We've heard these impassioned and well thought out pleas before to make the games better for the "recreational players".

None of these measures have ever worked (or even been implemented) and as money continually dries up in poker the borderline tactics, as well as the angling and outright scams, will only increase in frequency and severity. It's like a consequence of human nature that can't be curbed or mitigated in any way. In fact I have would be surprised if the frequency of scams big enough to make waves in this forum did not conform to a know distribution.

The only thing that can save online poker is trusted brand names opening up sites under the full regulation of the government. All other measures are like a doggie gate against an avalanche. Therefore all energy and money devoted to fixing poker should be spent towards making it legal.

+1 for this idea

you click on the stake and format (6m or FR) you wanna play and a form opens where you enter how many tables you wanna play and how deep you wanna buy in (maybe allowing 40bb to 250bb)

software opens as much tables as you entered. when you dont want to play a specific table you can quit and software seats you at an other one.

and fwiw i think the sites would also profit, as there wouldnt be 80 players @100NL who are on a waitlist and wait until they get a table. but instead 14 more tables running and creating rake/money for the site

also in regards to this comment, if table rating was banned, and sn changes were allowed it would take you quite a while to figure out it was a bad table

I knew phil when he was first coming up and have watched his progress ever since, I can say without a doubt he did not build his bankroll by bumhunting. He's always been fearless about playing huge stakes. I remember when he first started playing 50/100 on UB he told me the only reason he was playing is because he could and wanted to play huge. Same with the 2k Party SNG's he used to play before he fully switched to cash games (those were massive massive stakes at the time - both 50/100 and 2k sng's).

Granted the games were much softer back then and he was at the front of the curve long before the games got hard, so perhaps he would have built his roll through bumhunting as others have done had he come along later - but what you say def does not apply to him.

Send Galfond to the Pokerstars sit down in the Isle of man? I'd back that idea. I think that he'd be open to discussion and try to get the best for everyone involved, fish, regs and the site itself.

I know I'm a very new and inexperienced member here, and so my criticisms might not be as valued as others, but I really take offence to a comment like this. Now, I don't know Phil Galfond personally, but to suggest that he has posted this blog to encourage change in online poker games PURELY for his personal gain is absoutely ridiculous. Phil has done nothing but try to better the poker community for years and years now. To be frank, how dare you accuse him of doing this for purely selfish reasons? After all he's done for the community, I think this is completely disrespectful and unwarranted.

i think the waitlist/must move idea is good, but i don't know if your last statement (bolded) is true. i assume that almost all the people on waiting lists are table selectors and wouldn't necessarily play (at least not that number of tables) on random tables.

Honestly, I think there is a lot of truth to this.

You really wonder how good a lot of these online players really would be without their HUDs, their absurd bumhunting, etc.

Say what you want above live poker -- and the game can sometimes be boring with way fewer hands an hour and what not -- but a lot of live players that I have seen have a lot more heart and balls than a lot of online players.

In live poker you just sit down and play. There is no, "Let me check out Poker Table Ratings first before I sit down." I have NEVER seen an entire table of live players instantly sit/out leave after a weaker player busted.

That is why I think live poker is a lot more fair/fun in a lot of ways.

At STTs and MTTs, a player is not free to choose his own seat (only his viewpoint) or table. Sites are obv. aware of casino cash tables : main; feeder ; must-move. So, sites have chosen their cash-table seating arrangements as the most profitable for the site. If players can convince a site to change any present policy, that new policy must out-profit the older one.

Please explain how something that has never been implemented can have worked.

Galfond wants to stack all the pros, and send the poker world busto.

So if I understand things correctly this very popular and respected pro has made millions using a HUD and now he thinks it would be "ok" to make HUDs illegal?

Awesome ideas. Would very much appreciate someone in Phil's position advocating these types of changes.

He doesn't use one very often and when he does he has no idea what to do with it as anyone who's seen a video of his can attest to.

But let's say he 100% advocated making HUDs illegal . . . so what? OMGhypocrisyOMGamiritegotcha. No, this would be hypocrisy: saying players should voluntarily refrain from using HUDs while still using a HUD.

I think you need to get over yourself.

i have no idea about headup but for 6max and above we could do the following

global waitlist (for multi-tablers, once you get a seat you can go back on the global waitlist for another and so on) + must move tables. Global waitlist puts you at the next available seat and any table, and when there are enough people on the list to creat a full table it starts a new table, which will turn into a must move untill a new must move table is formed.

For newly created must move tables, the btn and seats are chooses at random, if one leaves before they go through the blinds they are charged 1.5bb, which gets put into the next pot as an ante (this is to prevent people from angle shooting and never paying the blinds). They could put this rule as a popup before you seat at a newly created table, which you have to agree to in order to play. If you don't agree then you just go back on the waitlist and wait for an already running table were you have the wait for bb option. Table selecting is still posible its just alot more time consuming now. more importantly fishes aren't hunted down with such ease and games won't insta break once they leave cuz the spot gets filled quickly. Most regs will continue playing because they aren't afraid of paying the bb just for the game to break.

IF there is no one in the global list, and a table gets down to 4 for 6 max or 6 for 9 max. The game is interrupted and a pop up comes up were they are given the choice to continue to play untill enough spots are open on other games where they will be placed and be allowed to play from hand one without having to wait for bb (or better yet as a reward for not breaking the table, they are given the option on the new table to wait for CO, how sweet is that. we can't make it btn cuz people will be charged twice for blinds). Also, for the players that choose to continue to play (for example, 3 of 4) they will be rewarded by having a 1.5 vpp multiplier until the game fills or until the game breaks due to having all been relocated to other tables (remember they are all relocated at the same time).

There could also be a feature that lets you choose how many you are willing to continue with(for exmple one is okay playing 3handed but only 2 choose to continue to play, in this example the table will just break). This way people who want to play but are scared of being more short handed then they are comfortable don't choose to leave table out of fear. For the ones that choose to not play, they are punished by not being allowed to get on the global list until either the current table fills or the table breaks.


Also, alot of people who play eventually get turned off to online poker once they hear about huds and such. So instead of having them find out and feeling like they are being cheated, the site lets them now immediately by giving them a choice to play on tables were huds are not allowed. these tables could be monitered carefully by a site and include harsh punishment for anyone (ban and forfeiting of funds) who uses a hud on them. Maybe even going as far has not allowing HH to be saved from those tables, but they could be emailed to you a few hours after your session. hem or pt could easily implement something were their software turns off huds on those tables, this way no one accidently uses huds. Plus the punishment will be mostly for a repeat offender with a personizled hud who are obviously trying to circumvent the rule. This one is a bit off the wall but i'm just thinking.

What do you guys think?

I'm mainly a cash game player, but did play online a little (something like 10k hands). Since black friday happened I have read a tremendous amount about online poker, and learned many things that I had no idea about. Such as tracking sites, HUD's, bumhunting, bots, shared accounts, etc etc etc. I was obviously way behind the curve and lost money. Things are much more technical and advanced than most average players think/know. I look back and ask myself, what in the hell were you doing??? I am still learning more and more about the ins and outs of online play with the hopes of playing again once it becomes legal in the U.S.

After learning more and more I agree with many that some things should change, but it's hard to say what and why without it favoring one side more than the other. Bumhunters, personally I don't like them and don't respect them, but it is their money they are playing with and just like in a cash game, they can choose who to play or who not to play. Many people sit down at a cash game and realize that the table is full of regs and ask for a table change. The difference is that in a cash game it's much easier to spot a reg than it is online, at least for me. I will use the $5/10 game at the Venetian as an example. Every time I play that game there is at least 3 or 4 solid Vegas pros playing in that game, and they hardly ever play each other in big pots. They are waiting for the low level guys who are trying to step up to the next level. I don't like it, but I'm ok with it because I can play tight there and still make money.

As far as "fixing" bumhunting online, maybe the site could put a "label" on each player that can't be hidden. The label could say something about their skill level or # hands played, or hell even label them a bumhunter, so that non-grinders know what kind of player they are going up against. Then that person can make an informed decision if they want to play that person or not.

I agree with many things PG said in his post, but I do question his motives now that the game is "not what it used to be", which is when he made lots of money.

Just two cents from a rookieish type player who is learning as he goes.

Both PG and the "average regs + bumhunters" are looking for and asking for structures that benefit them most financially. The concept of "good for the game" is complete bs as is "creating a good environment for the fish" because that is motviated by people who want to take more money from the recreational players by creating an illusion of a nice environment. And in 99% of cases, not because they feel that "this is the right thing to do".

The current structure of games today seemingly favours the "average regs + bumhunters" over PG and thats because there are many more of this type of player and hence they create the most revenue. And so the only way it will change is if more people take up PGs views, which of course will not happen because (a bit of a generalisation but) people are greedy by nature and will do whatever benefits their bottom line (which is taking as much money from the fish). In PG's view tho, the fish is everyone (including regs), and thats why he wants the changes hes requested.

How many hands did Galfond play 500-1000 NL witout GUY ?

and you dont want the same happening for yourself? Because nowadays in the poker community things like this will never happen again if games stay the same...

nobody has mentioned HU Rush? does the idea suck that bad? dont see how it wouldn't solve the bumhunting problem at HU

I tested the new Stars software and had to sign a NDA for it, but i can assure it will make it a LOT easier for a recreational player to find games/make it less of a cluster****.

please explain the logistics of how this work