LOL to spanish shortstacker.

Yes, I know u can't see waitlist when u are playing, but when you quit playing?
Maybe the waitlist size could be maximum 10 players, so that fish would not be alerted.

good idea, we can post in here with proof...

Originally Posted by Party_Rep
"regarding the 'sit out at one sit out at all suggestion' this is something that is being considered from a technical perspective now and will be implemented if possible."

hi party rep,

thanks for taking the time to post in this thread.

copied and pasted above is your initial reaction to the suggestion that if you sit out on one table you should have to sit out on all the others (once the blinds have come around)

does the fact that this has not in fact been implemented mean that it turned out to be technically impossible?

if not i think a lot of people would appreciate it if you could explain the reason for not going ahead with this idea - perhaps there is an unintended consequence that we haven't thought about, but from what i can see it seems to be a popular idea with no major drawbacks.

+1
I'm sure it's not technically impossible to implement.
There has to be another reason to not go with it.

l am legend = ultimate scumbag
ImNotBluffinNo = scumbag, sit on every table running and just sitout
agregator777 = massive bumhunter that never play's a hand without a fish and always snap sitout when the fish does.
X04yCPATb = same thing, shortstack scumbag that always sitout

I got some screenshot on those player from today but am I suppose to hide the stats of player's in my HUD or it's ok to post?

id say post away, but blurr out the weak spot.

It is clearly better from every perspective to have people who are sitting out booted off the table after 3 minutes and then not allowed to rejoin for x minutes than it is to just close the table. At the moment it is very easy for someone to abuse the system by sitting on a table with someone who wants to play, wait for the table to be closed and then just have some software to rejoin a new table. Whoever is responsible for these sorts of decisions at party seems to be very far removed from any sort of knowledge of the games. I have a couple of guys who work for stars on my skype and a few others do too, if something like this was going to be done on stars, they could mention it to a few players, the players would instantly tell you that it is better to have the people sitting out booted than have the table close and then stars wouldn't waste a load of time implementing a flawed solution when an equally simple one which is better in many ways and worse in none could be put in place instead. I'm sure I speak for most players when I say that party seems to be run extremely poorly in comparison to the industry leader and it doesn't surprise me at all to see the number of players dropping dramatically over the last few months. Maybe there is some grand plan to see a boom in customers when party can re-enter the US market but it seems stupid to me to just let your business slide up until that point. For the sake of maybe 30 mins a week of talking to a select few players who would probably give their time happily for free to advise you, the site could be improved dramatically and the lack of effort made to do this really shows a laziness and absence of intelligent decision making that seems to typify party poker's approach to the state of their games over the last couple of years.

Party poker was the site on which I built my bankroll and I had a lot of loyalty to them for a long time because of both that and the cool things that they would do like giving away free tickets to stuff to vip players etc. It was a long time before I even deposited any money elsewhere and even then, most of my volume was still on party. Over the last year or 2 that has changed completely due to the length of time it took to solve the sitout issue and the complete lack of respect shown to players while lying to us time and again about when a fix was going to be implemented. I never expected to think of party with the utter disdain that I do now but unfortunately that is the case. It's way too late for party to ever be my number 1 site again but I still get some hands in there so if you read this party_rep then pass it on to someone higher up and maybe they take notice and you don't lose too many players in future in a similar fashion. Given the notice that party usually take, I don't know why I'm wasting my time writing this ofc lol.

Yep, agree and feel the same. Shame really, and puzzling from a business perspective. Have definitely been moving a lot of my play away from Party due to their constant inability to listen to player concerns and act accordingly to improve the site and their frequent lies about implementing fixes.

same here, used to start tables @ 5/10 for years, now i feel like its a total waste of time/effort.

I think part of the problem is that there are quite a few ways in which the interests of the site don't align with that of high volume winning players. Maybe because of that Party is just in the habit of ignoring anything that group of players asks for. In this case though I think their interests are the same - making games run and attracting fish.

Hi,

Thank you for the feedback and reports, all feedback has been passed to the relevant departments.

With regard to reporting players, please continue to do so in the forum and to our customer service team.

Many thanks

Alex

Party Rep,

Another problem with the new "fix," is that the Heads Up tables no longer function correctly when only one player is sitting out/refusing to play.

For instance, lets say a Heads Up table is full with two players. Player A is sitting out and refusing to post his blind, but Player B is sitting in and posting his blind. The new fix makes it so that after a couple minutes the table is then closed and both players are removed from the table.

What makes a lot more sense, is to only have Player A booted from the table, because he is the one refusing to play/post his blind. This will leave Player B alone at the table, ready and willing to play a new opponent.

The new system makes it very annoying for Player B, who has essentially done nothing wrong, in that he is willing to post/play. However, he still gets removed from the table now has to go scour the lobby to find a new table. There also may not even be any new empty tables available for him at that moment.

people can also exploit the "force to sit in or table is closed" by having 3+ people sit in all at once. at least one person will get a free hand if not a couple etc

I'm still an advocate of this solution and I don't understand why this wasn't implemented. Closing the table is retarded, it just lets all these idiots screw around with you by constantly forcing your tables to be closed. Just boot people who dont post like you used to do on hu tables. End of story, problem solved. If everyone on a table is sitting out for 5 min, THEN you close the entire table. Don't close it while someone is waiting to play.

One bug you'd have to fix is to force people to post the BB and the SB. Otherwise you're going to have legions of idiots running around only sitting in when they get the BTN hu and then playing one hand and sitting out.

If you really want to get technical with it, you could boot people who sit out on two players sitting hu after a shorter period of time (1 min maybe) and prevent them from rejoining that table. This would then keep people from freerolling the players who try to start games by camping the running tables.

xandorx_ = sits out when fish sits out. will constantly open new tables at 6max but will only play if a total fish sits. with this new feature, xandorx_ will go to players tables who are willing to start games with anyone, and sitout, just so their table is closed.

abloyprotec1, davidsteicke, ciuco71 = sits alone at many 6max and clogs the lobby, but never starts a game without a big fish. will sitout when fish sits out.