally Posted by henholland

If they are refering to LHE tbls 30/60+ it would be bad for these reasons:
Player pool is way too small. Especially the number of players willing to play any other players are extremely few, and they probably wouldnt even fill one 6max tbl at peak hours.
The problem is that at these stakes the skill difference between regs is very small and rake will tend swallow any edge there might be. And then most regs do play to make money not just to have fun, so I really dont think it would increase action at all. A rush-like variant at 30/60+ LHE would likely be completely dead most of the time, only interrupted by the occasional feeding frenzy whenever a fish came to gamble. So pretty much just like it is now only in a different and (imo) more akward setting.

Originally Posted by G1lius

I think you might miss the reason why to implement it.
It does not create more shortterm action, I totally agree. However, some of the issues HS has can be solved this way. Like the waitlist, the buttoned problem to some degree, the sit-out problem to some degree.

Say a known weak player joins. Now you get a major waitlist, if it's zoom, you get a lot more players that actually play.
If he sits out, he just leaves the 'pool' for a while. Since you can't instantly see that, like on normal tables, there's actually a bit of play after he leaves/sits out. Obv. the game will still die, but not instantly. Since the game "remembers" who had the last blinds, getting buttoned isn't that much of an issue anymore. (at least I presume it isn't, we'll have to wait and see how the software actually is)

Originally Posted by Absolution

This sounds like it would solve buttoning to some degree, but it would still be a race to see who can sit out first. The regs will have the lobby open the entire time and insta-sit-out when the fish leaves. They will know when he leaves the pool. You just turn the current system into a lottery where more that 5-8 people get to play the recreational player.

Originally Posted by Hood

Just brain-storming... what if you couldn't see who else was in the pool?

Originally Posted by G1lius

Like I said, games will still die, but not everybody watches the lobby the entire time since there are some players multitabling lower stakes. So it might take a couple of hands before play actually stops. Which is something they tried to agree upon in the highstakes forum.

Winrate will decrease when playing though, since you'll be sitting at a full reg table regularly. Play goes faster, so you might play more hands though, and if you have an edge over other regs your hourly might be higher. So the best players will be better off, the weaker regs worse. It would be more 'fair' though, since the one who watched the lobby the most gets a seat at this moment.

Not being able to see who's in the pool doesn't sound like a good idea, since the games would just not start. I don't think there are any HS reg that would be willing to play each other for a long time just in the hopes x or y joins.

Originally Posted by Absolution

You force regs to play maybe a 2 or 3 more hands? None of these changes designed to artificially stimulate the overall health of the game are going to have a significant impact. We can remove some angle shooting behaviour (buttoning, sit-out races, etc...) to make a more pleasing environment and this will help to some degree and I definitely think that should be done. However, I see poker games just like a market and it's difficult if not impossible to influence the market. Which games are popular seems largely out of our control. The best thing is marketing of the game altogether. We just need volume. Lots of players is good for the game. We lost 30% of our player base and that's had the largest impact on the games. If we can recover that in the future the games will become proportionally healthier. I guess this is all obvious, but I just think that's the end goal we should have. US regulation with an international player base would be the ideal because of how good the US market is at advertising and promotion. I don't see that in the next 5 years at least though. Segregated markets seem to be the current model.

Originally Posted by Tryptamean

fwiw i believe psteve made a statement in the galfond hsnl thread that stars is against blind wait lists in ring games.. i would assume this applies to a rush poker list as well.

Originally Posted by ladybruin

I voted yes.

I also frankly don't think a group of 2+2 who are anti-Zoom should be in a position to stop the roll out of a new game. The game should at least be given a try and let the public decide what they want to play.