How exactly would scheduled games work?

Do you just set a scheduled time for a game to run?

If this was the case then I don't see that it would hurt the games and maybe more non regs would show up and the games could be better

But if all regs show up then they would all prob just sit out

how would scheduled games help the situation at all?

Unless im missing something im pretty sure they would only run with at least one seat open right? And then how long would other regs let it stay open?

unless i guess we are talking about 500/1k+ games, where the number of regs willing to play is somewhat limited

Wow, I am shocked at the email Pokerstars sent you. I think they are spot on. It was worded perfectly. If they would of took this approach earlier I am sure these games would of never dried up.


Its funny how Pstars welcomed tracking software in the beginning because it helped them generate more rake(and kept the forum regs happy), but are now paying for it in the long run because no one wants to play against each other. That really made me lol and it brightened my day.


Good job Pstars, now look into some of these players accounts and see who has been colluding and ban them from your site. I believe the games will be live again and in return you will generate more rake.

Also make tracking software illegal again.

Pokerstars Steve, could you comment on the sitout limitation idea suggested earlier in this thread?

Hi Steve,

This is certainly a good suggestion, however, you may not be aware of common behavior that actually is occurring on your site in similar situations. For example, let's assume 5 regular players are willing to start a 6 max table hoping to accomplish what you propose. I have observed that many other regular players in that situation would rather fill the last seat and choose to sit out of the game as long as the software allows, rather than risk the other 5 players being "rewarded" with that final seat filled by the so-called 'recreational player'.

Another example occurs when a new game starts among regulars, some unscrupulous people will choose to play only if they do not randomly end up starting in the small blind or big blind position, and then quit immediately when the big blind comes to them, thus receiving free hands by virtue of the features of the software. This behavior is both financially rewarding, and eminently repeatable with the software working as it does, and to avoid being taken advantage of in this way, other regulars who would not themselves engage in such behavior may choose to avoid starting these games at all.

So while you are certainly correct that the onus is on the regular players to create a hospitable environment and start games, there are flaws in the software design that many people take advantage of and which force these same regulars to be defensive about giving up repeated and measurable advantages to people who do not have the same ethical practices as they do.

See ring game rules 10 and 11 that were added earlier this year:

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/policies/ring/

We have been more actively monitoring NLHE and PLO games. If this is a problem for limit too, we can review these games as well. Email highstakes@pokerstars.com to report any violations. If you include your skype name and are a player in these games, our ring games managers Nick and Baard will add you to Skype so that you can report violations more effectively in real time.

I need to set realistic expectations here: Nick and Baard are human and they do sleep, eat, attend meetings, and even recreate so sometimes people get away with breaking the rules. Players aren't given suspensions for first offenses either; our primary mission is to educate as we find that most rules violators are only doing it to stay even with others and would prefer a properly regulated environment with these rules enforced.

We have issued a good number of 'time outs' to players for this behavior, however, including at least one week long ban. The NLHE and PLO games are much better off as a result.

This is also a violation of our rules. A single incident isn't going to spur action but if a player repeatedly does this at your tables please email highstakes@pokerstars.com to let us know. We can run reports on the % of hands players have played at each position and take appropriate action. Again, first action is to educate/warn but repeated violators will find that there are real consequences.

Yes, we'd just set a scheduled time for a game to run, but only with the input of at least a few regulars who'd be willing to commit to sit and start the game at that time for at least a few weeks to give it a chance to work.

I wouldn't expect that your 5 favorite opponents would show up the first week at the scheduled time to join your table. You might get one such player the first week or you might not. In time, as players started to realize that there's a reliable game at this time, more such players might show up. It certainly would be a unique situation at high stakes these days to show up and see 3 or 4 regulars battling it out. Some opponents might appreciate that.


I don't see this as being a problem given the playing habits being exhibited by most regulars. If it did happen, certainly one of the six would leave the table fairly quickly.

Which specific idea is that?

At this point, I can't imagine anything being worse than the status quo so I'd certainly be willing to give scheduled games, up to 100-200, a shot. How would the scheduled games work exactly? Would a certain number of regulars sign up and then be required to play? How long would they play if no one else showed up and how many would play at a time? And then if the game does fill with a non-reg, would the regs start another table?

If the original proposal is not violating any rules, I think we should still go ahead and implement that asap. I realize it's not a long term solution but I do think it helps. In the short time after this thread was started, I noticed most of the regs playing at least a couple orbits after a non-reg left the table and in a few instances another non-reg sat and the game continued. This is one of the benefits along with removing the misconception that we're a group that's teaming up against one person.

I am back in the US so I unfortunately can't participate in the original proposal or scheduled games until January. But once I'm back on, you can include me in any scheduled game as long as the hours are within my schedule (roughly 10 AM EST- 9 PM EST)

To the Stars regs:

If anyone on the initial list no longer wants to participate or anyone else wants to be added, please let me know. I think we should go ahead with the original plan and determine whether it's feasible and worthwhile long-term.

Maybe 100% rakeback or some other similar incentive might help get the scheduled games off the ground initially?

Limit the nr of players that can sitout simultaneously to one or two.
If player still wants to sitout he will get kicked off the table.
A limit to sitout time might be reasonable as well, 10 min or w/e.

Games instantly break if non reg leaves, its a pity , but probably cant be changed. The worst thing is imo if the non reg sits out and all regs sit out instantly as well and snap sit in when the non reg does. This looks so terrible, i would def feel abused and i think there very few non regs that feel indifferent to the instant sit out situation.
Limiting nr of players that can sit out at a time will not bring thousands of new players to the game but it is probably one brick to sustainable healthy limit holdem online poker. Scheduled games might be an other brick.

Any solutions we're involved in are going to be far less rigid and rule-laden than what you suggest. If a few players are interested in giving this a try, we'll get availability information from these players and schedule a game that works for those who want to try and most likely for any other players who might join. We'll put up a few banners and see if we can get others to show up.

Let's move away from thinking about penalties and enforcements. Players and PokerStars have an interest in getting games started. Let's try working together in good faith. This means we need a few players who are willing to play for a bit to get a game going at a designated time, but we're not going to set firm rules or enact punishments for failing to do so.

Of course committing to show up and play and then failing to do so will mean that similar commitments will be treated appropriately in the future. This thread is full of concerns that other players will 'game the system'. For the amount of money that's at stake, I'm not surprised. One way to ensure that players will 'game the system' is to publish a rigid system of rules. Instead, we'll work in good faith and adjust appropriately when necessary using human judgment.


I'm sure this would help but it's not going to happen. Winning players at these stakes benefit quite significantly from games when they do get started. If those winnings aren't enough to motivate game starting, PokerStars isn't going to force the issue.

PokerStars isn't going to implement any rule that is aimed at distinguishing between a 'reg' and 'non-reg'.

I'm glad that someone from PokerStars has come into this thread but IMO it's wrong of them to point the finger of blame at the regs. Professional players respond to the incentives that site designers give them. Players cannot be blamed for responding to site rules in a way that maximizes their personal payoff to the cost of the games' health since each player only pays a small proportion of the cost of making the games worse in the long run, while receiving all the benefits from sitting out after a fish and not posting the bb. And this applies to other things like seat-hopping around a table to get position on a fish.

All the site owners have to do is change the seating rules so that the predatory behaviour isn't possible. There's no way a gentlemanly agreement can maintain a situation when the site rules allow each individual to profit by cheating on the arrangement.

Steve, is there any possibility that Stars decreases the HU-Rake at FL tables in general (to 50 cent e.g.)? This might help a lot to get games started, because 2 regs play more frequently hu to start a game than 4 regs only play ringgame. (Also, i don't see a reason why the hu-rake in FL is higher than in NL although, there are by far more flops dealt in FL.)

Main problem stays the sitout-dilemma, though. Since the loss of playing BB only is decent, this can only be soluted with the help of the sites. Can you take a look at this idea and tell me if it might work?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/18...stars-1079588/

rUaBot

how does this suggestion distinguish between reg and non-reg?



ya this!

its funny to me how pokersites seem to totally disregard this issue when its pretty clear that recreational players get scared off from playing these games on a daily basis. Some of the measures wouldnt even have to come with a short-term cost at all.

I've not intended to blame regular players for anything. What have I said that gives that impression? I've simply stated that PokerStars is not going to offer 100% rakeback or similar incentives to motivate players to play.

As stated above, PokerStars has instituted new rules in response to the seating problem. We continue to enforce them with good effect at NLHE and PLO tables. Again, high stakes players are invited to contact highstakes@pokerstars.com to report violations of ring game rules 10 and 11.

This is not an option, no.

What do you see as the current weakness in the policies I have posted above regarding such issues?

It wasn't you but this email piranha received:

I wasn't suggesting any rules or penalties, just asking how the scheduled games would work.

That said, I am going to suggest something. If we're going to schedule say a 6-handed game, I think at least 4 or 5, preferably 5 regulars should be playing. Otherwise there's little incentive for other regulars to participate in scheduled games. They can just lobby-watch, waiting for a non-reg to sit, rather than participate and possibly sacrifice short-term EV. I do have faith that everyone in this thread wouldn't take that approach but little faith in most others.

I also wanted to comment on the references to "tracking software". I'm not sure what people are referring to here but almost all the regulars know each other. If a non-reg sits, the table instantly fills. In most cases, it's not because they're using tracking software (they wouldn't even have time), it's because they don't recognize the person and assume they're a recreational player.

about games starting: The difference between Scheduled games and hu between regs is that scheduled games will be only once or twice a week, while there could be pretty much always 2 guys starting a game.

about the sitout-stuff: I just read this:
"It is not acceptable to remain sitting out at a table (especially an active one) waiting for one of only a few preferred opponents to arrive or sit in."
(out of the rules)

Assuming that a non-reg sits out and stays at the table. If the regs insta sit out, too, they violate this rule, right? There should just be a significant probability that people get kicked from the table for insta sitting out and we have quite a good solution.

Thought I'd go back to this comment as IMO it shows the lack of connection that a lot of site owners have for how these games run. I don't mean to single out PokerStars, as they're actually a lot better than other sites, and at least they're getting involved in this thread. (Hell, the OnGame network doesn't even have waiting lists for crying out loud.)

But there's absolutely way no one person can decide to "sit down and start playing". If one person sits down on a game which has just stopped due to people sitting out, then the person joining will never see any upside. The most that'll happen is the new player will get to post their BB and then get sat out on.

The point is that the games are stuck in a bad equilibrium where the correct strategy for any one regular is to sit out even if they'd really rather play instead. The easiest way to get out of this situation is for the sites to change the seating rules so that regulars are incentivised to keep the game going between themselves (e.g. not more than one person can be sat out at a time).

Again, I'm not really blaming the site owners too much as I can understand that they'd have little understanding of this dynamic if they didn't have to personally deal with it on a daily basis. But there are things that could be done which would make everyone better off. Even one extra high stakes game running per night would generate a lot of extra rake.

High stakes games are not where the sites make their money, it's where YOU make YOUR money. So the bottom line is that if players want these games to run, the onus is on the players to make sure that they do. Expecting the site to solve this problem for you is foolhardy.