Really? I thought it was a game of learning and evolving and finally winning anyone and everyone. Just a micro-stackes player but still disappointed.

I like how he addressed a solution for only the second downside

Just wanna post my cents. I vote against anon tables and also vote against king of the hill tables.

Just skimming this thread I see several bumhunters and pussy regs posting about how they want these changes, ridiculous. The reason nothing will ever change because most of the regs like to talk about how to stop bumhunting but don't want to do anything because they are bumhunters.

Not sure if it's relevant or means anything but whoever is responsible for Pokerstars tweeting responded positively to that post.

https://twitter.com/#!/PokerStars/st...51011567845376

i can live w/o hud's, most would die though I think

To solve the insta sit out problem:

Any player who meets the criteria, of having played more that 30,000 hands and made money after rakeback, must play 30 hands before leaving, after a player who does not meet the criteria leaves.

Players need only be made aware of the rule once they reach the criteria, so 99% of the people effected will be regs, there will be no need to confuse the fish.

The numbers can obviously be tweaked.

What do you guys think of this? I can't see a flaw.

thou mad?

this is spot on and there is no positive solution to the heads up/bumhunting situation. the current system provides the maximum freedom and is the most fair system. "Good for the games" is the most BS expression in poker...

phil does have a point about button wars and insta sitting out in 6m games when a fish sits. while regs may have the right to do this, it is so beyond idiotic. play a few orbits, or at least wait one orbit after a fish leaves (and for heavens sake don't sit out when he sits out but is still there). this should be something that is pushed by regs on other regs as must do thing. i do not think it is something sites should force. all his suggestions of things the sites should do are pretty bad, but there are things players should be making more of an effort to do as a community of regs.

it's pretty important in times like these that those who are trying to grind away a career let the sites know that they oppose the BS that the absolute top of the chain is trying to push. the end result of what someone like selfish phil is pushing is this: more slight winning regs pushed into unemployment and bigger winnings for the top top. A totally undesirable result for the community and for the sites.

1. If you join a table, you are randomly assigned a given seat that you cannot change unless you are away for the table for at least an hour. This would put an end to the brutal seat-hopping and left-sitting that I've seen trash numerous games over the past 3-4 years.

2. Pokerstars should keep a tally of how many blinds you've played in relation to how many non-blind hands you've played, and obligate extra hands as a table is breaking down to fairly distribute the blinds paid. For years it has been routine for me to pay the blinds and then watch the table all sit out after me, after having played a grand total of 15-20 hands in the session, and sometimes it's even worse, like paying two blinds and the game breaks before I get a single non-blind hand. I am down hundreds and hundreds of very valuable blinds lifetime (limit player).

This would also prevent flagrant buttoning. If the tally shows you have paid an extra blind and your opponent has had the button HU, both are forced to play one additional hand with the blinds reversed. This can be modified for 3-10 way also. It may not end up being exactly perfect but it can be very close to neutral EV. I would gladly keep my "sit out next blind" box unchecked and give myself the chance to keep playing if I knew I wouldn't be charged extra blinds yet again in a prisoner's dilemma equilibrium. It's not fear of playing superior regs that makes me click sit-out. It's fear of constantly getting charged like a third of a big bet in EV in 20-hand sessions in limit games where a good winrate is 1BB/100 hands.

Yeah but you know what pokerstars marketing department is all about. If they can align themselves to somebody the 'poker community' likes and has respect for right now, it suits them. Meanwhile they will continue with their cash grab until they get competition. I would guess they know when the US casinos get in the game Pokerstars will struggle so they are taking their profit now. MAybe PG or anybody else should direct their attention to the Nevada Gaming Commission or those US B & M based sites that are on the way.

???????

I think it would be pretty cool developing on the idea with lobbies.

- 6-max NLHE cashgame
- 12 persons can participate in the lobbygame. On 2 tables
- When 12 tables has entered the lobby, ready to play, the players will be randomly assigned on the 2 tables.
- You can leave the table whenever you want. But then you leave the lobby entirely
- There's a waitinglist so new players will automatically receive the seat that has just been left.
- When the game starts, you will only play 15 minutes (maybe anoter timeinterval, but I think it compliments both regs and recreational players), then the 2 tables will break and the players will be reassigned to the 2 tables at random - new positions and new opponents (but only some of the opponents are likely to be new)
- You should not be able to change table or position during the cyclus. Maybe it should be possible to have some kind of random tablebalancing during the cyclus, if for example 4 players leave one of the tables and 6 remain on the other table. However one could argue that if the remainging players can't stand to play 2-3 handed for the remaining minutes of the cyclus, then they must simply leave the lobby.
- When the cyclus has ended, and there is below 12 players remaining in the lobby, then the game will wait to start until 12 players are in the lobby again. Hopefully waiting-lists will keep this running smoothly and fast.
- It should not be allowed to sit-oute/not post blinds. It's only allowed to leave the lobbygame entirely.
- Do you leave a lobbygame, you can not return to the lobbygame before for example 30 mins has passed.

Additional, and maybe necessary ideas:

- When a lobbygame is getting ready to start, it should not be possible to see who is registered for the lobbygame. That way there will be more lobbygame open, since the bumhunters have no choice but to try it out, and they will probably be more inclined to play for a few hands before they leave. So it won't scare away people, and it will create more games.
- It could be done with both accountnames, but it could also, in my opinion preferrably, done "anonymously" for each lobby. So if you enter a lobby, you will have to chose a screenname for that lobbygame, and that screenname will be yours throughout the lobbysession. For example, Galfond enters a game on his MrSweets account on PokerStars, and he choses to call himself "abc123" in that lobbygame. Then he's anonymous, but people will still be able to pick up reads on him and each other (enter notes for example) aslong as he/they stays in that particular lobby.

I think time per cyclus instead of hands per cyclus is better because then you won't have to wait for the other table to finish, because both tables will never be equally fast. Additionally, and maybe more actiongiving, the timefactor has a cool "countdown-feel" to it. It feels exiciting to know that this particular table will only be assembled like this for for example the remaining 8 minutes and 36 seconds. You have X amount of time to win back your loss from the donk that you have direct position on and so on...

2 tables/12 players is better than 30 players in a lobby in my opinion, because it will make it more likely that you will meet a player that you have played with in your last cyclus in the next cyclus again. Thus giving bumhunters a reason to stay and outlast the timefactor on a tougher table, to be able to have the chance to be assigned to a table with the donk(s) in the next cyclus.

Regarding what I mentioned about sitting out, then it can be discussed whetever it should be allowed to take some sort of break, without having to leave the particular lobbygame entirely. That could be solved by eiter:

1. Allowing sit-out in for example 5 min per 1 hour (one's sit-out time should be reloaded up to 5 min for each hour or every 4th cyclus - so that you can't save up sit-out time).
2. You're still not allowed to sit-out at any time, but you can choose to press a button that says "Take a break". Then you will be removed from the game, but not the lobby entirely - and you will be placed as nr. 1 on the waiting list in that particular lobby for up to for example 15 minutes. If a seat is open and you don't chose to accept it within 1 min, the seat will go to the next player on the waiting list, but you will still be nr. 1 on the waiting list for the remainder of the 15 min.

Regarding stacksizes it can be discussed wheter a change could give more action. It could for example be the following variations:

1. Your stack will be "untouched" for the entire time you stay in the lobbygame.
2. After 4 cyclusses you will have to/or be allowed to buy-in from scracth again (20-100xBB for example)
3. You can buy-in from scracth each cyclus, or other options..

These variations are proposed because maybe recreational players or regs would like to buy-in from scratch every once in a while. For recreational players an interessting choice to be able to have and for bumhunting regs, maybe a pleasant option if placed in a bad cyclus (from what information one can gather in a single lobbygame...). And if only placed as an option, then good regs can be able to build their stack deep for an entire lobbysession, which they probably would like.

I'm sure there's some good additions and optimizations to be done with this idea, but this is what I had in mind at the moment, and I think it's a useful idea to fire up some games

It might seem a little bit complicated and rulebased in writing, but in reality I think it can actually be implemented quite simply

I completely agree.. People should have the illusion of being a winning player.

Atm cash games have turned into a pile of crap. We need to change.. Look at microgaming they rock hopefully other sites take their approach.

a lot of self serving posts in this thread, but this is the best solution I've heard. No more big bloated lobbies where you see all the games, just click the game you want to play, the stakes, and the number of tables and the software takes care of the rest. No more being buttoned, no more starting tables, no seat selection, no wait lists, just games being formed and broken behind the scenes by the client.

online poker is dying and has a very small chance of recovery. rec players want, out of a poker game, the same thing they get out of a BJ game or craps game, action, comps, respect. sites need to force this to happen because the players never will in an anonymous online world. sites should have a "rec room" section where you can only play two tables max., change your screename as often as you like and make data-mining as difficult as possible with extreme punishments (full seizure of funds redistributed to the players through jackpots and rewards for turning in cheats). real world comps should be offered. rec players would flock to these rooms, you would get very hi-stakes games much like a live setting.

I really like the must move idea but I think this only would work when the "lock in time limit rule" is applied, but also I do not think fish should be included in the lock in time limit rule. Like someone earlier said when someone has played xx amount of hands and has a winrate at xx/bb then they are determined as a regular.

I like this idea!!! Put a 30 minute rule or bust on this and this would be great. You just need to find a solution for when people D/C (either by no fault of there own or on purpose)...Maybe pay a fine or something for leaving the table or still be blinded for however many mins of your 30 mins is left I dunno

It must have been someone on a rant in the thread, i thought they were quoting Galfond. Talking about getting rid of poker vids and forum and poker aids. Not the aids you get from gay se x btw, i mean the other aids, you know the ones that help with the pokers?

maybe if all you guys spent your time learning how to play the game better instead of spending this time "bumhunting" and having button wars and stalking fish than maybe you guys would be good enough to beat the regs at the stakes you play. LMAO at all of this! I had absolutely no idea this kind of petty bs went on in the online poker world. Maybe if you played tougher competetion you would develop your game and become good enough to beat regs instead of ONLY playing and stalking fish. LOL this is really sad. Especially if you consider yourself a pro. If your just starting out I could understand a little.

No wonder why everyone licks their lips when they see a internet player sit down at a live table. Cuz that **** doesn't happen in live poker. You realize you have 6-8 grinder or pros at your table. Tough ****, put your name on the list. Then you internet wizards proceed to spew of all your money before your name is even called for a table change. LOL i hope internet poker never comes back! You fish stalking keyboard wizards are paying my bills, paying for my steak dinners, my excessive spending habits, I hope that legislation never changes. Internet players are soft. Im making way too much off you bumhunters live

Maybe I read too much 2p2 but I dont see anything new in this blog post.

Sure it is great to have Gandalf putting in his 2cents worth but I have seen these ideas kicked around quite abit tbh.

tables where players seated cannot be playing at more than two other tables or something of that nature would be pretty cool. playing on stars with sne bots is pretty boring.

bolded is wrong

also, a player who loses 2k at poker is not as valuable to a company as a person who loses 2k at blackjack. In poker, $1900 goes to fellow players w/ $100 going to the poker company (of which the site is giving $30 back to the players). In real gambling, when the player loses $2k, he loses $2k to the casino.

You can't compare poker (apples) to casino games (oranges). How do you plan on comping huge whales when they provide $70 vs $2k to the company?

the idea of a "rec room" with table limits is OK imo, but it's not going to create high stakes whales wanting to lose thousands on the internet

no table selection sounds good. You get in a pool for whatever stake/table size you like. Then you get put on a table. If you dont like your table then you could get back in the pool and wait for a different table. If you still want to bumhunt then you could but it will be a little tougher because it will be the luck of the draw which players you will get matched up against.