+1

Best idea ever.

we should ask stars to remove ALL hu tables. that isn't poker tables... its impossible get a game at HU tables. if you sit and open at table, nobody sits. if you sit at tables openned, everyone sit out.

so, no reason to keep HU tables. when i or anyone want play heads up, we go to 6max and ask for HU. it works, we open some tables full ring and we play HU. its standard, me and others have been playing hu doing this last months... those HU tables are shame, never works.

i never thought id ask to close HU tables... i started my poker carrer as HU player. 100% of my action from 2007-2011 was HU. i love this format, but HU tables are ridiculous.

napsus, what do you think about a pool about this HU tables? im almost sure lots of people agree w me , and i dont know if pokerstars is aware about this.

there's no doubt that HU is by far the worst thing for the state of the games. I never understood what stars were going for by introducing it

In the sence that people bust faster their life rolls, yes.
But have you ever played HU? It's freaking awsome!

it can be awesome , but 90% of the hu population wont play anyway . they all waitin for 1 drunkin pinhead who shows up once in awhile . stars acting like the lawyer for the fish population which feels hunted recently. if they would be honest there wouldnt be hu tables . there always like 200 tables open with only 3 games running , but the 6max population is still the only target of " improvements " .

How about replacing hu tables with some kind of automated-matchmaking hu sng lobby (possibly no blind increase)?
Plo husngs barely run anyway, and this way you d get to keep hu tables in a more action (if not in absolute $ amounts then at least in frequency) friendly format. Plus makes plenty of room for leader board stuff...

I duno, always seemed like husngs had a lot of un-explored potential as its probably the poker format most comparable to a non-gambling competitive game.

^ pretty good idea, maybe rush/zoom hu with 10 hands per opponent (if you wanna sit out you gotta do it at the end of a 10 hand match as blinds will be mandatory posted)

x1 00 001

+1

Fwiw I think Steve mentioned in a thread in Internet Poker that clearing/fixing the HU lobby is one of their top priorities.

Yes there is a purpose for them, but only at plo50. I agree that in other limits they should be removed.
The reason why they are good at plo50 is that there is now smaller HU game than 50. So more people can afford to play HU cash games because of them.

A penalty system could work to resolve the HU problem at cash tables.

SO if ou decline to play with say 5 different people in one day, you get a one week penalty away from all the HU cash tables.

What do you guys think of that? It could be impossible to code in the software though..

I guess this is the wrong thread to talk about it? Sorry Napsus

so all the normal speed tables are back?

Cardrunners' Zimba (@pokercurious) raising awareness about the Stars PLO rake issue in his blog:

http://www.cardrunners.com/blog/Zimb...-torch-for-plo

Just make heads up tables KotH with 5-10 open tables for each stake, zoom heads up would be terrible.

This way of looking at the rake situation is flawed because a huge majority of the "action" in PLO games is illusory. In a small stakes PLO game for every thousand dollars the goes in the middle, probably ~250-300 is going in in situations where no player has an edge, and another ~300-400 is going in where any edge a player has is very small. If you are trying to look at the sustainability of a particular game WRT rake you MUST compare rake with potential win rates rather than pot size.

If you took a 50nl game and tweaked the RNG so that AK and QQ got dealt WAY more often than usual, the average pot size (and rake in bb/100) would go through the roof and profitable players win rates would go drop dramatically as a result of the increased rake. This would mean a little less action at 100nl, a little less action at 200nl, a little less at 400nl right on up the line.

If you guys want to just squeeze out as much rake per hand as you can right now rather than develop a healthy sustainable eco-system, you should just come out and say so. Don't try to argue the rake levels are comparable just because more money makes its way into the pots. Think about what would happen to your "action" and rake numbers if you gave small stakes PLO players the opportunity to equity chop every time they were all in and only raked the money that actually changed hands. If you go even further and apply a hand vs hand equity framework on ALL streets/situations it's pretty easy to see how low stakes PLO players get royally screwed on rake compared to NL Holdem players.

There is no purpose for them from a reg's perspective, but from stars perspective they protect the fish a bit(when 50bb fish doubles up you can't rebuy to 100bb to cover them), though not as much as CAP tables do.

+1

Exactly. I'm amazed this argument is given here. We pay more because we're gambling more? If anything it should be the opposite.

Whenever I've spoken to Stars reps their position has been "poker is a game of skill" (I've sounded them out for possible chess sponsorship in the past, generally have been well received because "it would be good to be associated with a pure game of skill"). I'm sure "skill" is what they tell the authorities in various jurisdictions too. The high rake is close to reducing small stakes PLO to a casino game, if it hasn't already at micro stakes.

I'd also like to know if Stars themselves do regular internal analysis of win rates, rake etc.

[QUOTE=Mig;36771974]That's why if you are a SSPLO grinder, you SHOULD NOT play on PS. Everytime someone ask me advice for SSPLO among my friends, I always tell them to go with their higher % rakeback. At stakes lower than PLO 100, room selection >>>> seat selection.

I dont agree, there is a lot of other factors.
U cant wake up at 8am and fire up 6/8 plo tables on euro sites. Its impossible, ur lucky to get 4 going which u prob have to start urself.
The games on stars imo at plo50/100/200 are alot better, I found I was playing half my tables with similar players to myself and half with maybe 1 fish and rest regs.
Software on stars is so much better. Also deep ante tables.

Stars should def see the difference between plo and nlh and change the rake. Lets hope they do becasue its by far the best site.

Also would like to say well done to Napsus on all the work. Amazing.
Stars if u wanted someone with true knowledge of the plo market to hire, hes ur man.

I agree with this 100% and this is the reason why I have created these threads.

Based on the above statement by an account "mbpoker" that allegedly (and very likely) belongs to Pokerstars chief Isai Scheinberg, I wrote Pokerstars support a lengthy email including this chapter:

I also directed them to the latest threads and also mentioned that players are ready to hear from Pokerstars. Furthermore I mentioned that the absolutely biggest problem is the rake at micros, which to me personally resemble more casino games than poker at the moment, with few lucky ones emerging as "winners" after rake.

Something has to be done before it's too late.

all the best,
napsus

I wrote them too and they answered that they forwarded my mail to the Poker Room Management Team, so it sounds like they are at least listening.

I know a lot of people say that PS will do nothing as they are a far and away the biggest player in the market and they believe that people have to play on their site...

..whilst I don't know enough about this to comment in great detail, all I would say to those at PS who read these threads that I am old enough to remember when Windows and Microsoft were the only real game in town regarding computers, and Apple was seen a weirdo bit part player for geeks...times change and history (in which I have 2 degrees) tells us this all the time....PS needs to be cogniscent of this..