Speed of your internet isn't important for poker, Pokerstars at least uses almost nothing of your bandwith, though obv there is a correlation between speed and reliability.

But yeah obv don't worry cris, Mexico has reliable internet I'm sure . Mexico and Costa Rica wouldn't be hotbeds for online poker players post BF if the internet sucked.

And go ask some belgians how good the Pokerstars servers were responding a few months ago to us playing . We had mass disconnects for a while and sunday evening+random other eveneings were unplayable for several weeks etc because we would get multi second lags very frequently, was only happening to belgians (and PS was very cool about refunding when it happened btw, as they should ). Pokerstars is a massive site, it's possible for server side problems to happen in some countries while others are fine. It's also possible to have client side problems that are unrelated to your own internet connection, though. But those are pretty rare, and Monday was deff something server side, though I haven't seen any problems since.

Obv josh has lived in mexico for almost a year but cant tell difference between internet problems and stars lag...

Hi Baard. Could you possibly add a level in 6 max between $100 and $200 (reg speed, turbos and perhaps hypers) to $150 just because the disparity in bankrolls required to grind the two is so vast it makes it very difficult to move up or mix stakes properly. Obviously this applies to 9 man too excluding hypers.

If not please let me know why.

Cheers

Because liquidity would suffer from such a level.

Sorry to sound dumb but what does liquidity mean in a poker context?

An easy definition would be the amount of rake Stars collects on various times of the day. In general, a level between 100 and 200 would result in lower liquidity overall because people would be spread more across the 3 levels and less games would pop off.

Pokerstars doesn't want to add games or levels that hurts the global liquidity obviously unless there is another massive advantage (like possible growth longterm). I don't see one for a level between 100s and 200s.

speaking of liquidity and printing rake by the site - 15$ 9man hyperssssss

Hello,

We will be adding this very soon. If not today, then it should be tomorrow if nothing unforeseen comes up.

Baard

Niceee.

Someone told me Stars is thinking of removing the Fifty50 format, is this true? And if it is going to happen, can we at least get a much longer warning than when the DoNs were removed?

Hello,

We are currently not considering making changes to our Fifty50's offering.

Cheers,
Baard

Hello all,

The $15 9-max Hyper is now deployed.

Thanks,
Baard

Cheers Baard

Stars' SNG's seem pretty laggy atm though Don't know if that's just me

Lol yea, Baard please respond to the lag issues that many of us, all over the world, have been having.

Quite absurd!

Ty for the $15 9man hypers though, as I said above, I don't play those games but they were VERY needed

Could you please remove Hypers from the Turbo tab?

I think it's fine as is, as on many other poker rooms hypers are branded as superturbos or 2x turbos (or 3x turbos even iirc) and probably a whole other bunch of combinations with the name turbo in it. The hyper tab might be unnecessary though now the hypers are well established.

Just curious: did anyone suffer a short disconnect hour ish ago? My internet was still up... I saw my QQ and AA be folded PF .

Oh ya fix lag pls

and disc issues

On a bit of a bender right now but I will be naming my first child Baard and am going to play 1k 15-30s in a day here soon.

Hi Baard,

Great to see that you've started to take action with the addition of the $15 hypers.

Another suggestion that I think has been overlooked since PS Walmsley left is the implementation of Omaha 8 hyper turbos.

Since the inception of this thread, myself along with other posters have fought hard for the trial-implementation of NL Omaha 8 hypers at any level. The idea came after it was decided that the implementation of PLO hypers was a good idea and was released fairly quickly beginning with the $7s and then $1.50, $3.50, $15, $3, $100 shortly afterwards.

The fact is, NLO8 is more popular than PLO when it comes to SNG volume. NLO8 is by far the second most popular SNG game at Pokerstars (behind NLHoldem) as the turbo 18 mans can be seen running throughout the day across the $1.50 to $15 buyin levels (sometimes $30). During the COOPs, the 6-max hyper turbos have been fairly popular and seen several run off during most times of the day.

Walmsley had responded with several posts and it seemed like he was on the cusp of implementing this game to some extent. I've taken some time go through the 50+ pages in this thread and have listed most of the relevant posts that give you a timeframe of the posts relating to Omaha 8 hypers:


Feb 27th
-The $7 PLOs have already been implemented, Walmsley discusses whether to deplay more buyins or not

Feb 28th
-First mention of whether Omaha 8 hypers in the thread
-discussion of Omaha 8 #1
-discussion continues
-discussion continues
-some support
-more support

March 1st
-Bumping the topic for Walmsley to respond.

March 2nd - March 8th
-PLO games are deployed at more buyin levels ($1.50, $3.50, $15, $30, $100).
-Walmsley responds regarding O8. Asks whether PLO8 or NLO8 would be the more popular game.
-Response to Walmsley, support for NLO8 over PLO8
-another player weights in
-another player weights in. shares his belief that PLO and PLO8 are different player fields.
-continued pressure to get Walmsley to respond
-another player weighs in
-zuri, a former SNE and NLO8 18 man grinder weighs in
-Angribob, another NLO8 18 man grinder weights in
-Pressure to get Walmsley to reply
-More pressure for a response
-Walmsley replies, says NLO8 is under consideration, says wants to see how holdem and PLO hypers perform
-I respond, mention that NLO8 and PLO are completely different games and their popularity has little bearing on how popular NLO hypers would be, as PLO and NLO8 are completely different games and have different player fields
-Post from Angribob
-response to Angribob
-Post from juicy

April
-Walsmley brings up topic from the dead, wants a consensus on 6 max VS 9 max, thinks 9 max would work best
-response to Walsmley, support for 6-max
-Walsmley replies
-Macros, another regular weighs in

June
-Topic is brought back, as there has been no further progress
-Walsmley replies, realizes that consensus format is NLO8 6-max. Does not have time to implement these games though

Today
-PS Walsmley is gone and no one has been fighting for the implementation of the game.

I think it would be wise for your team to give strong consideration for implementing NLO8 6-max hyper turbos at a few buyins ($3.50, $15 are my suggestions) to see how to perform over the upcoming weeks.

Thanks for reading!

We are willing to start adding NLO8 Hypers up to $7, I just want to hear your opinion on 6 Max vs 9 Max at this time. We are unlikely to start out with both, so I would like to hear some arguments for and against both alternatives.

Thanks
Baard

big thumbs up for the 15$ 9m hyper implementation. Hopefully 60s soon!

Hey Baard, since you responded to Broken_Jia, any plans to respond to the many of us complaining about the ridiculous POKERSTARS LOBBY LAG (not our individual internets)?

Thx

Thanks for the quick reply. The later links posted above have significant support for 6-max being preferred over 9-max. Near the end of his tenure, PS Walsmley concluded that:

"We still haven't made a decision on the NLO8 hypers, mainly because other things have recently been higher priority rather than due to a lengthy debate on the subject. I think the consensus though is that they would be 6-max rather than 9-max, as I previously suggested.

Apologies for the delay. I hope to tackle this in the next few weeks."

Do you want us to re-discuss whether 6-max is indeed the preferred format, or do you think the above finding of Walsmley is sufficient?

I think having $1.50, $3.50 and $7s as a trial before possibly adding more levels (i.e. $15, $30, $60, etc) would be the way to go.