You're not alone Thedesbois. Certainly nowhere near every poster on these forums is a winning player.

When I started posting I was not a winning player, and many others are not either.

Just don't want you to feel like you're alone here among big winners, there are definitely great players here too, but the population in this forum is definitely a mix of players, from micro players that aren't winning to the best HS players and everything in between.

And your post above certainly sounds like a player on the right track. Identifying leaks in games, rematching after you find it, wanting to have incentive for rematch... you'll be a shark in no time man.

Thank you ChicaoRy!

I feel fine saying I'm a rec fish cause that's the kind of player I am right now. And I thought it would be a good idea to give my low stakes perspective on the matter. Hopefully there are tons of loosing players and more in the future. If not, where would the winners take their money? Soon I hope to beat the rake then become a winning player. Though proposition but feasible.

The longer I think about it, I'm concerned that stars want to protect tilted players so that they don't play hypers when tilted. Imo tilted players want instant action!

Another point I dislike is that a reg would't be able to force another reg to rematch him. For example: Today I have to rematch rams otherwise he would sit me always on the 200s. With battlenet I would always decline and hope to get another player in the next round. Because of this I think stars could try battlenet at the 60s or 100s but for higher limits it would kill the games

pretty sure today's best regs are getting 10%+ ROI vs fish in turbos, especially w the new developments in the endgame, tho obv you don't see that kind of ROI much since reg vs reg action does happen. the thing is, regs today are much better than they used to be. 2 years ago, before mers' ebook, people at 50-100$ were absolutely terrible. sure, you had people like brilliant, cog dis, jaws washington, but you also had people who were folding 90% to 3bet, people against whom I was 3x/calling pre 75bb deep and jamming any equity over their cbet, and making a profit doing that for a good 20 games before they adjusted. today I'm excited to see <50% vpip oop in a hyper I remember spamz once saying that he was passing up $50/game edge in a 5k to sit a bad reg and make $30/game in a 330 those spots defo got harder to find in '11/'12. obviously there are still good edges to be had vs regulars, but the pool as a whole patched up a lot of very big holes and that drew the reg v reg ROIs down.

Is a PokerStars rep able to update us with an approximate timeline? I'm coming around to the idea as long as we are able to have the buddy list.

i still dont get why does a change need to be made really?

this is the year with most action on hyper husngs ever, and the one people are making most profit too.

Every year people whine poker is getting worse, and year after year its proven to be bull****.

The only that changed is that regs get less piece of the cake, and share it with more regs. So lets make battlenet so its worse.. wp!

+1

we have a lobby issue, but it is the cash lobby

why not increase the rewards for heads up hypers? not necessarily rematching but increase the % in rakeback so you even if you do not play vs same the regs, games would still pop up often, fish gets to play, a bit more rewarding foregs and im sure most people will not mind being a slight loser pre rakeback but a huge winner post rakeback.

I just cant understand why you want to make things so complicated.

Pokerstars can just mail to Marko: since XX (like 1. september) Sharky as registration software is allowed, but making any kind of waitlist isnt allowed. The same rule for forbidden software: any waitlists making software is not allowed.

Also all registration software MUST BE player computer, not server based. Thats because its not allowed to send tournament ID-s to server and back.

So no-one do not have waitlists anymore, and lots of simul sits will happen. Probably its faster to register, if you wait manually for lobby (register to any if this one is full, you get lobby before it appear into pokerstars client), and sharky will be useless software. Right now its not faster because sharky knows when one tournament is full, and when to exactly check the lobby.

Problem is solved, and old good manual registering is back. Also if its in forbidden list, then no-one do not use waitlist software.

Waitlist software is effective, is when MOST or atleast LOTS of people using them, but it wont happen - never-ever! I mean if 2-3 person using, then this is pointless, very pointless. The same thing happening in low stakes, when only maybe 2-3 players using sharky - waitlist isnt working there.

And add some extra rakeback or reduce rake dynamically after rematches or give extra VPP-s (I think VPP-s motivating the most players because of VIP-goals)

E.g

• 1-10: matches the same rake or vpps
• 11-20: extra 2% rakeback or 1.2x VPP-s per match
• 21-30: extra 4% rakeback or 1.4x VPP-s per match
• 41-50: extra 6% rakeback or 1.6x VPP-s per match
• 52+: extra 10% rakeback or 2x VPP-s per match

Or make Golden SNG-s for HUSNG, and after rematching the chance to get golden sng will increase dramatically.

Numbers are random (there may be flaw at 2xVPP-s) I think the plain, simple and easiest solution is almost always the best.

And as I said the VPP is the most motivating. End of the month and year probably lots of reg-was if it will be implemented to finish their goals. I think even some fish will do that to get his stellar bonus or get his VIP-goal.

EDIT: problem is solved. no-one cant move up easily. probably first month after banning waitlist, LOTS of simul sits and regwas will happen, and weaker one moving down and stronger on staying. There is less regs, more action and system self-balancing very fast and effective way.

why not make a BOP leaderboard for added rakeback for HU. right now i dont think there's one. I dont think rematching will work that often because not everyone wants to play the same player over and over again if they feel they do not have an edge from a recreational players standpoint. So achieving 10games for an added rakeback will be hard.

question is not rematching. forget it this ****. I mean people are worried, if stars ****ing up the lobbies, then its bad for everyone - to players, to stars, to rec players. Also rec players is hmmmmm..... why people even say rec players. there is only players and pokerroom.

also one thing more. I think chadders0 is not the objective guy to send to meeting. even in this thread he said that he is sitting vs every reg, and he have played most games in this year vs reg.

we cant support one person view. poker is more than one person view. I hoped that chadders going IOM and supporting the view of HUSNG overall community and is objective guy, but looking his comments, he is not. He is defending "his system" like defending his children.

There is saying: do not shoot the messenger. But If you are messenger, then you should protecting message itself, not the body (content) of message. But chadders0 obv didnt do that. I dont care. make your lobbies what u want, I can always jump here and there, and adjust but you people, should think, which is the best for u. for regs, for stars and if u want to say - recreational player.

I am not saying rec player because I am rec player myselfg. Every reg can beat me but I am playing because of sharky, and so there is not worthy to take my money.

Ranka, Chadders doesn't decide what happens or not. He simply went to the IoM, along with 2 other players, to put forth suggestions.

Battlenet is a Stars idea. Chadders seems in favor of it, though I think he's banking on an "avoid a player" type feature being included in any possible battlenet solution.

I don't speak for PS, but I would guess that it is unlikely that an avoid a player feature would be added into a battlenet style system, but the reps can of course answer that question. My view there is purely my own, I haven't seen any details of the potential battlenet system given yet, I'd imagine if it ends up as something PS wants to 100% do they will probably update us with some details.

I remember Baard said it would only be a lower stakes solution in December or January, but it seems they are considering it more heavily again, though last update I believe was PS asking more casual players if the loss of choosing who you want to play against is something that they care about.

jfc lobbies are fine.

IF Battlenet is a convoluted attempt by Stars attempt to revive FTP, then WP!.
If not please scrap it, there isn't a single reg that thinks a straight Battlenet system is any good and I'd be surprised if many recreational players want their freedom of choice taken away.
The suggestions to make it work are so complicated the whole thing is pretty much determined to be a disaster.
Hint to the regs: If you think it will only work with some sort of exclude list or reduced rake, the idea itself sucks and you're trying to patch it up.
Relying on Stars to reduce rake when they've clearly stated they will NOT do this is.. well let's just say "optimistic".

Keep lobbys as they are

For one, there are a few regs vocally in support of a battlenet system. For two, I think as a rec literally clicking 1 button and automatically getting a match seems like a great feature. No worrying about who's in a lobby, sitting that guy you see there everyday, nothing predatory about empty lobbies instantly filling. I'm pretty sure you're wrong on both counts here.


The rake reduction I agree with, but there should clearly be some exclude list. There's no other form of poker where you'd be forced to play hands against another player if neither of you wanted to play. Even games like zoom or cash where there may be regs you'd rather avoid, you have other players in each and every hand such that you accommodate other regs in your games. If you were forced to play regs you mutually excluded, it would set a new precedent and be a bad system.

+1

I'm not sure which regs want straight up battlenet, if you're one of those people please let me know, I'd love to understand what limits you're playing and why you think this would be beneficial.

At the moment recreational players can get a game automatically and thousands do every day. They just register to the lobby. How is taking their choice away from them an attractive feature?

The bottom line is I feel most people who support battlenet think it may be ok with some complex avoidance feature. The odds of Stars thinking this sort of thing is in their interests and the recreational players interests? I think they have to be low. What we'll end up with is straight battlenet, which is the only option Stars has mentioned so far.

+1

Nobody wants battlenet.

of course +1

How does battlenet work? Is it like zoom where all registered players end up in a pool and gets a random opponent to play?

Then i dont see how that could be bad for anyone.

We all get to play same amount of regs and bad players in the long run.

I for one would love it since i play more hours then most so damn i would get many games in.

Edit: Actully the more i think about it the more i love the idea.
You get "instant" action 24/7.

Problem is at higher stakes you would play wayyyy more regs than fish

Exactly. That make the weaker regs move down to the stakes they belong at.

There have been plenty of posts in this thread from regs that they've come around to and/or support a battlenet structure, unless you're saying that bnet + "consent to avoid" isn't straight up bnet, I suppose. But there's certainly a fair amount of support itt for a bnet with limited avoid system.

Now you're thinking like you want a fish to think and not like fish actually think. Take an actual battlenet-style (video) game, how many players trawl through lobbies vs clicking the big "GO" button and getting automatched? Market it like "action is just a click away!". Look at the popularity of zoom with the fish pool or the advent of "easy seat" features on a huge number of sites these days. Simple, fast action. One click. I think it would be a pretty decent fish draw and the games wouldn't feel predatory at all.

The avoidance feature doesn't have to be complex at all. You get a limited list of name slots, and if names are mutually "avoided" then the players wouldn't match against each other. I also think it's actually in the recreational player's best interests both from an accessibility standpoint (again, 1 click GO > lobby system to recs) and from a $ standpoint (because sometimes they get matched vs other recs).

Plus it deals with all the current registration problems with sharky and the old registration problems with ping to stars servers etc.

Quit scrambling for arguments about "what's good for rec players" and about how a mutual avoid system is "complex" or some insinuation of difficult to implement. I think you're seriously misconstruing your facts here. Why can't you just be honest and say that you would make less money from a battlenet system, it's not in your best interest, so you don't support it?

Thats not a good argument since it is really easy to start a HU SNG (there is always someone waiting at the table, ready2rumble).

Without massive decrease of rake, battlenet is not playable for 99% of all players -> will lead to less action.
But stars doesnt reduce rake/pushes rakeback -> so battlenet is just a bad idea ^^