Quote:
Wouldn't having an outcome of many games with better players lead to the 'bumhunters' being pushed out of registering in the pool which would eventually settle at a natural equilibrium?
That case was made by a few people for HUSNGs too. One counter-argument has been the efficiency one. An example was the top player playing vs the 2nd best pro as often as the 10th best as often as the 50th best in a random lobby. Currently in most non zoom, non MTT forms of poker, the 50th best reg is going to be played by the best a lot more often than the 10th best reg.
But with Tim's pooling idea hopefully making up for any inefficiencies lost from game selection by pairing players up more quickly (the sort of hypers are lower edge but higher hourly vs higher edge but lower hourly regular speeds argument) I think it would be great to try it out and see what the results are, ultimately settling on the registration method that works better. Nobody in the community has a history of accurately predicting the future in these games. That calls for more experimentation and testing imo.
However, what is the definition of "working better?" Improving rec winrates? A higher amount of rake? Better winrates for top pros? What if winrates suffer for all players but rake to PS increases? Given the resources PS would have to use to develop registration changes, wouldn't players be stuck with a worse situation then?
If enough players dislike a division/cartel or spinwiz or sharky or too many charts or huds or facets of any of these things, ultimately they can and probably should be restricted/banned.
Last edited by ChicagoRy; 06-27-2015 at 02:57 PM.