Its like the current lobby, but instead of free tables coming (tables with no one sitting on it) all the time, there will only come free tables till there are X (e.g. 10) seated tables (with one person sitting). Since ppl cant wait for a free table to come cauz there wont come a new one till a new game has started, this forces ppl to play against each other way more often.
This will hurt alot of players, especially the bumhunters, but its the only way (atleast i can see), that headsup online poker will start to grow again...

I still don't get what's going on in this pic

.

What is Koth? Google didn't reveal anything too relevant...

'king of the hill' heads up - http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29...format-692236/

I think that the fish busted and Ilios sat out and told the fish to move down to 25/50 because that is more comfortable for Ilios to play at. At 50/100 Galfond has a bigger edge on Ilios because Ilios is playing on scared money.

I do agree with a lot of his points. If possible, I think the game would be better without HUDs and I don't think that many guys would disagree with that. Too bad this isn't really possible, though.

Fully agree that PTR and other tracking sites should go should go. This site is absolutely bad and I imagine once a casual player sees his -$X,XXX or more loss he will never come back.

A different and actually fair way of fixing the HU lobby is making it so 5 random HU tables show up in the lobby, and that the tables that appear are different to everyone. Have these tables showing, plus any table with 2 people actually sitting/playing, as well as one empty one per stake. This is not unfair to anyone and fixes the entire problem as far as HU is concerned.

BTW Phil's suggestion is just laughable. We'd have the top 5 pros in the world sitting at all 5 of those empty tables for 3/6+ and they would be making thousands of dollars an hour via bum hunting (and that's what it would be). Sure the lobby would look prettier but you can accomplish that with my system as well. Also the idea that great players deserve all the fish and very good players deserve none is just *completely* absurd. Being good at the game is not actually good for the games. You know what is good for the games? A bigger marketing budget and legalization of the games. If a site actually implemented these types of policies I actually imagine that far fewer games would run overall - the "middle class" of the poker world would just drop out and the fish would drop their money in record speed. This scenario isn't good for anyone but the best players.

Also even though Phil claims to play anyone and constantly give action... that isn't true either. If you watch closely you will see that he only plays other top pros when they are playing multiple tables and can thus focus more energy on the game than them. He is practicing a more subtle version of game selection/bum hunting.

Wait so the fish was playing over his/her limit? My opinion of Galfond just dropped.

the fish had 30k stack at 50100 n Ilios sits at the table only to say to the fish to come and play at 2550

The fish was playing 50/100, and a lot of lower-stakes bumhunters joined the game to try to get him to move down in stakes, to get high stakes regs out of the equation.

Basically, it's just a situation where a bumhunter's trying to socially engineer his optimal game, at the expense of the game in general and other players.

um...i have a few problems with phils ideas.

They all benefit him and the top 5% of poker players.

I don't see how this benefits everyone...most of this just benefits the best of the best....and I don't like that.

I think the way it is now... its more "democratic" where if you want to bumhunt...u can..if u want to play regs..u can...if you want to do both..u can.

His ideas seem a little to controlling to me, if you consider it from the viewpoint of majority of the poker players.

yes this is what happens. a smaller stakes bumhunting reg will join a high stakes table, sit out without playing any hands, and try to talk the weak player into dropping down in stakes to play at stakes the bumhunter feels comfortable playing at.

it's beyond scummy and these *********** should be strung up and their molars should be pulled with pliers as an example

.

When I read a lot of his arguments, I thought in the classic British way:

"You would say that wouldn't you?"

It's easy for him to say these things given his obvious wealth and position.

I think his ideas are trying to accomplish two things:

1) Give a little more protection to recreational players and ensure that the game stays enjoyable to them.

2) Give a greater chance for ANYONE to get action, including the best players.

I think that both points are important. Poker is a game that would not operate well at all without different skill levels. It would be TERRIBLE for the game of poker if there were no recreational players as well as elite pros.

Many (weaker) players play the game with a hope that they will be able to be an elite player one day. Would those players still play if they knew that when they do become an elite player, they wont be able to find a game anymore? It may be a bit of an exaggeration but that's the idea. I think poker needs both groups of players, and both should have a chance to play in games.

An analogy could be made with professional sports. Pro sports teams do not have the option of who they play in a season or in the playoffs. That is part of the game, they have to play who is on the schedule. Sometimes they will play better teams, and sometimes they will play weaker. If they want to succeed and be the best that year, they have to improve greatly and prove they are the best by beating other good teams. Poker could be the same way.

I really hope this thread will take off, and that Galfond's request for discussion will be heard.
Come on intelligent people, for once don't act like lazy pokerplayers!
Secondly, I hope the best ideas will make it to decision makers of the sites.

didnt the DOJ make some changes to poker last year?

Did he not say get rid of 2p2? or was that just someone in the thread? If he did do you really think they want that as a discussion?

I'm curious how Phil feels about people giving away their secrets on video. Or is that okay if they're making a lot of $$$?

Sorry not following what you are saying. 2p2 is a fine place for discussion, Galfond would agree.. GL

Points 1-3 are already implemented on many sites. PartyPoker ticks all 3 boxes, I believe (name changes, anon tables in HU, limits to number of HU tables). In my experience it made games worse at partypoker, but I can't speak as a whole. I would recommend you patronize the sites that have these features if you feel it worthy.

#4 is rush poker, which has it's + and -s. Expect it at stars end of this month.

#6 already exists in that rake caps are lower HU. Really no reward is enough for reg on reg action that otherwise wouldn't run.

#7 yes big problem, no real solution.


That leaves #5. #5 is a golden idea. Phil calls it "must move tables", I've referred to it as a "global waitlist". It's like live poker, you all join one table list and where there's enough to start a new game (Phil says 4 at a 6max, i would say 5 or 6, but whatever) you are randomly sat and the game starts. It has the +s of rush poker (instant action, recreational-player friendly, solves waitlist issues, solves bumhunting issues), but it doesn't suffer from the downsides of "fast-fold/rush poker" (cheapens the game of poker by reducing the skill edge, turns it in to a casino/arcade game, no reads/tells/chat/tension etc).

Global wait list/must move is a KILLER idea. I recommended it to stars a year or so ago, and i'm glad to see the idea re-emerge. I think the first major network that implements this well will see a huge action boost. Deep down I hope pokerstars "fast-moving ring-game product" is more inline with this rather than rush, but we'll see.

Recreational player stars the lobby. Click one button - boom you are on the global waitlist for your game and stake. 10 seconds later, pop your table opens. Instant action, no predatory crap, level playing-field, let's play poker.

Professional play starting a session? One click, boom on global waitlist for your game and stake for 4 tables. 10 seconds, you have a random mix of players at a new table. No messing around with "lobby skills" or table scanning. Don't like table? dump it, get a new one.



[edit: one point re the blog - "Some are very lax with opening new accounts on different skins." - this is a common misconception. Most "euro" networks explicitly permit multiple accounts on skins. It's not just a lax attitude. That includes ipoker, party (WPT), ongame, Merge (one RB account), microgaming, entraction, everleaf (one RB account)]

This is the single biggest problem imo.

There's little that can be done about it either.

Jman's well is the biggest ego/attention seeking fest in the world. It's not even about Galfond sharing his knowledge, it's about everyone letting him know he's the best. I can't even read it anymore because everyone else does. The thought tilts me.

can someone elaborate on what he means by "button wars" in laymans terms. I live in Las Vegas so I play this thing called "live" poker. I've dabbled here and there online but never really liked it so I didn't understand 90% of the stuff phil was talking about in that article.

it doesnt matter what rec. players, high stakes players, micro players, phil want; it's what the SITE WANTS. they don't care about their players, they will make decisions based on what benefits them most and what makes them the most money. if KOTH makes them more money that's what they will do, if anonymous tables makes them money then we will see that. we are just $ signs to them.

I think the "button" he means is the "Sit out next big blind" button. As soon as a fish busts out or sits out, all the regs hit the "sit out" button as fast as they can. Whoever is last to hit it finds themselves in the big blind and has to play a hand. It's pretty ridiculous that professional poker players don't want to play a hand if there is no fish at the table.