Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Heads Up NL Discussion of heads up NL Texas Hold'em cash games

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-22-2013, 09:06 AM   #1
PokerStars Nick
PokerStars Ring Games Manager
 
PokerStars Nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 282
PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested & Ignored

We have committed to finalizing our solution to clean up the Heads Up lobby by the end of this year, and while we have gone through several iterations of solutions, we haven’t yet found a “silver bullet” solution that solves all issues smoothly and elegantly. However, enough time has passed with this problem only getting worse that we simply need to move forward with a solution, even if it is not quite as elegant an implementation as we might have initially liked.

In that light, we have narrowed our decision down to two solutions to choose between. The first of these we had initially planned on moving forward with, however we added a second potential solution to the picture after discussion during the player meetings we held last year.

While we haven’t yet finalized which plan we would like to move forward with, we want to publicly present each solution in order to discuss the pros and cons of each before starting development.

Please keep in mind either of these solutions would only be applied to Heads Up Ring Game tables.

**WE ARE PRESENTING THIS AS A FIRST DRAFT THAT REPRESENTS OUR CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND EXPECTATIONS. WHILE VERY FIRM STATEMENTS ARE MADE, THEY ARE VERY MUCH SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON WHAT WE LEARN FROM PLAYER FEEDBACK. **

Player Categories
When considering the pros and cons of the solutions, it may be helpful to categorize the different players who currently play Heads Up. The implications for each category might be more straightforward to determine than the implications for the entire Heads Up economy all at once. In my post, I will use the following categories:
  • Strong Regular - One of the best players who plays at a given stake level. People in this category will have an edge against most of the players who sit at this stake.
  • Weak Regular - This player would still be considered good, but not quite the cream of the crop. When not playing Heads Up, this player will usually play at comparable stakes to the Heads Up tables he sits at.
  • “Lottery” Player - This player will sit across multiple Heads Up tables and generally only play when a known, weak player sits at their table. When not playing Heads Up, this player will usually play at much lower stakes than the Heads Up tables he sits at. A number of players in this category will only play unknown opponents briefly unless they prove to play extremely badly within the first few hands.
  • Recreational Player - First and foremost, this player plays poker for entertainment. Players in the other categories will have a large edge over most players in this category.

Option 1: Forced Play Tables
Our initial idea for the heads up lobby was to introduce forced play tables. This would involve deploying a new type of table that requires a player to play a minimum number of hands once a second player sits with him. If the player leaves before playing that minimum number of hands, they will forfeit a small number of blinds to the other player as a penalty.

This solution is aimed to align the act of sitting at a table with the intention to play at that table. This is the motivation underlying many of our Ring Games changes over the last year or two. It is a valid concern that forcing someone to play a minimum number of hands might appear onerous. However, it does very explicitly make the relationship between sitting and willingness to play very clear.

Effects on Players
Strong Regulars: We expect Strong Regulars will be able to get effectively unlimited action whenever they feel like playing someone who is already sitting. Although the minimum number of hands played is not likely to be very high, it will be higher than the number of hands most opponents would currently play against them.

Weak Regulars: We expect Weak Regulars will have to either become more comfortable playing others who seat them at a given stake, move down in stakes, or stop playing Heads Up altogether.

“Lottery” Players: It’s likely that Players in this category will largely have to abandon their current table sitting habits. They are very likely to be sat by better players much more often than by weaker players which will make opening large numbers of high stakes Heads Up tables unprofitable.

Recreational Players: Recreational players will still have as many people willing to play them as they wish. However, the lobby is much less likely to consist of dozens of tables with one player sitting. In addition, they will never sit at a table where they do not get action for at least a few minutes, rather than having to find someone to play them through trial and error. Recreational players that enjoy choosing from a wide selection of opponents will no longer have as many opponents to choose from.

Pros
  • Lots of action will be generated after introducing this mechanism as long as there is at least one person willing to play.
  • The lobby will tend to adjust to the “optimum” number of tables for any given stake as strong players will start sitting with weaker players if there is too much competition for weaker players at that level.
  • Recreational players will always see a small, clean lobby with a selection of players who will give them action if they decide to sit.
  • If a player wants to play at a given level, they must choose a level where they can consistently play others who are playing, or move down until that is the case.
  • Players who don’t play Heads Up Ring Games will have a much shorter and cleaner lobby without having to explicitly filter out Heads Up tables.
Cons
  • Potentially some capacity for harassment from groups of players who want to keep targeted individuals from playing.
  • Without sufficient notice, it could be a bad experience to be forced to play hands.
  • Recreational players who prefer to select from a large pool of opponents will lose some amount of choice
  • Top players may have to continually join new tables if other players are not willing to play them for longer than the minimum number of hands.
Unknowns
We are uncertain of the final, equilibrium lobby state. We are interested in hearing what players think is a likely outcome if this option were implemented. For example, is it likely that certain lobbies would be controlled by groups of players with agreements to not sit one another, or is it more likely to stay every man for himself?

Potential Problem Scenario Example
The top Heads Up player at $25/$50 NLHE has a personal issue with one of the top 10 players at this stake. As a result, the top player continually sits this player who plays the minimum number of hands required and then leaves the table. As a result, one of the historically better players at this limit is required to move down due to a personal conflict.

Is something like this likely and/or necessarily a bad outcome? If not, does this become abusive if multiple people have an agreement to always sit a certain person in order to drive him away from that game type?


Option 2: Modified King of the Hill
The idea we received at the player meetings last year was a modified version of the King of the Hill concept that has been discussed in these forums for years.

The difference in this proposal is that instead of a hard limit on the number of tables per table type, we would simply hide most of the tables in the lobby.

All tables of a given Heads Up table type would be numbered in order, starting at 1. We would only publicly show the (numerically) first several tables of each type where only one player was sitting. You would be able to expand the table list if you wanted to see the larger, complete list of tables, but this would only be possible by changing a setting within our options menu..

The result of this would be that in order to be seated at one of the tables visible by default in the lobby, you would need to play other players who were also competing for one of those visible tables.

Effects on Players
Strong Regulars: Strong Regulars will have to either battle it out for one of the top, visible tables or rely on weaker players not competing with them for those tables. It is likely there will be more “Strong” regulars than visible tables at any given stake, and the visible tables will change slightly based on whether or not play is occurring on any of the default visible table. As a result, even the top regulars at a given stake will have to pay attention to the lobby when they wish to sit and play at a given game type.

Weak Regulars: We expect Weak Regulars will likely not be able to consistently sit at a visible table at a stake level where they are currently used to sitting. Even if they are willing to battle for one of the top spots, they may be completely prevented from sitting at a visible table by themselves.

“Lottery” Players: Players in this category will generally be entirely prevented from sitting at visible tables. As the non-visible tables will not be easily accessible to those who don’t choose to explicitly view them, they will receive much less action from weaker players. However, they will still incur very little cost for sitting and waiting for those players that do view the entire list.

Recreational Players: We don’t think Recreational players are likely to enable the “hidden” tables, only viewing the default visible tables. As a result, they will always see a small Heads Up lobby with several players sitting who are each willing to play them.

Pros
  • Players who don’t play Heads Up Ring Games will have a much shorter and cleaner lobby without having to explicitly filter out Heads Up tables.
  • Recreational players will always see a small, clean lobby with a selection of players who will give them action if they decide to sit.
  • If aware recreational players consider the players at the top tables to be undesirable opponents, they can still find action with an opponent of their choosing
  • Players willing to play to defend their position in the lobby would be expected to see far more action from recreational players
  • As no one is forced to play hands, you no longer have the concern that a group of players will gang up on other players, forcing them to play hands until they move down..
Cons
  • Even the strongest players at a stake will have to pay attention to the lobby to ensure they are at a visible table, or to fight for a visible table if not.
  • The mechanism may not work as expected once deployed. Playing using the #1 table does not either guarantee you a visible or top spot after playing as another player can immediately seat you once you are done playing your previous opponent.
  • There is potential for sitting games if players can join one of the visible tables where a strong player is sitting, making another table visible, and then slow-play or sit out while waiting for a weaker player to sit at the newly visible table.
  • It may be possible for groups of players to game the feature by working together to ensure they sit at all the visible tables.
  • This still allows an unlimited number of people to sit at any given level, it just hides the problem from recreational players by default.
  • There is potential for players to still be primarily occupied with seating meta-game rather than actually playing poker.
Unknowns
We have no way to know how many recreational players will enable the option to see the hidden tables, which could limit the effectiveness of this solution.

It’s hard to predict in advance exactly how the meta-game surrounding seats will evolve or how effectively players might be able to game the system.
If seating games become an issue under this system, even top players will have to devote energy to continually ensuring they are seated at a visible table. This would increase the amount of time players have to spend on seating concerns and minimizing the amount of time they can concentrate on just playing poker.

Potential Problem Scenario Example
A group of players decides to band together in order to control the top two (visible) tables at $25/$50 NLHE. In order to do this they continually sit at any visible tables where another player is sitting, removing that table from visibility.

Either by not playing a material number of hands, or by stalling an unreasonable amount during each hand, the angle-shooting players manage to control all the visible seats at this level, while all players must now engage in constantly checking the lobby to join tables in the hope of sitting at a visible table.

Is this a likely scenario to occur? What methods come to mind to make this sort of behavior impossible, without negatively impacting the experience of joining and playing at these tables?

What other potentially abusive “sitting out games” are possible under this system?


Judging Criteria
We aim to meet the following goals:
  • Transparency to all players is valued highly.
  • The solution must be simple to use.
  • The solution should allow players to concentrate on playing poker. Generally speaking, we’d like to maximize the ratio of time spent at tables to time spent in the lobby
  • The solution should result in a clean and simple lobby.

While when making changes we generally prefer to minimize disruption to the current environment, in this particular case we expect and accept that the regular playing experience will be materially affected by many players. Minimizing the impact in this regard is at most a minor concern. We are particularly unconcerned about negative impact to “Lottery” type players.

When providing feedback on either of these solutions, please keep in mind these goals, as well as the effects on the different player types.

In the end, we will weigh the pros and cons we see in each solution in order to make our decision, and your additions to our list will be very helpful when we do so.


Additional Heads Up Improvements
Regardless of which of the above two solutions we decide to develop and deploy, we are also likely to develop an additional number of improvements. The following improvements are not guaranteed to be included in our changes, but they are features we are actively considering developing.

Please keep in mind that the main decision point we are looking to solve in this thread is which of the two above solutions we will implement for our Heads Up tables.

Double Blind Challenges
As either of these changes will make setting up a Heads Up match against a specific opponent more difficult, we are also looking to implement a double blind heads up match feature.

While the details of this feature will still need to be fleshed out, this would be a feature where both players would need to enter the other player’s username after having pre-arranged a match elsewhere. This is similar to how we allow players to arrange $T trades at the moment.

The feature would be developed in a way that would not facilitate the harassment of other players by sending them unsolicited challenges.

Add a Table Button
Either of the above changes will also make it difficult to sit at an additional table with an opponent you are already playing. As a result, we would like to add an additional checkbox to the table that would open a new table of the same table type with both players seated, if both players have the box checked while playing at an existing table.

Dealing Sets of Two Hands
We have mentioned many times in the forums that we try to change what we call “core dealing logic” as little as possible due to risks associated with these changes. So, while we will attempt to make the following change, there is a >50% chance we will not be able to do so.

In order to prevent grimming, intentional or otherwise, we would like to start dealing Heads Up hands in sets of two. If you leave without playing your second hand in any set, you’ll forfeit the blind you would have paid.

While the exact method of communicating this to players when joining the table, as well as dealing with sitting out and leaving actions, has not been fully thought through, implementing this feature would prevent blind abuse, even in a single session.
PokerStars Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 09:36 AM   #2
joeri
old hand
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: bemyguestbud/l0ve2playu
Posts: 1,238
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

I favor the second one by a large margin. I think people abusing the system with all kind of "seating games" is pretty obvious and you can warn/ban these players.
joeri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 09:41 AM   #3
teunuss
newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 21
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Thank god I play 6max and not HU anymore, and I dont have any interest in this matter anymore.
Whatever option you choose it will only benefit the top players, if you choose King of the Hill that's obvious, the top x% players will get the tables, and the recreationals will lose their money even faster. And if you choose for the forced amount of hands, if will be the same outcome, the top players can hunt the weak regs and lottery players untill they quit, so that the top players have all the tables.

The two options only benfit the top players, but if you want to do something about the HU lobby, than thats just always going to be the outcome.
I think the situation right now is bad with a 100 players waiting for 1 recretional players and I think a KOTH system is bad as well, so the modified KOTH is def the best out of these options.

Last edited by teunuss; 08-22-2013 at 09:42 AM. Reason: spelling
teunuss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 09:54 AM   #4
H4T3
newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 42
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Yeah option 2 is absolute BS and will basically make HU unplayable for recreationals if they don't wanna loose on a 100bb/100 rate!^^ cause as teunuss said, the elite will get tables and the rest will just disappear! so instead of have the chance of play one of those really bad bumhunters who never give action to anyone half-competent(which they would´ve to do if choose option one), the recreationals will always play one of the best HU-Player available and will fast loose motivation to play at all!

So if u do chances, which i defenitly look forward to see, defenitly choose Option one! Option two is just plain stupid for the game!
H4T3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 10:02 AM   #5
MurderbyNumbers234
journeyman
 
MurderbyNumbers234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 266
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

I don't understand why their are even options to begin with. Sad as it is the current system is by and far the best. Party has tried almost every variant of KOTH in an attempt to generate action with no success. They have finally switched back the the uncapped system after repeated failures with trials like you describe.

There is tons of action in the HU lobbies and I see no reason to change anything tbh. The idea that fish are "scared" by having 10 -20 player choices is ludicrous and always has been. The games are running smooth, the pros are happy... Why **** with a good thing?

Last edited by MurderbyNumbers234; 08-22-2013 at 10:25 AM.
MurderbyNumbers234 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 10:11 AM   #6
hawg
journeyman
 
hawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: paying off pigeons
Posts: 287
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

The best system I've seen ever was at old B2B (Entraction) where the tables were ranked alphabetically and the "top tables" were thought to generate more recreationals than the others. However, regular ~M-tables did also get its fair share of action, but just not as much as the top tables. Battles started to develop, and then battles for second top tables and third etc. On such a big site like Stars I'm sure that every decent battling regular would know the names of the top 10 tables within a month and know exactly what to fight for.


Of the mentioned options in the post I'm not really sure which would be the best. The biggest problem as I see it is all the bullying that comes with this, players will fight in packs and you'll know that "Oh you can't sit with him cos then his mate who plays much higher will join you later". That's essentially what ruined Party wasn't it?


I don't like the fact that we are calculating what the recreational players "will" do and what they "will" think about certain changes. The thing that made B2B great was that there wasn't any scientifical proof what was what, if the bottom table was better than the 3rd top or whatever. I think you (/we all) should choose a system that just has a certain amount of simple rules and then see what develops rather than tell the recreational players to their faces that you probably won't go to the options lobby and unhide the rest of the lobby.
hawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 10:20 AM   #7
babomor
enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 62
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Option number 1 -

It's extremely likely that strong regulars would enter non-spoken agreements (or spoken ones) to not sit each other, as this already happens on Stars and on Party.

Regulars are aware of regulars who would give them action but still prefer not to seat with each other, also most regulars who do give action will only play on certain conditions (while having the momentum, only x tables or nothing, only at certain limits, quitting as soon as momentum changes, etc).

Still I think option 1 is far superior to option 2, and will make the lobby FAR better to what it is now. I believe that there are some potential risks that have not been mentioned tho.

1st- It's very likely that few strong hu regulars will move down and control the lobby from midstakes to highstakes unless there's a limit on how many stakes a player can open. I believe 2 or 3 stakes max would be ideal to avoid this.

2nd- While I like having the idea of forced hands, personal conflicts like the nl5k regular that has to move down due to being hunted could suck. It can easily be avoided if you are allowed to sitout vs a certain regular for a period of 24hours if you have already played him for the day.
Weak regulars and lottery regulars will still be banned from the lobby from but if regular #1 has a problem with regular #3, regular #3 will still be able to have his table after playing a determined amount of hands with regular #1 for the day.

Option 2 is obviously terrible, and not even worth considering. It will just be a mess of angles and table opening games.

I really like the table button and the set of 2 hands to avoid grimming.
babomor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 10:30 AM   #8
babomor
enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 62
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Also most of the fishy action these days come from regulars of other games (6max, mtt, sng,etc) and if system 2 is employed they will be aware that the top regulars have the visible tables and will only give action to the weaker regulars who are sitting in the hidden tables.
babomor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 10:33 AM   #9
PokerStars Nick
PokerStars Ring Games Manager
 
PokerStars Nick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 282
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeri View Post
I favor the second one by a large margin. I think people abusing the system with all kind of "seating games" is pretty obvious and you can warn/ban these players.
Let me be very clear that, for the most part, whatever system that comes out of this is going to be deployed, and that will be the system.

If we can predict and define behavior ahead of time that is abusive or allows angle-shooting, then we can build software protections into the system.

However, if we think there will be problems with a system that cannot be prevented using transparent and automatic controls, we will not engage in manual enforcement after the system is in place.
PokerStars Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 10:36 AM   #10
d2themfi
veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,263
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerStars Nick View Post
However, if we think there will be problems with a system that cannot be prevented using transparent and automatic controls, we will not engage in manual enforcement after the system is in place.
Lol.

Why isn't one of the options for the HU lobby, to get rid of the current system and replace it with a zoom Hu lobby?
d2themfi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 10:38 AM   #11
Chriseddy999
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 468
Firstly, well done on both of these options I think you guys have chosen two very good ideas.

With the first option, does this mean I could continually resit a bunhunter after the minimum amount of hands each time? He would just quit after 20 hands or whatever, then the reg hunter would just continually rejoin him until he couldn't sit anymore?

Option two I think I prefer. Although I think it would be much better with a limit on the amount of tables per stake. Somewhere around 15 for 5/10, 12 for 10/20, 10 for 25/50. And a cap on how many limits a player can sit is a mist imo. I would say 2 or 3 is optimal also. Probably 2.

Well done stars, here's to hoping its implemented soon
Chriseddy999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 10:39 AM   #12
TheLuckFactor
grinder
 
TheLuckFactor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sailing the 7 Seas
Posts: 539
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawg View Post
The best system I've seen ever was at old B2B (Entraction) where the tables were ranked alphabetically and the "top tables" were thought to generate more recreationals than the others. However, regular ~M-tables did also get its fair share of action, but just not as much as the top tables. Battles started to develop, and then battles for second top tables and third etc. On such a big site like Stars I'm sure that every decent battling regular would know the names of the top 10 tables within a month and know exactly what to fight for.


Of the mentioned options in the post I'm not really sure which would be the best. The biggest problem as I see it is all the bullying that comes with this, players will fight in packs and you'll know that "Oh you can't sit with him cos then his mate who plays much higher will join you later". That's essentially what ruined Party wasn't it?


I don't like the fact that we are calculating what the recreational players "will" do and what they "will" think about certain changes. The thing that made B2B great was that there wasn't any scientifical proof what was what, if the bottom table was better than the 3rd top or whatever. I think you (/we all) should choose a system that just has a certain amount of simple rules and then see what develops rather than tell the recreational players to their faces that you probably won't go to the options lobby and unhide the rest of the lobby.

+1. I couldn't agree more to this.

Subtle changes like the 2 hands rule would definitely help action, and would mean guys don't sit at a stake way higher than their regular games. The last thing Pokerstars want to do is scare customers away - and big changes to the system might do this.

Out of the two options, the first one would be favorable IMO. Too much grouping together and table sharing between friends ruins king of the hill systems.

Have you thought about the implications of having the very top players getting the tables 24/7?

1) Recreational players go broke quicker and therefore do not have an enjoyable experience with Pokerstars.

2) More of the current regulars will not be able to play so will leave Pokerstars for other sites.
TheLuckFactor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 10:42 AM   #13
Deldar182
adept
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,021
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by H4T3 View Post
Yeah option 2 is absolute BS and will basically make HU unplayable for recreationals if they don't wanna loose on a 100bb/100 rate!^^ cause as teunuss said, the elite will get tables and the rest will just disappear! so instead of have the chance of play one of those really bad bumhunters who never give action to anyone half-competent(which they would´ve to do if choose option one), the recreationals will always play one of the best HU-Player available and will fast loose motivation to play at all!

So if u do chances, which i defenitly look forward to see, defenitly choose Option one! Option two is just plain stupid for the game!
This is garbage.

The rate a recreational player loses to a bumhunter in comparison with an elite player are very similar. I'd expect many similar nonsense posts from other bumhunters.
Deldar182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 10:53 AM   #14
H4T3
newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 42
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

says mr. 6-max-bumhunter!

actually i probably give a looooooot more action then the average guy playing HU, i join regs, dont sitout anyone if he joins me and i´m far away from beeing a bumhunter like there are so much at the lobby!

But back to topic, obv i took this rate as an example and have nothing from where i took this. But im sure that a Elite Player have a MUCH higher WR against a rec-player then this average-joe-bumhunter(who dont vbet thin, dont turns sd-value into bluffs where it is rly profitable and so on). And if u say thats not true, its just BS!

and +1 to add table and 2-hand-dealt- options!
H4T3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:11 AM   #15
shoemaker
adept
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: ****BODOG
Posts: 834
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

I prefer option 2, however I think the modification of king of the hill is unnecessary and overcomplicates things.

Just make it so that there can only be 6-8 tables with 1player sitting and waiting. If a game starts running (2players playing) a new table will be created, if a game breaks (goes from 2 to 1 players) a table gets closed.

- Weak regular
shoemaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:23 AM   #16
sharkbaitOHH
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
sharkbaitOHH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: woof
Posts: 7,148
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

I prefer Option 1, though I'm not sure how recs will feel if they feel like they're forced to play a certain amount of hands.

Option 2 opens up few problems such as, always needing to check if you are on a top table anymore. On top of the fact that when you are battling for the table, you'll no longer be open to be sat by a rec player hence defeating the purpose of fighting for that table.

Then "Lottery/Bumhunter" players can still go in and tell recs to unhide the lobby.

I could be swayed to option 2 if there was a capped amount of tables.

I like hawg's idea as well.

I think Stars should enforce against angleshooting should the problems arise.
sharkbaitOHH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:27 AM   #17
babomor
enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 62
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkbaitOHH View Post
...though I'm not sure how recs will feel if they feel like they're forced to play a certain amount of hands...
What if only the person who sits first/opens the table is forced to play a certain number of hands? And whoever joins can quit at anytime.
babomor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:33 AM   #18
ready 2 win
Pooh-Bah
 
ready 2 win's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,968
why not have smth similiar like HUSNGs have atm? A capped amount of tables which have to be filled until new tables spawn?
ready 2 win is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 11:53 AM   #19
AlexKP
adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 822
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

What about the only choice u got was:

Limit.

So if a player came in he could choose he wanted to play 10/20 HU, and was randomly paired with a opponent. This is what rec players want, they for the most part dont care who they play they just want gambol and fun.

If the player then decides he dosent want to play against the player he is sat against, well then he is banned to join HU tables for X amount of time before he can join again.

This would help that all the bumhunters couldent do it as they could not choose their opponent and if they did not want to play another reg they were banned for a little time or had to pay X amount of BBs.

And then u could remove that restriction for all loosing players and players that played under lets say 3k hands/month bec u would know they just wanted to play and were not leeches.

It would be HU kinda like zoom, but u would keep the same opponent and if u left quick u could not join games for a good amount of time
AlexKP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 12:22 PM   #20
Dace
grinder
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Croatia
Posts: 455
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

I dont like the fact that all the limits will get these changes, it's impossible to beat regs these days on nl200 and below
Dace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 12:26 PM   #21
babomor
enthusiast
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 62
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

I think having any kind of limited lobby opens room for people to get together and exploit the system.
Get 5 decent regs together and start sitting other regs over and over, new regs wont ever have an empty, as opening tables will just get him 4 tables with 4 different regs or if the new reg decides to one table the group reg, he will basically be cut out from getting a rec.

It's not even possible to stop this type of angle, it's unfair but it's within the rules and it's impossible to tell with 100% certainty that's what's actually happening.

I don't really think there's a solution for this, unless there's no lobby.
babomor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 12:39 PM   #22
SUGAWALLz
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 26
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Don't remove the old table policy. 1table per limit is really good. Some kind of hybrid model would be optimal solution for all player groups.

My suggestion is to add fixed amount king of the hill-tables per limit to the lobby that denies sitting out for longer than 10 seconds. Once you sit, you have to play hands to keep the table. No penalties but the removing from the table.

- This satisfies active regulars, who want more action and they are granted with extra tables for waiting for a weaker players.
SUGAWALLz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 12:41 PM   #23
Adreno
centurion
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 147
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

I strongly prefer option #2

Forced play for x hands sounds horrible.
Adreno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 12:41 PM   #24
klink10k
banned
 
klink10k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: bkk
Posts: 11,721
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

king of the hill + forced play tables

can't wait for all the bumhunters to get weeded out.
klink10k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2013, 12:43 PM   #25
Deldar182
adept
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,021
Re: PokerStars Heads Up Lobby Changes: Feedback Requested

Quote:
Originally Posted by H4T3 View Post
says mr. 6-max-bumhunter!

actually i probably give a looooooot more action then the average guy playing HU, i join regs, dont sitout anyone if he joins me and i´m far away from beeing a bumhunter like there are so much at the lobby!

But back to topic, obv i took this rate as an example and have nothing from where i took this. But im sure that a Elite Player have a MUCH higher WR against a rec-player then this average-joe-bumhunter(who dont vbet thin, dont turns sd-value into bluffs where it is rly profitable and so on). And if u say thats not true, its just BS!

and +1 to add table and 2-hand-dealt- options!
Err, no. Speaking personally, back in the day I was one of the weakest HU players, but I definitely had one of the highest winrates vs fish. These are two different skills, and guys who sit and play fish all day are capable of being better at it than a battling reg.
Deldar182 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online