this has been done before, right? Didn't it just result in the top 10 HU players sitting and never playing anybody besides fish (which is what happens now)?

KOTH - You occupy a table and somebody sits with you, if you refuse action you leave the table and it becomes theirs.

In order to prevent the best players from clogging up all the tables players are only allowed to sit across 2 limits on open tables. You may be seated on an unlimited amount of tables across all limits as long as you're in action at said limits. If one of your tables breaks and you're sitting on more than 2 limits of open tables you will then be prompted with a pop up asking you which two limits you wish to stay at.

The break down on the amount of available tables should be somewhere along the lines of

50nl - 25 open tables, unlimited active tables.
100nl - 20 open tables, unlimited active table.
200nl-600nl - 15 open tables at each limit, unlimited active tables.
1knl-5knl - 10 open tables at each limit, unlimited active tables.
10knl+ - 5 open tables at each limit, unlimited active tables.

Roughly 70 heads up tables up for grabs between 50nl and 5knl at any given time with an unlimited amount of tables running should be plenty for a healthy heads up environment. It's weighted for more games at the lower stakes as the player pool should be smaller as stakes progressively get higher.

Now the only problem with this is how to figure out which table gets booted from the # of open tables after an active game breaks but one of the players still wish to stay seated at that limit.

Any suggestions?


Buttoning - When a table starts to break or the fish leaves. You instantly click sit out next big blind so you wont have to pay for another round in a game you wouldn't otherwise play in. The last to do this is essentially left holding an extra 1bb check every time this happens.

The only solution I can think of for this is rather radical. First off I would add another tier of tables because some people just enjoy playing with different amounts of players and there's no reason to punish them. You would have Heads Up, 4max, 6max, and 9max tables.

When a table is being started at any of these levels it can remain at the given amount of players that are sitting I.E. players starting a 9max table are allowed to play 2, 3, 5 handed until the table reaches 9max. Once a table has reached it maximum it is then locked in with the rest of the full tables. If the table then drops to a predetermined cutoff threshold it becomes considered a broken table I.E. if a full 9max table drops to 5 players it becomes considered a broken table and no new players are allowed to sit. If a 6max table fills then drops to 3 players it becomes considered a broken table and no new players can sit.

If the seated players continue to play once a table has been declared broken then fine, but at least everyone will be aware that the table will be breaking soon enough and that if you want to get out then you can do so sooner rather than complaining and saying you didn't know the table was going to break.


Just some thoughts I've had about two of the above situations.

I don't know how this would work for 6max, but regarding the heads up tables: why don't they just put a limit on how many people you sit out against/leave within a set time frame? Obviously there should be exceptions, like playing a certain amount of hands before you leave or being stacked, etc. Maybe they could even add some type of bank system, similar to how on some sites you earn time in your time bank. You could earn the right to leave opponents based on how many you played without bumhunting.

edit: another exception could be if your opponent gives you permission to sit out.

I am not any kind of expert, and the issues address in his blog don't really concern me. But is the only source of income for high stakes players whales? I mention this because this does concern me, and much of what PG mentions seems to involve accomodating high stakes recreational players. I always assumed money essentially flows up stakes in poker, therefore if rake issues down the chain are addressed (i.e. don't take so much that the games are not beatable) then all of that money will flow upwards. Perhaps whales aren't the only potential source of income.

money flows upward AND outward to players, which is where you're lacking IMO

I started that petition a couple of years ago, but the sites never did anything. So I moved to San Francisco and partnered up with a team of developers and we're in the process of building a new online poker site, which will offer only HU poker, King of the Hill format. We are looking to get a license to offer real money in Nevada next month.

We might even have opportunities for investors right now; PM me if you're interested.

OK fair enough. Definitely a complicated subject.

"Must move" games is just the start. The site should seat all players. There should be no table selection. You can play as many tables as you want but just like a casino the floor should randomly seat you. When you leave a table you automatically get pushed back to the bottom of the wait list.

regardless, you've gotta give him some credit for putting some thought into issues that do, in fact, concern a lot of us.

some interesting stuff, imo. i'd love to see the must moves happen.

Frankly, I'm surprised we were ever allowed to seat ourselves. Any time you give people the opportunity to make choices when money is on the line they're going to act selfishly. The sites have been operating under the same basic principles and rules since Day 1 while the game has changed dramatically. I wholeheartedly believe a rush type format is the future of cash games.

Think about the format of poker software: you have a big rectangular box that represents a poker table, and another big rectangular box that represents the navigation to that poker table (the poker site's "lobby"). The less time spent surfing around in the lobby before actually playing poker, the better. The fact that we've been given so many options as to exactly how and where we play has led to the current state of the games. Ultimately, players need a lobby format that restricts some of the choices they have today.

Its funny how all of a sudden, the top 3% of poker players are asking for change.

They want to eliminate bumhunting and want to do things that are "good for the game' ?

Well, phil g... how did you make most of your money in poker?
uh..let me guess...bumhunting ? 2-3 yrs ago...im sure that's what a LOT of high limit HU players did to earn millions of dollars.

Now that you've accumulated a fat bankroll and you see less and less action...you want to start a campaign to bring about "change" to better the poker world?

gimme a f-ing break... this is hypocrisy at its finest.

Most of the top 3% of online HU regs have built their rolls on bumhunting...and now, they want to change things up so THEY (again) have an advantage.

gimme a break

This made me lol. Well played.

who else has asked for change? serious question BTW

everybody with a brain that plays $1/2+

Poker sites will create their offering of games in a manner which financially benefits them the most. And it looks like they beleive that the way in which they currently offer their games is that point at which leads to the most financial benefit for them.

PG (+ others in that elite tier of players) and those who also agree with him can go set up a rival poker site if they beleive that there is a demand for that kind of poker site.

The current status quo of 70ppl sitting at hu tables and only 2 games running etc suggests that their are many many more people who dont necessarily agree with PG and this is matched by the sites opinions through the games (and game structures) they are currently offering.

At the end of the day, for a succesful poker site, you need recreational players. These players want a wide option of games and tables they can join. The way to facilitate this it seems is to have a bunch of regs multitabling and so creating many tables in which players can join. These regs, in general do not want to play other good players or only other players like themselves (which is of course their right - its upto them who they want to play or not play - not a matter of morality as some are appearing to try to argue). And so, by the poker sites creating/offering games in the structure they are currently doing so, they are arguing that if we change to PG's structures/ideas someone else will create another poker room whereby they will offer what the majority of regs want and thus also the recreational players (as they want a poker site full of games) and take our revenue.

Imo, PG is perfectly entitled to his opinions and has a right to ask for games which would benefit him more at the possible expense of others of course, but the way he is talking about "the good of the game" is nonesense.

No table selection/no seat selection.

Yes it is a "skill", but it makes the games worse/intitmidating for fish.

Must move games should be implemented.

For arguments sake, say there are two poker sites, with the same funds for marketing and have managers(and others that are involved in running the site) of the same level of competence. If one offered a "must move" system and one didnt (i.e like most current sites), initially, you may get a small number of regs that give that site a go, but after a while, they will move back to the other site. Because, you can choose which recreational players to play with and thus is more +ev. The recreational players in turn will now choose not to play on the "must move" site, as there isnt the same depth of games open for them due to the lack of regs.

Also, i dont think the demand for "must move" and other PG's ideas are anywhere near as high as what is being made out (probably because those who do want it are posting more, as they probably care more about the topic). Because if it were, you wouldnt be getting all those high "sitting out" numbers that currently exist.

In addition, you cant force people to play obv as it isnt a matter of morality or law. What this means is that those who create poker sites can either choose to force players to play or not. And it looks like those who do force players to play will not have a succesful business becuase someone else will quite happily offer games where ppl are forced to play (the current status quo of games).

Phil isn't really about cheeseburger stakes. The discussion revolves around higher stakes where there are very few fish.

Well his stats werent all from nosebleed stakes

well he stated specifically top 3% of players so I was curious to see what the other HS players have said.

Its called begging and I for one have too many coins lying around already so not me.
I usually try not to troll, but god the "serious question BTW" made me do it.

Must Move tables won't work because once you get moved and see it's a bad table everyone will just insta sit-out, break the table, and re-queue again.

Fact is you can't force people to play poker against eachother so you can't stop bumhunting/table-selecting since you can always just refuse the table and try again.

u can stop bumhunting in one way by getting rid of HU altogether. the only hu matches that occur now r between nosebleed regs and there they have no trouble getting people to let them play HU on 6max tables

if lower stakes regs do want to play on 6max tables they are also free, theres clearly no queue for people to join a hu match in todays environment.

all this does is prevent fish who want to play hu from playing hu. oh well. their fun wouldve only lasted 20 minutes anyway

How will this help poker?

It is obvious to everyone that PG has seen the action dry up and need to get it going by artificial means. He want to create an environment that benefit him but he had no problem with it a few years back when there was new money coming in finding its way up the ladder to him. Poker is a game where you want to play worse players then yourself and it goes against everyones self interest to start playing with people who are better then them, this is the downside from having pros who keep games going.