microstakes zoom poker on my iphone please

Didn't someone already lay out the math of why Rush was a horrible rake trap, good only for the site? I thought it was NinaWillaims, but I couldn't find the post.

Agree completely. Even during Rush week, the games didn't have that many tables. Maybe Stars has a bigger player pool, but on Tilt it didn't work. For some of us it was a good thing because the average players seemed to go on tilt. I'd guess that benefit won't last.

can you imagine that they could get games higher than 1/2 or 2/4, anyway? If you have a limit that normally gets 3 tables, Rush won't work.

---

Overall, I think Zoom/Rush is between a huge negative and a moderate one. If you're a marginal winner, I think you're likely to become a loser in the format. As a player who has edge on the majority of the pool, you'll split the benefit with Stars. Based on a few hours playing at FT, it would take a lot to convince me that Zoom is a good idea. Also since the games at equivalent limits at FT were softer than Stars, I could be underestimating how bad Zoom would be.

Good post Doug.
Also, at least for FR, 1/2 is still to high. It would kill the regular tables

For the record, I don't think they should add Zoom tables. I think Zoom tables should replace all existing tables. It would break PTR. Allowing a one-time-only screen name change would mean that would play other regs more often, imagining that they had an edge. People who are good at game-selection should hate it, because it essentially eliminates the opportunity to use that skill. Seat selection is completely eliminated. There is no more buttoning when a game breaks down.

I wrote a whole article on it, but haven't gotten around to publishing it yet. Perhaps I should.

FWIW, my first reaction to Rush was, "OMG that's the worst thing to ever happen to poker." I think a lot of the negativity directed towards the formats stems from an emotional attachment to the way things are. Mine did, anyway. I can't speak for everyone. I do think it's worth applying a bit of cool, detached logic to.

GB right now the only and I mean the only players at 3/6-5T who have a positive wr are the ones who are game and seat selecting. So what you are suggesting right now is that everyone turns to rb whoring exclusively because that's the only way possible without game selection at the current environment. I'm completely certain of that. I don't know what's up with you but you really seem to be on a crusade here to eliminate any winning players from the games. If it wasn't you I would be certain you are either trolling or don't know what you are talking about but now I'm just utterly confused and pissed.

wooha, this is like shooting pigeons with bazookas imo

taking away all possibility to table select would probably make way the majority of regs on stars quit the site completely. I certainly would too btw.

rbgrinders would stay though, how awesome

Oddly, my first reaction was positive. I thought it was a good replacement to mass tabling. Then I read in the LC thread (was it maybe StellarWind?), and then I played it some. I've gone from thinking it was cool to thinking it probably will destroy LHE as we know it. I'm curious to see your "cool detached logic".

FWIW, using a MMT device as a solution to anti-bum hunting doesn't make any sense to me. This is a device that allows for and encourages tight play, especially in EP. The whole idea that it will somehow make games better requires a lot of proving, imho. It seems that this is something that would take a large player pool and grind rake out of it as fast as possible. Not sure how it makes the games better. Full disclosure, I absolutely ran hot/crushed during Rush week. For some of us, I think it will be profitable until the games are all destroyed.

I suspect that you'd crush and continue playing, until all the games dry up.

What is it with the animosity against table and seat selecting players?

Please publish your article GB, I dont wanna judge you without having read it. However im pretty shocked by your post anyways considering what the majority of people think and how rush worked at FT.

If games get tougher and faster this will only accelerate the death of the game by forcing people to improve and make fish bust faster. But what do I know because I actually table and seat select trying to improve my chances of a positve winrate before rakeback.

So the games would get much better, imo.

playing weaker regs, buttoning and seat selection to a certain degree are all highstakes problems. I've already said I think the PS Steve proposal of highstakes zoom might be a good idea, but it serves no purpose at lower stakes.
@GB: I presume you'd want more action at highstakes, guess who's going to move up quicker, the seat and table selector with a winrate or the slightly losing rakeback grinder?
Guess who's going to stay when there's only zoompoker.

I eagerly await your thoughtful, well laid out explanation as to how this will be the case.

I absolutely am not on a crusade against winning players. If I'm on a crusade, it's a crusade to create a more level playing field where how you play your hands matters more than any of your other poker-related decisions.

You either have a low assessment of your own skill level, or a very negative assessment of the state of the games to think you couldn't have a positive win rate in a rush-like setting. I haven't played on Stars in 10 months, so I may be way off-base. Is the situation really that dire? If it is, then I may be wrong about all this.

I do think that over time, you would see improvement in the games even if at first things were a bit rough.

On a slight tangent, the distinction between "positive win rate players" and "rakeback whores" is a false dichotomy. The only real distinction I see among players is between net-depositing players and net-withdrawing players.

That said, I think the whole VIP system is super unbalanced and extremely unfair to lower volume players. If there's a problem with Zoom poker, it's just that it exacerbates an existing problem (the VIP system).